Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eng v. Stein, 599 P.2d 796.

37 citing documents.

State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. 2026
(holding that a judgment for damages and the foreclosure of a materialman’s lien against community property was void insofar as it purported to bind the wife, who was neither named nor served, and her community, but remained valid and enforceable against the husband separately).
Castro v. Cartter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Castro v. Cartter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“The existence of intent is one of the questions of fact for the jury’s [or finder of fact’s] determination.”).
Kristi Lattin v. Shamrock Materials LLC Ariz. 2022
Kristi Lattin v. Shamrock Materials LLC Ariz. 2022
Joining spouses in an action on a community debt or obligation gives each spouse “notice and an opportunity to defend.” LATTIN V. SHAMROCK, ET AL. Opinion of the Court 345–46 (1979) (applying § 25-215(D) and holding that a judgment could not bind a wife or the couple’s community because the plaintiff sued only the husband on a community obliga
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, , (presumption of community property); , (presumption of adverse possession); , (presumption of legitimacy).
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Greene 985 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Greene 985 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Oyakawa v. Gillett 854 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Oyakawa v. Gillett 854 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
our supreme court held a judgment against a husband and wife was not enforceable against the wife or the community because she had never been named or served in the lawsuit.
Heinig v. Hudman 865 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Heinig v. Hudman 865 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Flexmaster Aluminum Awning Co., Inc. v. Hirschberg 839 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Flexmaster Aluminum Awning Co., Inc. v. Hirschberg 839 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
our supreme court held a judgment against a husband and wife was not enforceable against the wife or the community because she had never been named or served in the lawsuit.
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In re Estate of MacDonald, 4 Ariz.App.
C & J TRAVEL, INC. v. Shumway 775 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
C & J TRAVEL, INC. v. Shumway 775 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Harrington v. BEAUCHAMP ENTERPRISES 761 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1988
Harrington v. BEAUCHAMP ENTERPRISES 761 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1988
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark 759 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark 759 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
First, while the record owner of the property must be named in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure suit, , Ballard v. Lawyers Title of Arizona, 27 Ariz.App.
Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi 728 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1986
Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi 728 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1986
However, since the husband could perform the guarantee separately, without his wife’s consent, Grimm reasoned that the husband’s separate estate was “liable on the guaranty.” 140 Ariz. at 458 , 682 P.2d at 463 ; accord Arizona Feeds v. A & R Argo, Inc.
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Mordka v. Mordka Enterprises, Inc. 693 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Mordka v. Mordka Enterprises, Inc. 693 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Boone v. Grier 688 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Boone v. Grier 688 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
“The burden of proof is upon the party seeking to establish that the jointly held property is in fact separate, rather than community, property.”
Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane 676 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane 676 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Vikse v. Johnson 672 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Vikse v. Johnson 672 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
that a judgment entered against a wife who had neither been served nor named, and had not appeared, was void insofar as it attempted to bind her or the community.