Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wineinger v. Wineinger, 669 P.2d 971.

30 citing documents.

Swenson v. Swenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Swenson v. Swenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(the court “cannot, without reason, create a gross disparity or make its award arbitrarily.
Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(App. 6 HOWIE v. HOWIE Decision of the Court 1983) (“The trial court is not required to divide community property exactly equally,” but “it cannot .
Sheppard v. McLaren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sheppard v. McLaren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
because Wife need not dissipate the principal investment.
Knoebel v. Knoebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Knoebel v. Knoebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
exhaust[] whatever financial reserves [he or] she possesses to the extent that when [he or] she no longer had any earning capacity there 7 KNOEBEL v. KNOEBEL Decision of the Court would be nothing left upon which [he or] she could draw,” Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 391 ().
Osman v. Hassoun Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Osman v. Hassoun Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Section 25- 319, however, does not require any specific findings, and neither party requested findings under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 82.
Wilson v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Wilson v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
And a spouse “should not be expected to live off both the principal, and interest, exhausting whatever financial reserves she possesses to the extent that when she no longer had any earning capacity there would be nothing left upon which she could draw.” ().
Fogerson v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Fogerson v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 25-319; n.1 (App. 1990).
Mann v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mann v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-98 (App. 1983) (concluding spouse did not possess sufficient property, under A.R.S.
In re Cotter 425 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
In re Cotter 425 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Wineinger v. Wineinger , , 197-98
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Higgins v. Higgins 740 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Higgins v. Higgins 740 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ruskin v. Ruskin 738 P.2d 779 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 Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person 699 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person 699 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
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
: The Court believes that failure to award spousal maintenance under the circumstances of this case would be inequitable since it would be holding that the Petitioner-Husband may continue to accumulate toward his retirement and live on his present income, but the Respondent-Wife must use her r