Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ray v. Mangum, 788 P.2d 62.

32 citing documents.

Carreon v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Carreon v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Finally, “to effectuate a waiver of child support arrearages, the facts must demonstrate by ‘clear and compelling evidence’ the voluntary and intentional abandonment of a known right.” (); ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2017) (applying the clear and compelling evidence standard from Ray, 163 Ariz. at 332, to enforceability of Rule 69 agreement for spousal support arrearages).
Eglivitch v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Eglivitch v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(holding that clear and compelling evidence is necessary to establish waiver of a claim for child support arrearages and stating “[w]here conflicting testimony exists and the parties’ unspoken assumptions and intentions conflict, one party’s belief cannot provide clear and convincing evidence of the partie
Duran v. Terrones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Duran v. Terrones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Campbell v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Campbell v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Where conflicting testimony exists and the parties’ unspoken assumptions and intentions conflict, one party’s belief cannot provide clear and convincing evidence of the parties agreement.”).
Oliveira v. Oliveira Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Oliveira v. Oliveira Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Therefore, “[s]upport payments may not be retroactively modified by a court.”
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(holding that where conflicting testimony exists, one party's unspoken assumptions and beliefs are not clear evidence that other party agreed).
Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Morrow v. Morrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Marinello v. Glover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Heard-Vaughn v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heard-Vaughn v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(stating party asserting equitable defenses must demonstrate them by “clear and compelling evidence”).
Schnepp v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 899 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Schnepp v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 899 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dodd, 181 Ariz. at 186 , 888 P.2d at 1373 ; , Cordova, 129 Ariz. at 187 , 629 P.2d at 1023 .
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
788 P.2, [sic] 62, the Court finds that the Petitioner has waived her right to collect child support arrearages.
Mendoza v. Mendoza 870 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Mendoza v. Mendoza 870 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
(waiver of child support arrearages must be shown by clear and compelling evidence of voluntary and intentional abandonment of known right).
Pizziconi v. Yarbrough 868 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pizziconi v. Yarbrough 868 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Anonymous Wife, 153 Ariz. at 577 , 739 P.2d at 798
Albins v. Elovitz 791 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Albins v. Elovitz 791 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990