DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Drahos v. Rens, 717 P.2d 927.

81 citing documents.

  • Menghini v. Menghini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶19 First, Husband argues the court erred by failing to account for the alleged appreciation of the Rudi Lane Property during the marriage as 7 MENGHINI v. MENGHINI Decision of the Court required by this court’s
  • Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Rowe, 154 Ariz. at 619 (concluding a spouse’s separate-property business was not transformed into a community asset where the community was adequately compensated for services provided to the business by the other spouse); (“[A] residence which is separate property does not change its character because it is used as a family home and mortgage payments are made from community funds.”).
  • Morris v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Morris v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Butler-Hintz v. Hintz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Butler-Hintz v. Hintz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    should be applied to calculate the amount of the community’s lien.
  • Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶9 “In Arizona, property owned or acquired by either spouse prior to marriage is separate property and does not change its character after the marriage except by agreement or operation of law.” see A.R.S.
  • Baldwin v. Baldwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Baldwin v. Baldwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Montgomery v. Divine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Montgomery v. Divine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (appreciation); Barnett, 219 Ariz. at 555 ¶ 21 (appreciation); Valento, 225 Ariz. at 482 ¶¶ 15–16 (depreciation).
  • Weeks v. Weeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Weeks v. Weeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Instead, and in subsequent cases.
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    The family court’s adoption of a simple reimbursement scheme was a reasonable alternative.6 (noting a “value-at-dissolution formula” is preferable to an “amount-spent formula” because the latter does not fully account for the enhanced value of the property).
  • Juenger v. Nyahay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Juenger v. Nyahay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Drahos v. Rens, 149 Ariz 248, 249-50, -29 (App. 1985).
  • Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See, ¶ 21 , (remanding to the family court with instructions to value an equitable lien); ¶ 12 , (same); , (same).
  • Marriage of Barnett v. Jedynak 200 P.3d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Marriage of Barnett v. Jedynak 200 P.3d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    That remaining equity was then to be “divided equally by the parties.” ¶ 5 Husband filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, arguing that a “value-at-dissolution” formula should be used to calculate the community’s interest in the property
  • Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Honnas, 133 Ariz. at 40 , 648 P.2d at 1046
  • Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Similarly, , we allowed a decree of separation to be signed nunc pro tunc after the death of a party because the minute entry reflected resolved issues.
  • 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