Cited by

When commingling occurs, the entire fund becomes community property “unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” –60 (1981) (“[T]he burden is upon the person claiming that the commingled funds, or any portion of them, are separate to prove that fact and the amount by clear and satisfactory evidence.”).

Whether property is community or separate “becomes fixed at the time it is acquired.” (citation omitted).

If community property and separate property are commingled, the property is “presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” ( –54 (1979)).

Although there is a legal presumption that funds acquired by the parties during marriage are community property, we will assume arguendo the fantasy football funds are Husband's separate property.

in the 3 NACKARD v. NACKARD Decision of the Court contested businesses because Husband “transmuted and commingled [the inherited] separate property into community property.” ¶9 “Mere mutations of form do not of themselves work a transmutation of the character of property.”

(internal quotations omitted); accord Carroll, 148 Ariz. at 16 (“The spouse claiming particular property as separate must prove the separate nature by ‘clear and convincing’ or nearly conclusive evidence.”).

¶19 -85 (1948), and further argues the superior court’s decision ignored trust law as it applies to a resulting/constructive trust; however, as discussed above, the presumptions of gift do not apply, as they did in Porter, because the property was conveyed for consideration from the parents’ trust to Husband and Wife

if the court rendered it without jurisdiction due to the lack of proper service.”) (citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ), and is therefore presumed from the court’s order, ( ).

le provided that either all of the profits and all of the increase were separate property or all of the profits and all of the increase were community property depending on whether the profits and increase were “primarily due to the toil of the community or primarily the result of the inherent nature of the separate property.” Cockrill, 124 Ariz. at 53 , 601 P.2d at 1337 ( , ) (emphasis added); , (stating that because “the inherent nature of the [separate] business is” such that “the success is

We will uphold the superior court’s finding if there is “any reasonable evidence to support it.” Mitchell, 152 Ariz. at 823 , 732 P.2d at 214 ; , (reversing a trial court’s finding that marital property existed because no substantial evidence supported the finding).

§ 25-211; , and the law will not give non-marital cohabiting parties the benefit of community property.

This is but an application of the general rule that while, absent a request for findings of fact, a trial judge is not required to set forth the underlying *15 factual basis for his ultimate decision, , , nevertheless, the judgment of a trial court must find some reasonable support from the evidence or lack of evidence.

We must also consider that “[wjhere community property and separate property are commingled, the entire fund is presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.” , 195 P. 132 , 137 (1948); , Bourne v. Lord, 19 Ariz.App.

: [T]he rights of married persons in their separate property are as impregnable and as thoroughly fixed as their right in their community property.