DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Collier v. Collier, 242 P.2d 537.

50 citing documents.

  • Sesma v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Sesma v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Citing In re Baldwin’s Estate, Sesma contends that Joe and Manuel owned the Property as tenants in common because nothing in the deed indicates that Manuel accepted the joint tenancy.
  • Egizzii v. Egizzii Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Egizzii v. Egizzii Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    of the Court entitled thereto according to their respective interests.”2 The fundamental objective in a partition suit is to equitably divide a property so as to confer no unfair advantage on any cotenant, but “the only relevant equities are those which arise out of the relationship of cotenancy.”3 (citation omitted); (partition is an equitable proceeding).
  • Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶9 Although Wife would no doubt prefer a cash payout instead of an award of a fractional interest in undeveloped land and consortium- owned commercial investment properties located across several states, the family court was not required to sever her interest, but simply delineate it separately from Husband’ (authorizing spouse to pursue a partition action to sever separate interests in joint property “which interests .
  • Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
  • Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
  • Heinig v. Hudman 865 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Heinig v. Hudman 865 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Bostwick v. Jasin 821 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Bostwick v. Jasin 821 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Anonymous Wife v. Anonymous Husband 739 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Anonymous Wife v. Anonymous Husband 739 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    which involved the partition of jointly held property.
  • Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    She maintains that under the ordinary rules of joint tenancy, a co-tenant improving joint tenancy property with separate funds is entitled to reimbursement upon partition of the property, , Graham v. Allen, 11 Ariz.App.
  • Wayt v. Wayt 600 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1979
  • Wayt v. Wayt 600 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1979
  • Batesole v. Batesole 535 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Batesole v. Batesole 535 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    and held that title may evidence joint ownership, but that the legal consequence is that each joint owner has a separate estate or interest in the property, and that therefore the trial court must set aside to each party his “separate estate” in the jointly held property.
  • Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer 526 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer 526 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    “Since the interest of a joint tenant is separate property, it follows that a court is without jurisdiction in a divorce proceeding to compel either co-tenant to divest himself or herself of his or her title.” 73 Ariz. at 412 , 242 P.2d at 541 .
  • Becchelli v. Becchelli 508 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1973
  • Becchelli v. Becchelli 508 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1973
    this Court held that married persons who placed property in joint tenancy had destroyed the community nature of the property and had created separate property.
  • Musker v. Gil Haskins Auto Leasing, Inc. 500 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Musker v. Gil Haskins Auto Leasing, Inc. 500 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Needel v. Needel 489 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Needel v. Needel 489 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    decided prior to the 1962 amendment, the court held that under the provisions of § 27-805, A.C.A., 1939, which contained the same provisions of A.R.S.
  • McClennen v. McClennen 464 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • McClennen v. McClennen 464 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    DeMarce v. DeMarce, supra.
  • Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Gage v. Gage 462 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Finck v. Finck 452 P.2d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • DeMarce v. DeMarce 419 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
  • DeMarce v. DeMarce 419 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
    Headley v. Headley, Ariz., ; , .
  • Headley v. Headley 419 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
  • Headley v. Headley 419 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1966
    rvivorship, as tenants in common, or as tenants by the entirety, the court may in the same action, on its own initiative or on petition of either party, order division of such property, or enter an order directing partition of such property in the manner provided by title 12, chapter 8, article 7.” *333 Prior to this amendment, this court held on March 31, 1952, , , as follows: “The right of husband and wife to hold property as joint tenants in derogation of our community property statutes has b
  • Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
  • Smith v. Tang 412 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1966
  • Britz v. Britz 389 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1964
  • Britz v. Britz 389 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1964
  • Bialac v. Bialac 386 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1963
  • Bialac v. Bialac 386 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1963
  • Russo v. Russo 298 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1956
  • Russo v. Russo 298 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1956