Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Britz v. Britz, 389 P.2d 123.

34 citing documents.

Matter of Wilcox Revocable Trust 965 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Matter of Wilcox Revocable Trust 965 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Biddulph v. Biddulph 711 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In Re Marriage of Fong 589 P.2d 1330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In holding that these reasons were not legally sound and therefore could not be utilized under the equitable powers of the court to divide community property, , (the division of community property is within the sound discretion of the trial court); , (division of community property should be substantially equal); , (in absence of sound reasons, division should be substantially equivalent).
Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Provinzano v. Provinzano 570 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sound discretion has been held to mean that, in the absence of sound reasons appearing in the record which justify a contrary result, the apportionment of the community estate upon dissolution must be substantially equal, , , ” The trial judge did not make a substantially equal disposition of the community property in this case, but rather awarded the entire community interest in the retirement and disability benefits to the husband.
Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Lindsay v. Lindsay 565 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sound discretion has been held to mean that, in the absence of sound reasons appearing in the record which justify a contrary result, the apportionment of the community estate upon dissolution must be substantially equal
Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
Chambers v. United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 541 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Chambers v. United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 541 P.2d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
297 P. 443 (1931); , In re Roseman’s Estate
Ivancovich v. Ivancovich 540 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Ivancovich v. Ivancovich 540 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Pettibone v. Pettibone 529 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Pettibone v. Pettibone 529 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Armer v. Armer 463 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
Armer v. Armer 463 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
a wife in a divorce proceeding was awarded community property *289 worth $15,260, while the husband’s share was only $240.
Calderon v. Calderon 454 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Calderon v. Calderon 454 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
While it is true that the Court may not exercise this discretion in such manner as to reward one spouse and punish the other, , it is equally true that the court is not prohibited from awarding a greater portion of the community property to one spouse than the other, and such an uneven distribution will not be upset unless inequitable under the circumstances.
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
Warren v. Warren 407 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Warren v. Warren 407 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Christian v. Cotten 403 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Christian v. Cotten 403 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Rule 73(a), R.C.P., 16 A.R.S.; In re Roseman’s Estate, , [1949]; , [1945]; , [1964]; 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 180 and § 203, pp. 689 and 709; 4 C.J.S.
Moore v. Moore 403 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Moore v. Moore 403 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965