Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Marriage of Zale, 972 P.2d 230.

80 citing documents.

Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The purpose of the statute is to provide a remedy for the party least able to pay.” ¶ 20
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Johnson v. Gravino 293 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶16 “A final judgment or decree is ‘an independent resolution by the court of the issues before it and rightfully is regarded in that context and not according to the negotiated intent of the parties.’” Cohen, 157 P.3d at 486
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thompson v. Corry 291 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 20 , (stating purpose of § 25-324); ¶ 23 , (acknowledging purpose of sanctions in domestic dispute).
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-50, ¶¶ 9-15 , -34 (1999).
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. 261 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
A judgment is “an independent resolution by the court of the issues before it,” ¶ 11 , and thus the scope and amount of a final judgment may exceed the scope and amount of a jury’s verdict.
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
¶ 21 , (recognizing that termination of a spousal maintenance award is permitted).
Palmer v. Palmer 170 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Palmer v. Palmer 170 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Our supreme court rejected a similar argument in
Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The purpose of that statute is “to provide a remedy for the party least able to pay.” ¶ 20
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The decree of dissolution in a dissolution of marriage proceeding is a final judgment, In *81 re Marriage of Zale, ¶ 10 , (citing Wolf Corp. v. Louis, 11 Ariz.App.
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
7 before it and rightfully is regarded in that context and not according to the negotiated intent of the parties.”
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
STATE EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY v. Hayden 91 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
STATE EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY v. Hayden 91 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 12 There is a legal distinction between the terms “judgment” and “debt.” “A judgment is ____ an ‘act of a court which fixes clearly the rights and liabilities of the *167 respective parties to litigation and determines the controversy at hand.’ ” ¶ 10 , (quoting Wolf Corp. v. Louis, 11 Ariz.App.
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“The purpose of the statute is to provide a remedy for the party least able to pay.” ¶ 20
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
But , ("[T]he parol evidence rule does not apply to a judgment.").
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000