DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Proffit v. Proffit, 462 P.2d 391.

40 citing documents.

  • Kumbera v. Manickam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Kumbera v. Manickam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (a court “has no authority to compel either party to divest himself or herself of Title to separate property”).
  • Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Nitsch v. Klavuhn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nitsch v. Klavuhn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (“[T]he divorce court, in pronouncing a divorce decree, has no authority to compel either party to 5 NITSCH v. KLAVUHN Decision of the Court divest himself or herself of [t]itle to separate property.”); Weaver v
  • Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Eans-Snoderly v. Snoderly 473 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See, –25 (1969); Masta v. Lurie ex rel.
  • Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Moyer v. Moyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶11 Husband contends that the superior court cannot divest him of his separate property and can only assign each spouse's separate property to that spouse
  • Garlan v. Garlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Garlan v. Garlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    In Stone v. Stidham, 96 4 GARLAN v. GARLAN Decision of the Court Ariz. 235, 239–40 (1964), our supreme court held that the Arizona Constitution barred the enforcement of property-settlement provisions of divorce decrees and separation agreements concerning sums of money by contempt proceedings.
  • Dole v. Hon. blair/dole 463 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Dole v. Hon. blair/dole 463 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Although a court has broad discretion in allocating property following the dissolution of a marriage, it “has no authority to compel either party to divest himself or herself of [t]itle to separate property.”
  • Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Guislan v. Helmus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    Rather, the court ordered “the return of the stock to Susan or, should the stock no longer be in the form and number of shares transferred, Stuart shall pay to Susan the sum of $940,000.00, less those sums or the value of such stock already returned to Susan.” ¶19 P.2d 391 (1969).
  • Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (holding that trial court's contempt order based on defaulting spouse's failure to comply with prior court order directing her to pay a sum of money awarded to ex-spouse violated article II, § 18 of Arizona Constitution and, therefore, vacating contempt order).
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Martin v. Martin 752 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Warren v. Warren, 2 Ariz.App.
  • In Re Marriage of Benge 726 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • In Re Marriage of Benge 726 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Weaver v. Weaver 643 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1982
  • Weaver v. Weaver 643 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1982
    In denying husband’s Motion for Rehearing, , for the proposition: “that the dissolution court has inherent power to require restitution for separate property of a spouse which has been converted by the other spouse and to include in the dissolution decree a direction for payment of money.” In the Proffit case, the defendant-wife had redeem
  • Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Luna v. Luna 608 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    precludes the use of the contempt power of the court to enforce the payment of money as part of a property settlement.
  • 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
    the court declared : “We agree that the divorce court, in pronouncing a divorce decree, has no authority to compel either party to divest himself or herself of title to separate property.
  • Masta v. Lurie ex rel. Superior Court 525 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Masta v. Lurie ex rel. Superior Court 525 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Johnson v. Johnson 523 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Johnson v. Johnson 523 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Becchelli v. Becchelli 497 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    where the Court said: “We agree that the divorce court, in pronouncing a divorce decree, has no authority to compel either party to divest himself or herself of title to separate property.