Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Johnson, 638 P.2d 705.

102 citing documents.

Potts v. Potts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Potts v. Potts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(upholding valuation of family residence as supported by reasonable evidence); Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 346-48, ¶¶ 5-13 (abuse of discretion standard applies 3 POTTS v. POTTS Decision of the Court to apportionm
Beasley-Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beasley-Rodriguez v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(upholding trial court’s valuation of family residence as supported by reasonable evidence).
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kent v. Carter-Kent 332 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Three of the cases, -42, -09 (1981), involve pension issues and discuss the present cash value method vs. the reserved jurisdiction method of apportioning pensio
Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
that pension rights, whether vested or non-vested, are community property if the rights were acquired during marriage and are subject to equitable division upon divorce.
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Rinegar v. Rinegar 290 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
And we “will view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the decision below.” , (citation omitted).
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 8 Retirement benefits “are generally viewed as a form of deferred compensation for services rendered by employees.”
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hetherington v. Hetherington 202 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hetherington v. Hetherington 202 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(holding that pension rights, whether vested or non-vested, are community property insofar as they were earned during the marriage).
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Brebaugh v. Deane 118 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Brebaugh v. Deane 118 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 8 Arizona courts have held that “pension rights, whether vested or non-vested, are community property insofar as the rights were acquired during marriage.” , (footnotes omitted); accord Van Loan, 116 Ariz. at 274 , 569 P.2d at 216 .
Parada v. Parada 999 P.2d 184 Ariz. 2000
Parada v. Parada 999 P.2d 184 Ariz. 2000
In contrast, a defined benefit plan is one in which “benefits are specified in advance, usually as a percentage of salary and related to years of service, and no account is kept for the employee.” ,' 42
Parada v. Parada 956 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Parada v. Parada 956 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(“It is our view that the present cash value method is preferred if the pension rights can be valued accurately and if the marital estate includes sufficient equivalent property to satisfy the claim of the non-employee spouse without undue hardship to the employee spouse.”).
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn 805 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1986
Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1986
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
Our courts have considered valuation of the non-employee spouse’s interest when the benefits are not yet matured, , and when the employee spouse had already retired and was receiving benefits, , approved
Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
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
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
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
State v. Pena 683 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Pena 683 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
decision approved in part and vacated in part, P.2d 702 (1981); , Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 , 98 S.Ct.