Cited by

During that representation, Kimminau failed to request Hoopes’s share of her former husband’s until almost a year after receiving the necessary disclosure, and months after the parties had already settled.

§ 25- 211(A) (property acquired during the marriage is community property unless acquired by gift, devise, or descent); (earnings received during marriage are community property).

¶20 Mother additionally argues that the superior court “failed to issue any orders regarding future capital gains taxes on the RSUs.” Father argues that future tax obligations are speculative and therefore not appropriate for the court to decide.

He contends a present cash valuation was required, which held that “[a]nytime a benefit is matured and payable, .

(“[P]roperty division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution.”).

Husband responded to Wife's motion, arguing (i) the connection between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Harrian is unknown; (ii) Wife's share of the PSPRS should be valued at maturity, –83 (1986); (iii) the QDRO improperly uses the "time-rule"; (iv) the QDRO does not consider social-security offsets and an offset should be applied to Wife's community interest, ¶¶ 7–10 (2000); and (v) the Decree did not award Wife's community interest to h

(addressing contested award of pension benefits); (appeal following contested trial)

Under the present cash value method, the employee spouse receives a free and clear interest in the pension, and the non-employee spouse’s interest is paid in a lump sum, “either offset with other community property or bought out by the employee spouse[.]”

But “property division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution” such that spousal maintenance adjustments “cannot justify depriving a spouse of his or her property right.”

(when community property is divided at dissolution, each spouse receives “an immediate, present, and vested separate property interest in the property awarded to him or her by the trial court”).

at ¶ 10; see, (“[P]ension plans are a form of deferred compensation to employees for services rendered, and any portion of the plan earned during marriage is community property.”).

¶ 4 (App. 2020) (Koelsch payments are reimbursements owed by an employee spouse who continues working after becoming eligible to retire).

For example, the superior court ordered husband to pay monthly spousal maintenance of $1,600, noting “details of same are set forth in the parties’ Rule 69 Agreement.” ¶5 Several months after the decree, the parties met with a series of QDRO attorneys because disputes arose over spousal maintenance and wife’s share of husband’s

A.R.S § 25-211; (holding that pension plans, as a form of deferred compensation to employees for services rendered, are considered 5 SEMBOWER v. SEMBOWER Decision of the Court community property when earned through employment du

¶28 Father challenges the award to Mother of most of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence as “inequitably punish[ing] Father for involuntary mental health issues” and an improper substitute for a “higher amount of spousal maintenance.” It is true that an unequal distribution of property cannot be based on reduced spousal maintenance, as spousal maintenance is meant to be calculated after property is allocated, see A.R.S.

¶7 While a court may sometimes order an unequal distribution of property, ¶ 18 (App. 2010), it cannot be based on reduced spousal maintenance, ("[P]roperty division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution.").

The Arizona Supreme Court was clear when, it reasoned that “[w]hen the community property is divided at dissolution pursuant to the mandate of A.R.S.

Id.; n.4 (1986) (“In Jurek we held that recoveries for personal injuries were separate property since a spouse brings the right to personal security into the marriage.” (citation omitted)).

J O N E S, Judge: ¶1 Julie Quijada (Wife) appeals from the family court’s order denying her request for immediate payment of retirement benefits allocated to her in the decree of dissolution of her marriage to Michael Quijada (Husband)

¶12 Although the court may order an unequal division of community property under certain circumstances, ¶ 18 (App. 2010), our supreme court has held that “property division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution,” (-11 (App. 1980)); (“Property settlements, spousal maintenance awards, and child support awards involve distinct considerations.”).