DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Gerow v. Covill, 960 P.2d 55.

82 citing documents.

  • In Re the Estate of Fred N. Kirkes 295 P.3d 432 Ariz. 2013
  • In Re the Estate of Fred N. Kirkes 295 P.3d 432 Ariz. 2013
    § 25-214(C), and each spouse owes the other certain fiduciary duties, ¶ 40
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    ¶ 43 , (affirming the denial of sanctions for an alleged late disclosure of a legal theory because the opposing party “had adequate notice and time to prepare”).
  • Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Mangan v. Mangan 258 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    To award attorneys’ fees under § 25-324, a court must consider “the financial positions of the parties,” ¶ 46 , and “the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings.” 13 A.R.S.
  • Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Chopin v. Chopin 232 P.3d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    -84, ¶ 37 , -34 (App.2007) (reversing trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs because it was not supported by adequate financial information in the record); ¶ 45 , (denying husband’s request for fees because he “provide[d] no information about the financial resources of either party nor d[id] he provide evidence supporting his claim for fees.”).
  • Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Pullen v. Pullen 222 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶ 5 , (questions of law are reviewed de novo); ¶ 19
  • Maxfield v. Martin 173 P.3d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Maxfield v. Martin 173 P.3d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶ 45 , this court denied the husband’s request for fees because “he provide[d] no information about the financial resources of either party nor d[id] he provide evidence supporting his claim for fees.” ¶ 17 , we stat
  • Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    Similarly, P.2d 55 (App. 1998), the transfer of goodwill accrued in a husband’s separate business to a business owned by his sister-in-law was held to be a fraudulent conveyance because the intent was to prevent the wife from claiming her share of the community asset.
  • Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    ¶¶ 42-43 , (no abuse of discretion for trial court to decline sanctions for late disclosure when purpose of Rule 26.1, Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 15 , (determination of spouses’ rights to value of corporation was not a void conditional judgment because issue of husband’s ownership interest in relation to third person would be determined separately); A.R.S.
  • Mezey v. Fioramonti 65 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Mezey v. Fioramonti 65 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    -17, ¶¶ 32-36 , -63 (App.1998) (finding fraudulent conveyance).
  • Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶¶ 24-25 , (declining to consider discovery issues because trial court would have adequate time to set new deadlines on remand); ¶ 43 , (finding that a trial continuance allowed “adequate notice and time to prepare”).
  • State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Wright 43 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Wright 43 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    Section 44-1004(A)(l) defines a fraudulent transfer as one made with “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” As the lower court pointed out, “[a]ctual intent may be shown by direct proof or by circumstantial evidence from which actual intent may be reasonably inferred.”
  • Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Keller v. Thurston 16 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000