Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Van Loan v. Van Loan, 569 P.2d 214.

205 citing documents.

Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Division Two of this court reversed on appeal, stating: , held that any portion of a pension plan earned during marriage is community property, , that the court squarely held nonvested military benefits attributable to community effort are community property.
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
which held that military retirement pay is community property to the extent that such property is earned through community effort.
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
(see dissenting opinion, Holohan, J.) and impliedly rejected by this court in Koelsch v. Koelsch, supra.
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 683 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 683 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
overruled on other grounds McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct.
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
The wife agrees that the trial court’s , and that the lack of other community assets to “buy out” the community interest in the retirement plan made immaterial a determination of present cash value of that interest.
Marriage of Garrett v. Garrett 683 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Marriage of Garrett v. Garrett 683 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
De Gryse v. De Gryse 661 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1983
wherein this court ruled that the portion of military retirement pay attributable to the effort of the community is deemed community property.
Steczo v. Steczo 659 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Steczo v. Steczo 659 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Commission 675 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Magma Copper Co. v. Industrial Commission 675 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
EFC Development Corporation v. F.F.
Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Villasenor v. Villasenor 657 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Using a , the court found the appellee’s interest to be less than 50%.
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1981
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1981
at 637 , 94 A.L.R.3d at 169
Sandoval v. Sandoval 634 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Sandoval v. Sandoval 634 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Marriage of Guffey v. LaChance 618 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Marriage of Guffey v. LaChance 618 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
” at 564 , 205 P. 910 at 912 (1922), , our Supreme Court stated: “.
Marriage of Bugh v. Bugh 608 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In Re the Marriage of Kosko 611 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In Re the Marriage of Kosko 611 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
disability benefits as retirement benefits ( , ) and awarded wife one-half of that portion of the V.A.
Marriage of Bugh v. Bugh 608 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
We shall refer to retired pay, computed in this manner, as “retirement benefits”
Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
*385 , held that any portion of a pension plan earned during marriage is community property, , that the court squarely held non-vested military benefits attributable to community effort are community property.
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
the Arizona Supreme Court held that the community has a divisible interest in a spouse’s retirement benefits, to the extent that the benefits result from employment during the marriage, because both the employee’s contributions and the benefits in excess of the contributions represent deferred c
Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1979
In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1979
Followed Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1979
In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1979
§ 25-318 and particularly the so-called “quasi-community property” portion of the statute: “For purposes of this section only, property acquired by either spouse outside the state shall be deemed to be community property if said property would have been community property if acquired in this state.” , and Neal v. Neal, 116.
Highlands Insurance v. Fischer 595 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Highlands Insurance v. Fischer 595 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
the court held that an unvested right to a pension is a contractual right.
Flowers v. Flowers 578 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Flowers v. Flowers 578 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Matter of Estate of Messer 576 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Matter of Estate of Messer 576 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978