Cited by

(Awarding parties an undivided one-half interest in property can lead to “mismanagement of the property not to mention the many possibilities for added friction between two individuals.”); (Even when the court cannot divide property, § 25-318(A) authorizes the court to award the property to one spouse and award the other an amount of money representing his or her interest in the property rather than awarding co-ownership.); A.R.S.

To achieve an equitable division, the court may “award a sum of money to one spouse to compensate that spouse for his or her interest in community assets awarded to the other spouse.” 5 –58 (1988).

§ 25-318(C); see, -58 (1988).

¶26 The determination of waste, also referred to as dissipation, is governed by § 25-318(C), which permits the court to consider “excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common.”

Section 25-318(A) directs the court to first “assign each spouse’s sole and separate property to such spouse” and then “divide the community, joint tenancy and other property held in common equitably, though not necessarily in kind, without regard to marital misconduct.” -56 (1988).

("[W]hen the court finds that one spouse has intentionally dissipated marital property, the value of the dissipated property is added to the other existing marital property, and the total divided equitably.").

“The primary focus for a determination of the trial court’s authority is an examination of the relevant statute.”

§ 25–318(C)), ¶ 8 (App. 2014)).

§ 25–318(C)), ¶ 8 (App. 2014)).

¶18 The family court is authorized to “adjust the value of the property assigned to each spouse so that neither spouse profits by misuse or concealment of the commonly-held property.” see also A.R.S.

(“[T]he court must equitably divide the community, joint tenancy and other property held in common.”) (emphasis added).

–56, –42 (1988) (holding that the superior court may compensate one spouse for the misuse of community property during the marriage to offset the value of the lost property); Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 346–47, ¶¶ 3, 8, 972 P.2d at 679–80 (affirming finding of waste based on excessive and abnormal e

¶ 16, (quoting Martin v. Martin, 156 Ariz. 452, 457, ).

held that the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply to bar actions such as Dressler’s. ¶16 The T purpose of section 25-318 is “to provide a standard for the [equitable] disposition of community and common property in [] dissolution proceeding[s].”

at 169, 812 P.2d at 987 ( ).

section 37-301(A) in such a manner as to give effect to the legislature’s intent