Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nelson v. Nelson, 560 P.2d 1276.

32 citing documents.

Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“[T]he treatment which income receives for tax purposes is not determinative of whether the property is community or separate.”).
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
For instance, , that “an increase in value of separate property is subject to the same test as profits from separate property.” 114 Ariz. at 372 , 560 P.2d at 1279 (citing Everson v. Everson, 24 Ariz.App.
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 414 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1987
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
In light of this rule and the broad discretion given to the trial court in dissolution proceedings, , , we find that the trial court acted well within its discretion when it found that husband made a gift to wife by placing the investment properties in joint tenancy.
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
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Thomas v. Thomas 690 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston 653 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Day v. Day, 20 Ariz.App.
Lee v. Lee 649 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Lee v. Lee 649 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Holby v. Holby 638 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Holby v. Holby 638 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
McDermott v. McDermott 628 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
E. g., , 298 P. 929 (1931)
Wayt v. Wayt 600 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1979
Wayt v. Wayt 600 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1979
Day v. Day, 20 Ariz.App.
Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
the Court of Appeals dealt with the similar issue of whether the profits of a husband’s separately owned corporation, managed by the husband during marriage, was a community asset.