Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ellsworth v. Ellsworth, 423 P.2d 364.

32 citing documents.

Kennedy Johnson v. Payne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kennedy Johnson v. Payne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“If the husband acts with the object of benefiting the community .
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
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
In Ellsworth v. Ellsworth, this court held that “the wife should be liable, as between her former husband and herself, to the extent of one half of any such omitted community obligations____”
Fischer v. Sommer 774 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fischer v. Sommer 774 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lorenz-Auxier Financial Group, Inc. v. Bidewell 772 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lorenz-Auxier Financial Group, Inc. v. Bidewell 772 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
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
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1981
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1981
Since both spouses now have equal power to manage the community, we believe the rationale of cases such as Ells- *45 , now applies equally to debts incurred by either spouse, although in that case the husband had incurred the debt: “If the husband acts with the object of benefiting the community, a fact not questioned here, the obligations so incurred by him are community in nature, whether or not the wife approv
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Hofmann Company v. Meisner, 17 Ariz.App.
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
it was held that any community obligation not specifically assigned in the divorce decree is the obligation of both parties, and that if the creditor chooses to sue only one of the parties, the paying party has an action over against the nonpaying party for one-half the sums paid to the creditor
Jankowski v. Jankowski 561 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Jankowski v. Jankowski 561 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
it was held that any community obligation not specifically assigned in the divorce decree is the obligation of both parties, and that if the creditor chooses to sue only one of the parties, the paying party has an action over against the nonpaying party for one-half the sums paid to the creditor
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Union Bank v. Pfeffer 502 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
where we held that the wife was personally liable after dissolution of the community by divorce, for one-half of the community debts “at least” to the extent that she had received community property from the dissolution of the marriage.
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hofmann Company v. Meisner 497 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Wine v. Wine 480 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Wine v. Wine 480 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Keplinger v. Boyett 433 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Keplinger v. Boyett 433 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Kenyon v. Kenyon 425 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Kenyon v. Kenyon 425 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Zuniga v. City of Tucson 425 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Zuniga v. City of Tucson 425 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967