Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite De Gryse v. De Gryse, 661 P.2d 185.

62 citing documents.

Wassenaar v. Wassenaar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wassenaar v. Wassenaar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sys., ¶ 6 (App. 2003), the disposition of property under such an agreement reflected in in a decree that has become final generally is not subject to modification, A.R.S.
Kaestle v. Kaestle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kaestle v. Kaestle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(review ruling on motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion); Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., ¶ 24 (App. 2013) (to be "newly discovered evidence," evidence must have "existed at the time of trial").
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶12 The family court’s decision not to modify the decree is consistent with the specific language of the DRO and the “compelling policy interest favoring the finality of property settlements.” (citations omitted).
Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶10 Our supreme court has acknowledged the well-established rule “that property settlements are not subject to modification or termination” because “[t]he need for finality and stability in marriage and family law is great.”
Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 ( P.2d 291, approved, P.2d 290 (1982)), which declined to apply a new United States Supreme Court case retroactively.
Binder v. Binder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Binder v. Binder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Similarly, we will affirm an order denying relief from the Decree “unless the record on appeal demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion.” (applying Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c), a rule analogous to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85).
Van Leeuwen v. Van Leeuwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Van Leeuwen v. Van Leeuwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
This court will affirm an order denying a motion to modify a decree of dissolution “unless the record on appeal demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion.” (applying Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(c), a rule analogous to Arizona Rule of Family Law of Procedure 85.C.).
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
Although Wife's argument in her opening brief is not well-developed, she does cite one case, , in support of her argument that the court must find "the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state.” We therefore find no waiver.
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
§ 25-327(A); , cf. Jones v. Jones, 900 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex.Ct.App.1995) (husband's attempt to reduce value of wife's interest in his military retired pay by accepting forty percent disability rating when he retired constituted improper "collateral attack on a final unappealed divorce decree").
Harris v. Harris 991 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harris v. Harris 991 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
at 469, 957 P.2d at 1012 ( , ).
In Re the Marriage of Gaddis 957 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In Re the Marriage of Gaddis 957 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
As our supreme court has emphasized, “[t]he well-established rule is that property settlements are not subject to modification or termination.”
Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
Marriage of LaPrade v. LaPrade 941 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1997
Ct., , -38 , -88 (1983).
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Tovrea v. Nolan 875 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Knutson v. County of Maricopa Ex Rel. Romley 857 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Knutson v. County of Maricopa Ex Rel. Romley 857 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marriage of Flynn v. Rogers 834 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1992
Marriage of Flynn v. Rogers 834 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1992
a decree of dissolution awarding the wife a portion of the husband’s military retirement pension had become final before the filing of *65 McCarty .
Daley v. Earven 803 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Daley v. Earven 803 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Fischer v. Sommer 774 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fischer v. Sommer 774 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
for the proposition that a property disposition cannot be revoked or modified unless conditions exist which would justify reopening the judgment.
Kelly v. Kelly 774 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Kelly v. Kelly 774 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
recognized that the act returned the law in Arizona to its pr e-McCarty state under Van Loan with respect to the division of military retirement benefits upon divorce.
Marriage of Schmidt v. Schmidt 763 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Marriage of Schmidt v. Schmidt 763 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Although not cited by either party, we believe that the instant case is controlled by our supreme court’s
In Re the Marriage of Thorlin 746 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In Re the Marriage of Thorlin 746 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
* * * * ★ * , discussed A.R.S.