DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Richards v. Richards, 669 P.2d 1002.

30 citing documents.

  • Poage v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Poage v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶10 To modify the existing child support order, Mother needed to prove changed financial circumstances “by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.”
  • Howitt v. Wrinkle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Howitt v. Wrinkle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    To be clear, the party seeking modification bears the burden of proving changed circumstances by comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution, and the question whether circumstances have changed lies with the family court, Schroeder, 161 Ariz. at 323.
  • Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (“The changed circumstances alleged must be proved by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.”).
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    MCCLENDON v. MCCLENDON Opinion of the Court ¶12 In contrast, the superior court concluded here that “the relevant time period for assessing [the substantial and continuing] change is the time from dissolution [in 2007] to present, not [from] 2014 [the first modification] to present.” To support its conclusion, (“The changed circumstances alleged must be proved by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.”) (citing Scott, 121 Ariz. at 494).
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “The changed circumstances alleged must be proved by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.” (citation omitted).
  • Downham v. Downham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Downham v. Downham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 1450(f)(4); (directing the superior court to require husband to change the beneficiary designation for the SBP from his current wife to his former wife).
  • Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (explaining that changed circumstances supporting modification of spousal maintenance are proven by a comparison with the circumstances existing at the time of the original award).
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Senter v. Senter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “The changed circumstances alleged must be proved by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.”
  • Kambourian v. Kambourian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Kambourian v. Kambourian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • ades/butkivich v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wild v. Wild Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (noting that the “change of circumstances must occur after the entry of the original decree in order to be material”); (“The changed circumstances alleged must be proved by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.”).
  • Bonafede v. Giannangelo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Bonafede v. Giannangelo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • 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
    “The changed circumstances alleged must be proved by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.”
  • 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
    (when wife’s income had been substantially reduced and remained so at time of hearing, trial court improperly terminated spousal maintenance in anticipation of increase in her future income, saying “[s]uch matters are best left to future modification proceedings”).
  • Reeves v. Reeves 706 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Reeves v. Reeves 706 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    § 25-327(A) provides that a maintenance decree may be modified “only upon a showing of changed circumstances which are substantial and continuing.” “The changed circumstances alleged must be proved by a comparison with the circumstances existing at dissolution.”