Cited by

When commingling occurs, the entire account becomes community property “unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” (citation omitted).

(discounting the award of “allegedly valuable assets” to a receiving spouse as a basis to overturn a spousal maintenance award, noting the receiving spouse had to use the assets to support herself during the litigation because no spousal maintenance was provided “prior to the dissolution”).

he 9911 account, asserting that the court erred by determining that the account should “be divided in any manner other than a 50-50 equitable division.” Wife does not challenge the court’s finding that she did not “demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence[,] what portion” of the funds in the 9911 account “is her sole and separate property,” a burden that rests with her, -60 (1981).

(“[W]here community and separate property are commingled, the entire fund is presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.”) (citation omitted)

(The rule of “transmutation of separate property to community property occurs only when the identity of the property as separate or community is lost.”).

–60 (1981) (resolving dispute over the nature of account holding commingled premarital funds and earnings during the marriage); Hatcher, 188 Ariz. at 159 (resolving dispute over the purpose of disability payments paid during the marriage); –64 (App. 1986) (same).

When commingling occurs, the entire fund becomes community property “unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” –60 (1981) (“[T]he burden is upon the person claiming that the commingled funds, or any portion of them, are separate to prove that fact and the amount by clear and satisfactory evidence.”).

If community property and separate property are commingled, the property is “presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” ( –54 (1979)).

–60 (1981); (A mere change in the form of the property does not change the character of the property.).

Thus, when “community property and separate property are commingled, the entire fund is presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” (citations omitted).

Accordingly, when community and separate funds are commingled in one account, “the entire fund is presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced” and shown by its proponent “by clear and satisfactory evidence.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

- 60 (1981) (when separate and community funds are commingled, the entire fund is presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced by clear and convincing evidence).

Under Arizona law, if “community property and separate property are commingled, the entire fund is presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” (citations and quotations omitted).