DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Koelsch v. Koelsch, 713 P.2d 1234.

111 citing documents.

  • Lovejoy v. Lovejoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    1 (benefits payable under the Public Safety Personnel Retirement system are community property subject to division by the court at dissolution).
  • Vanden Bosch v. Vanden Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Vanden Bosch v. Vanden Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    and McCune, 120 Ariz. at 404.
  • Downham v. Downham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Downham v. Downham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶7 “[P]roperty division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution.” ( P.2d 785 (App. 1980)).
  • Sessions v. Sessions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sessions v. Sessions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 25- 318 because it awards some of Husband’s post-dissolution income to Wife.
  • Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“When the community property is divided at dissolution pursuant to the mandate of A.R.S.
  • Backus v. Backus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Backus v. Backus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    6 BACKUS v. BACKUS Decision of the Court separate and distinct considerations at dissolution and [ ] increased spousal maintenance cannot justify depriving a spouse of his or her property right.”
  • Binder v. Binder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Binder v. Binder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We affirm the superior court's order that Wife is entitled to 25.8% of Husband's full military retirement pay from the date of his retirement forward.3 3 The parties vigorously dispute on appeal whether, the marital community should share only in that component of military retirement pay that corresponds with the rank of the military spouse as of the date of the dissolution.
  • Sandra Howell v. John Howell 361 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2015
  • Sandra Howell v. John Howell 361 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2015
    (“When the community property is divided at dissolution .
  • Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -81, -39 (1986) (holding non-mature pension benefits are community property subject to equitable division if acquired during the marriage); Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451-52, ¶ 16, 167 P.3d at 708- 5 NATALE v. NATALE
  • 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
    Under Arizona law, 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.”
  • 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 a spouse’s earnings after dissolution are separate property and that it is error to permit a former spouse to share the post-dissolution separate property earnings of the employee spouse).
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    (“[I]t is established law that ...
  • 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
    In its ruling appointing the Special Master, the trial court mentioned two prior Arizona Supreme Court cases, , and Johnson, 3 but stated *450 , controlled the valuation and payment parameters for this case.
  • Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 13 We have no quarrel with the Rabys’ contention that Mr. Raby’s retirement benefits are a form of deferred compensation acquired during the Rabys’ marriage, , and that Mrs. Raby therefore has a proprietary interest in the benefits equal to that of her husband, Ells-worth v. Ellsworth, 5 Ariz.App.
  • Snyder v. Tucson Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board 32 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Snyder v. TUCSON POLICE PUB. SAF. RET. SYS. 32 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Snyder v. TUCSON POLICE PUB. SAF. RET. SYS. 32 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    Upon administrative review, [1] the superior court granted summary judgment to the personal representative, ruling that the share of Michael's retirement benefits awarded to Caren was her separate property, , and was thus subject to the laws of descent and distribution.
  • Snyder v. Tucson Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board 32 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    Upon administrative review, 1 the superior court granted summary judgment to the personal representative, ruling that the share of Michael’s retirement benefits awarded to Caren was her separate property, , and was thus subject to the laws of descent and distribution.
  • Parada v. Parada 999 P.2d 184 Ariz. 2000
  • Parada v. Parada 999 P.2d 184 Ariz. 2000
    (“The statute restricts death benefits to current spouses and children.”); see also Lack v. Lack, 584 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex.App.1979) (interpreting a Texas pension plan and reaching a similar conclusion); Arnold v. Department of Retirement Sys., 128 Wash.2d 765 , (199
  • Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Marriage of Gerow v. Covill 960 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    See, e.g., Wisner, , (holding that a professional degree or license is separate property but professional goodwill of a business earned during marriage is community property); , (holding that post-dissolution earnings or benefits are separate property, but those earnings and/or retirement benefits earned during marriage are community property); , (holding similar to Koelsch); Garrett, 140 Ariz.
  • 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
    our supreme court held that upon dissolution of marriage, a lump sum award should be made to the non-employee spouse of his or her community interest in the present value of the other spouse’s defined contribution retirement plan.
  • Stine v. Stine 880 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Stine v. Stine 880 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • In Re the Marriage of Crawford 884 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
  • In Re the Marriage of Crawford 884 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
  • 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
    unity benefit that the court could have distributed at the time of the decree was the actual value of the pension at the time of the decree” and declared that Edward’s “enhanced pension benefits earned following the divorce are his separate property.” The court indicated at the hearing that its ruling change was based on a review of current retirement benefit law, , : [T]he Koelsch [sic] case makes it very clear that it is preferred that the amount of a pension be valued at the time of the disso
  • Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Hardin v. Hardin 788 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Hardin v. Hardin 788 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Marriage of Schmidt v. Schmidt 763 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988