DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Toth v. Toth, 946 P.2d 900.

136 citing documents.

  • Kambourian v. Kambourian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Kambourian v. Kambourian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cereceres v. Cereceres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cereceres v. Cereceres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 25-318(A) (Supp. 2015)
  • Bourke v. Bourke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Bourke v. Bourke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶25 Generally, all community property “should be divided substantially equally unless sound reason exists to divide the property otherwise.” see also A.R.S.
  • Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    As a general principle, “all marital joint property should be divided substantially equally unless sound reason exists to divide the property otherwise.”
  • Potts v. Potts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Potts v. Potts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Mead v. Mead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Mead v. Mead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 25-318(A), which provides that a court shall “divide the community, joint tenancy and other property held in common equitably, though not necessarily in kind[.]” (noting that in most cases dividing jointly held property substantially equally will be the most equitable result).
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Although an equitable division of community property generally means a substantially equal division, the court may order an unequal division of the property “if sound reason exists.”
  • 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
    (where equal is not equitable, court considers facts and circumstances to achieve fairness for both parties).
  • Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    (imposition of constructive trust appropriate when property acquired such that holder of title may not in good conscience retain interest); (resulting trust arises in favor of person furnishing purchase money for property purchased in name of another).
  • Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    (imposition of constructive trust appropriate when property acquired such that holder of title may not in good conscience retain interest); , (resulting trust arises in favor of person furnishing purchase money for property purchased in name of another).
  • Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    946 P.2d *476 900, 904 (1997).
  • In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Marriage of Inboden 225 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 1 The question we address here is whether the family court abused its discretion in ordering a
  • In Re Marriage of Inboden 225 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 4 Following a trial regarding the division of the marital assets and liabilities, the family court concluded that the house was jointly held marital property subject to equitable division
  • Kay S. v. Mark S. 142 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Kay S. v. Mark S. 142 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    While Mother concedes that gifts to the community should be equitably divided
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Marriage of Birt v. Birt 96 P.3d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Kelly v. Kelly 9 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2000
  • Kelly v. Kelly 9 P.3d 1046 Ariz. 2000
    ¶ 8 , this court decided that in determining whether sufficient cause exists to justify an unequal division, a trial judge is not limited by those circumstances specifically listed in the statute.
  • Parada v. Parada 999 P.2d 184 Ariz. 2000
  • Parada v. Parada 999 P.2d 184 Ariz. 2000
    (holding that statute requires community properly to be divided "equitably,” but not necessarily equally).
  • Vance-Koepnick v. Koepnick 3 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Vance-Koepnick v. Koepnick 3 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (equitable means fair, which depends on the facts; unequal distribution is proper if supported by “sound reason”).