Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Honnas v. Honnas, 648 P.2d 1045.

32 citing documents.

BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
BELSANTI v. KUTAK ROCK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Jackson v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Jackson v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Burger v. Waldren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Burger v. Waldren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In such cases, the community “is entitled to share in the enhanced value of that property.” Saba, 253 Ariz. at 592, ¶ 15 ().
Eggert v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Eggert v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶11 “‘Property takes its character as separate or community at the time [of acquisition] and retains [that] character’ throughout the marriage.” Bell-Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 5 ().
Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Bell–Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. at 524, ¶ 12.
Hani W Saba v. Sawsan Khoury 516 P.3d 891 Ariz. 2022
Hani W Saba v. Sawsan Khoury 516 P.3d 891 Ariz. 2022
¶10 this Court affirmed Lawson’s value-at-dissolution approach, see supra ¶ 8, to determine the value of the community’s equitable lien on a spouse’s separate real property.
Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lawson, 72 Ariz. at 262.
Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The community is also entitled to share in the increase of the property’s value during the marriage, “even if the increased value was due only to general market conditions.” ¶ 13 (App. 2010) ( 7 IMATDINOV v. IMATDINOV Decision of the Court (1982) and Drahos, 149 Ariz. at 250).
Butler-Hintz v. Hintz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Butler-Hintz v. Hintz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“The community has the right to an equitable lien against the separate 3 BUTLER-HINTZ v. HINTZ Decision of the Court property even though the character of that property has not changed.” Id.; (“[T]he community is entitled to share in the enhanced value of the property due to this expenditure of [community] funds .
Torres v. Miramontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Torres v. Miramontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
at ¶ 5 (brackets omitted) ().
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(“The community is entitled to reimbursement when community funds are spent to increase one spouse’s equity in separate property.”); see also Drahos, 149 Ariz. at 249 , 717 P.2d at 928
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
¶ 18 “ ‘Property takes its character as separate or community at the time [of acquisition] and retains [that] character’ throughout the marriage.” ¶ 5 , (alterations in original) ( , ).
Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Drahos v. Rens 717 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Drahos v. Rens 717 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hanrahan v. Sims, 20 Ariz.App.
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983