DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Neely v. Neely, 563 P.2d 302.

52 citing documents.

  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See In re Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. at 535 ¶ 14 (“In determining an equitable division, the family court has broad discretion in the specific allocation of individual assets and liabilities.”); (“The discretionary power [to divide community property] is very broad and will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that it has been abused.”).
  • Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
  • Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
    7 BARBARA SOWARDS V. TOMMY SOWARDS Opinion of the Court O’Hair v. O’Hair, (explaining the “intention of the depositor” is controlling when determining whether funds are sole and separate property of a particular spouse); (accord); (to same effect).
  • Andaloro v. Andaloro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Andaloro v. Andaloro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    To that point, "[t]he necessary elements of a gift are 'donative intent, delivery and a vesting of irrevocable title upon such delivery.'" Thorn, 235 Ariz. at 220, ¶ 14 ().
  • Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jimenez v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Section 25- 318(C) “explicitly allows the court to consider excessive or abnormal expenditures as well as destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community property,” which it did.
  • McCreary v. Silver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • McCreary v. Silver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Stevenson, 132 Ariz. at 46; (“[T]he form of a bank account is not regarded as sufficient to establish the intent of the depositor to give another a joint interest in or ownership of the deposit.”).
  • In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    ¶14 The necessary elements of a gift are “donative intent, delivery and a vesting of irrevocable title upon such delivery.” see also Hrudka, 186 Ariz. at 93, 919 P.2d at 188.
  • Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Although “the mere form of a life insurance policy is [not] conclusive on either the issue of ownership or whether a gift has been made[,]” there was no evidence presented at trial to establish the essential elements of a gift.
  • State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (valid gift transfers title, possession and control of property to recipient).
  • State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (holding an essential element of an inter vivos gift is that the donor gives the donee "full possession and control of the property."); , (holding a donor's intent is controlling only as to the issue of whether a gift
  • Community Guardian Bank v. Hamlin 898 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Community Guardian Bank v. Hamlin 898 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Id.; -52 , -07 (App.1977) (affirming trial court’s finding that insurance policies purchased with community funds and its proceeds were community property).
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1988
    We denied appellant’s petition, but granted appellee’s
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
  • Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Sample v. Sample 731 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Because the equitableness of a given distribution is the very touchstone of a proper apportionment, , we believe that a trial court must be allowed to utilize alternative valuation dates.
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Matter of Estate of Alarcon 718 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Matter of Estate of Alarcon 718 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    a case in which a dispute arose over whether the husband had made a gift of an insurance policy to his wife, our court stated that the mere form of a life insurance policy (i.e., who was designated as “owner” in the policy) is conclusive neither on the issue of the ownership of the policy no
  • Carriker v. Carriker 727 P.2d 349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Carriker v. Carriker 727 P.2d 349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni 694 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • 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
  • Cadwell v. Cadwell 616 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Cadwell v. Cadwell 616 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    decided under the present statutory framework for dissolution enacted in 1973, the court cited Spector for the proposition that “it is within the power of a court to allocate payment of debts to one or both parties.” 115 Ariz. at 49 , n.l, 563 P.2d at 304 .
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • In Re Marriage of Foster 608 P.2d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    E. g., P.2d 1330 (App.1978) (substantially unequal distribution of community property affirmed where wife allowed her husband to believe that she had been dead for several years while he accumulated a large amount of community property); , (substantially unequal distribution of community property affirmed where husband spent substantial amounts of community property to enhance his separate property, and concealed $35,000 worth of community assets from his wife); Ivancovich v. Ivancovich, 24 Ariz
  • Kosidlo v. Kosidlo 607 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Kosidlo v. Kosidlo 607 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979