Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212.

74 citing documents.

State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 17 , when resolving conflicting decisions between departments in Divisions 1 and 2.
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Waldren 171 P.3d 1214 Ariz. 2007
§ 25-317(A); -23 , -19 (1989).
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
section 25-327(A) (2007)
Diefenbach v. Holmberg 26 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Diefenbach v. Holmberg 26 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
And, Holmberg’s , is misplaced because that case, which allows spousal maintenance awards to be modified absent a statement that they are nonmodifiable, simply did not address the language requirements for making a spousal maintenance award survive the recipient spouse’s death.
Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
overruled on other grounds, , the husband sold a community asset without the wife’s knowledge and lost the proceeds gambling.
Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(purpose of spousal maintenance is to achieve independence for both parties).
Evitt v. Evitt 877 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Evitt v. Evitt 877 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Section 25-319(C) states: “The court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over the issue of maintenance for the period of time maintenance is awarded.” , as the dispos-itive case in interpreting AR.S.
Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
at 503 , 869 P.2d at 179 ; , (the aim of spousal maintenance “is to achieve independence for both parties and to require an effort toward independence by the party requesting maintenance”).
Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Rainwater v. Rainwater 869 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
husband emphasizes the supreme court’s statement that *503 the current aim [of spousal maintenance] is to achieve independence for both parties and to require an effort toward independence by the party requesting maintenance.
Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Brooks v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. 839 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Charles M. Smith & Irwin Cantor, Arizona Practice: Marriage Dissolution Practice § 308, at 338 (1988); , (award of spousal maintenance modifiable unless'expressly provides otherwise).
Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appels-Meehan v. Appels 805 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Marriage of Elliott v. Elliott 796 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
which was filed while this appeal was pending.