Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Staley v. Estate of Harber, 449 P.2d 7.

56 citing documents.

Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
Barbara Sowards v. Tommy Sowards Ariz. 2023
Thus, Wife never had the opportunity to contest whether this was an accurate characterization of the settlement agreement, let alone whether it satisfied the requirements of a valid postnuptial agreement as set forth in In re Harber’s Estate
Erlick v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Erlick v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
.”); In re Harber’s Est., (court “will be deemed to have made every finding of fact necessary to support its judgment”).
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§§ 25-318 and -319, Husband concedes the post-nuptial agreement is governed “by case law, such as” [In re] Harber’s Estate, []
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
DISCUSSION ¶5 A married couple may “validly divide their property presently and prospectively by a post-nuptial agreement, even without its being incident to a contemplated separation or divorce.” In re Harber’s Estate
Saba v. Khoury 481 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Saba v. Khoury 481 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶13 We agree with Husband, however, that the superior court improperly considered the transfer under the analysis applicable to postnuptial agreements discussed in ¶ 20 (App. 2015).
Boyle v. Malta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Boyle v. Malta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In re Harber’s Estate, (recognizing the validity of a property settlement agreement made during the marriage and not in anticipation of divorce or separation); ¶¶ 17–18 (App. 2019).
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶22 However, when entering into a separation agreement, as a "built-in safeguard[ ]," In re Harber's Estate , , 88, , 16 (1969), parties must act with "full knowledge of the property involved and [their] rights therein," Wick v. Wick , , 384, , 21 (1971).
Hutki v. Hutki 417 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hutki v. Hutki 417 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 18 Even if the burden issue was material to this appeal, we note Sharp relies on In re Estate of Harber , , 88, , 16 (1969), for the burden proposition Wife cites.
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Valer’s Claims ¶11 Josiah argues the trial court erred when it improperly applied the heightened standards of In re Harber’s Estate, P.2d 7 (1969), instead of ordinary contract principles in its analysis of the arbitration agreement, as it concerned Valer and him.
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at 448 , 671 P.2d at 426; , , In re Estate of Henry, 6 Ariz.App.
Matter of Estate of Killen 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
McCannon v. McCannon 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
McCannon v. McCannon 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
must, in duty to his trust, protect the instrument when it is assailed in court.” More recently, the supreme court affirmed this rule in In re Harber’s Estate, , when it adopted the rule set forth in In re Corotto, 125 Cal.App.2d 314 , that “after a will has been admitted to probate, it is the duty of the executor to defend and uphold it against subsequent attack, and that this duty rests primarily upon him and not the legatees
Matter of Estate of Killen 937 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
More recently, the supreme court affirmed this rule in , when it adopted the rule set forth in In re Corotto, 125 Cal.
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-3594 653 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-3594 653 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Marquess v. Spaner, 15 Ariz.App.
Eng v. Stein 599 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1979
Eng v. Stein 599 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1979
United Security Corp. v. Anderson Aviation Sales Co. 532 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
United Security Corp. v. Anderson Aviation Sales Co. 532 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
O’ , ; , , Reynolds v. United Producers & Consumers Co-op, 17 Ariz.App.
Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Spector v. Spector 531 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tencza v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 527 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1974
Tencza v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 527 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1974
Shelton v. Cunningham 508 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1973
Shelton v. Cunningham 508 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1973
Bourne v. Lord 506 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Bourne v. Lord 506 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
O'HERN v. Bowling 505 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1973
O'HERN v. Bowling 505 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1973
Burnside v. Runstetler 504 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Burnside v. Runstetler 504 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The evidence points to an oral contract between the parties to divide their community property, similarly to that approved by our Supreme Court , and not to the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Daugherty v. State Ex Rel. Swift 490 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Daugherty v. State Ex Rel. Swift 490 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971