Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baum v. Baum, 584 P.2d 604.

50 citing documents.

Featherston v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Featherston v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Aguayo v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Aguayo v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
–47 (App. 1978); ¶ 26 (App. 2011).
Larrea v. Chand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Larrea v. Chand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Koizumi v. Morogiello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Koizumi v. Morogiello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sembower v. Sembower Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶24 “[T]he amount of attorney fees in a dissolution action is a matter left to the sound discretion of the [superior] court.”
Scheirer v. Scheirer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scheirer v. Scheirer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[T]he distribution of marital property is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.”).
Williams v. Stapley-Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Williams v. Stapley-Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 25-318(A); see also Valladee, 149 Ariz. at 307-08 (recognizing that, and other Arizona cases, a court may not reimburse a spouse for voluntary contributions of separate funds for a community obligation, absent an agreement to do so).
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Explained Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sharkey v. Sharkey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“[Distribution of marital property is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.” , ( , , ).
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(when making discretionary determination, trial court may rely on “‘personal wisdom and experience’”), 163 P. 264, 265-66 (1917); (in determining reasonable attorney fees, “trial judge can draw upon his knowledge of the case and upon his own experience”).
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
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
§ 25-320(A) (in determining child support obligations, court should consider financial resources of the parties); , (not improper for court to consider assets awarded to Wife in determining the amount of spousal support).
Nelson v. Nelson 791 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nelson v. Nelson 791 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
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
Whitmore v. Mitchell 733 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Whitmore v. Mitchell 733 P.2d 310 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
which held that one spouse may not receive reimbursement from the community for voluntary expenditures of separate *308 funds for community debts where there is no agreement between the parties permitting it.
Malecky v. Malecky 713 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Malecky v. Malecky 713 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 693 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1984
Wineinger v. Wineinger 669 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Wineinger v. Wineinger 669 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Westberry v. Reynolds 653 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Westberry v. Reynolds 653 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Wisner v. Wisner 631 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wisner v. Wisner 631 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Williams v. Williams, 19 Ariz.App.
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
In that respect, , , and Ivancovich v. Ivancovich, 24 Ariz.App.
Matter of Gubser 614 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1980
Matter of Gubser 614 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1980
Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
Mori v. Mori 603 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1979
In the absence of an agreement for reimbursement, we must presume that the expenditure was intended to benefit the community