Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Armer v. Armer, 463 P.2d 818.

118 citing documents.

Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Covino v. Forrest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
16 STEWART v. STEWART Decision of the Court the court’s distribution of community property for an abuse of discretion, Bell-Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. at 523, ¶ 4, 169 P.3d at 113, and we will not disturb the court’s decision “[u]nless it clearly appears that the trial judge has mistaken or ignored the evidence.”
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Thomas v. Thomas 205 P.3d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 13 , for the proposition that the fraudulent procurement of a quitclaim deed from one spouse cannot be used to divest that spouse of her community property interest in a marital asset, Husband contends that Wife violated the parties’ agreement when she recorded the condo quitclaim deed without just c
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(“[T]he tidal judge is in the most favorable position to determine what is best for the children.”).
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
McGovern v. McGovern 33 P.3d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(trial court has broad discretion in granting parental visitation rights because it is in most favorable position to determine what is best for the children).
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-5312 873 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-5312 873 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Estate of Alarcon 718 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Matter of Estate of Alarcon 718 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Cameron v. Cameron 715 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cameron v. Cameron 715 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Davis v. Davis 716 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Davis v. Davis 716 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Golleher v. Horton 715 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
Cockrill v. Cockrill 601 P.2d 1334 Ariz. 1979
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Arizona Central Credit Union v. Holden, 6 Ariz.App.
Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
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
Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Czarnecki v. Czarnecki 600 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Neely v. Neely 563 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Fleitz v. Van Westrienen 560 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sellers v. Allstate Insurance Company 555 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1976
Sellers v. Allstate Insurance Company 555 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1976
Assets which are the separate property of one spouse before the marriage retain that character after the marriage, but can be al *422 tered by an agreement between the spouses, , or by gift of one to the other
Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
Hatch v. Hatch 547 P.2d 1044 Ariz. 1976
we held that a distribution of a greater share to the wife was neither unfair nor inequitable.
Elkins v. Vana 541 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Elkins v. Vana 541 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
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
Although there is no requirement of equality, , a division of the community property should be substantially equal in the absence of some reason requiring otherwise.