Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brevick v. Brevick, 628 P.2d 599.

32 citing documents.

Porter v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Porter v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Alvares v. Munguia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[T]he credibility of witnesses is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of facts.”).
Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The court, therefore, used net income, rather than gross income, to calculate the monthly average.4 See, (defining “[n]et income from employment” as “gross earnings less .
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶17 Moreover, “the decision whether changed circumstances exist to warrant modification of an award is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Cummings, 182 Ariz. at 387, 897 P.2d at 689 ( ).
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
Certainly, an award must be based on present conditions and “not made to depend on uncertain contingencies or hypothetical earnings or income.”
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
section 25-320(A) when modifying a child-support award
Cummings v. Cummings 897 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cummings v. Cummings 897 P.2d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
for the argument that the gift income may not be considered because its receipt is too uncertain and tentative.
Matter of Estate of Ivester 812 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Matter of Estate of Ivester 812 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pugh v. Cook 735 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Pugh v. Cook 735 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 760 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 760 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Van Emden v. Becker, 6 Ariz.App.
Imperial Litho/Graphics v. M.J. Enterprises 730 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Imperial Litho/Graphics v. M.J. Enterprises 730 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Anamax Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 711 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Anamax Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 711 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
Roszko v. Roszko 705 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Roszko v. Roszko 705 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
THE VALIDITY OF THE 40 , as mandating the invalidity of the 40 percent escalator clause in the property settlement agreement.
Mobile Discount Corp. v. LuBean 656 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Mobile Discount Corp. v. LuBean 656 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Nutter v. Bechtel, 6 Ariz.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by