Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Buttram v. Buttram, 596 P.2d 719.

36 citing documents.

Valasekova v. Fedor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Valasekova v. Fedor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Murray v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Murray v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(addressing contested award of pension benefits); (appeal following contested trial)
Bekele v. Abreha Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Bekele v. Abreha Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[Spousal maintenance] should not be awarded if it is not necessary for the spouse’s support and maintenance.”).
El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 182 (); cf. Elliott, 165 Ariz. at 137 (“The trial court may not adjust the amount of a spousal maintenance or child support award to account for a community debt that was not allocated in the property settlement.”).
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Young v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In support of this argument
Backus v. Backus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Backus v. Backus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Overruled Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
The decisions that Husband cites to support his position, , , , rely on the pre-1987 statute and are thus no longer good law to the extent they hold otherwise.
Walsh v. Walsh 286 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Walsh v. Walsh 286 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
She is as much entitled to be recompensed for that contribution as if it were represented by the increased value of stock in a family business.” Mitchell II, 152 Ariz. at 320, 732 P.2d at 211 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); see Buttram, v. Buttram, , (“[I]t is clear that the term ‘alimony’, or in this case ‘spousal maintenance’, does not contemplate the settlement of property interests between the husband and the wife.
Hardin v. Hardin 788 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hardin v. Hardin 788 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(spousal maintenance does not encompass settlement of property issues).
Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy 793 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy 793 P.2d 1116 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
Pangburn v. Pangburn 731 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Pangburn v. Pangburn 731 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
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
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
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
with an award of a greater share of the community property in lieu of spousal maintenance, this flexibility is lost: If the husband dies, or if the wife remarries, the spousal maintenance would terminate.
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979