Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214 (2026)

Management and control

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Each spouse has the sole management, control and disposition rights of each spouse's separate property.

B. The spouses have equal management, control and disposition rights over their community property and have equal power to bind the community.

C. Either spouse separately may acquire, manage, control or dispose of community property or bind the community, except that joinder of both spouses is required in any of the following cases:

1. Any transaction for the acquisition, disposition or encumbrance of an interest in real property other than an unpatented mining claim or a lease of less than one year.

2. Any transaction of guaranty, indemnity or suretyship.

3. To bind the community, irrespective of any person's intent with respect to that binder, after service of a petition for dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment if the petition results in a decree of dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 90 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta, 880 P.2d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta, 880 P.2d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 42× “Meritor, however, transforms that property back into real property to invoke the protection of section 25-214. This "have your cake and eat it, too" situation benefits the marital community, particularly the signing spouse, in all situations and, as Meritor demonstrates, damages…”

MacCollum v. Perkinson, 913 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 38× “A.R.S. § 25-214. These include "[a]ny transaction for the acquisition, disposition or encumbrance of an interest in real property" and "[a]ny transaction of guaranty, indemnity or suretyship.”

Hammett v. Hammett, 453 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “See A.R.S. § 25-214(C). Wife argues that because A.”

Rackmaster Sys., Inc. v. Maderia, 193 P.3d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 24× “However, it limits such power by providing in part that: “Except as prohibited in § 25-214, either spouse may contract debts and otherwise act for the benefit of the community.”

Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi, 728 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 24× “A.R.S. § 25-214. However, the lease warranted both title and the purported lessor’s authority to enter into the lease.”

Consol. Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm, 682 P.2d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 14× “Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that there had been a “joinder” for purposes of A.R.S. § 25-214. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon the following language in Hamada v.”

Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss, 238 P.3d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “AR.S. § 25-214. Section 25-214 requires such joinder after service of a petition for dissolution of marriage when that petition ends in dissolution, but it does not require joinder for fees incurred before the petition is filed, or for fees incurred when no dissolution…”

Johnson v. Johnson, 638 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 7× “” See also former A.R.S. § 25-214(A), which read: “Married women of the age of twenty-one years and upwards have the same legal rights and are subject to the same legal liabilities as men of the age of twenty-one years and upwards except the right to make contracts binding the…”

Birdsell v. Petersen (In Re Petersen), 437 B.R. 858 (D. Ariz. 2010). · cites it 19× “Defendant posits that A.R.S. §§ 25-214 and 25-315, “sever[] the spouse’s rights to independently manage, control and dispose of community property!.”

United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002). · cites it 2× “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-214 (C) (2000); Cal.”

Citibank v. Van Velzer, 982 P.2d 833 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “4 Further, Co-wan and Young focused on the relationship between the accommodation party and the holder, and did not involve any issue regarding § 25-214, which focuses on the relationship between the spouses.”

First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari, 399 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “1999) (purpose of § 25-214(0(2) is “to protect one spouse against obligations undertaken by the other spouse without the first spouse’s knowledge and consent”).”

Show all 90 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(0) — 3 cases

Garn v. Garn, 745 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).

Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta, 880 P.2d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “Meritor, however, transforms that property back into real property to invoke the protection of section 25-214. This "have your cake and eat it, too" situation benefits the marital community, particularly the signing spouse, in all situations and, as Meritor demonstrates, damages…”

Burns v. Burns, 519 P.2d 190 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(A) — 6 cases

Johnson v. Johnson, 638 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1981). “” See also former A.R.S. § 25-214(A), which read: “Married women of the age of twenty-one years and upwards have the same legal rights and are subject to the same legal liabilities as men of the age of twenty-one years and upwards except the right to make contracts binding the…”

Mead v. Nacey, 531 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).

Ferree v. City of Yuma, 603 P.2d 117 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).

First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Tatum & Bell Ctr. Assocs., 821 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

Vance-Koepnick v. Koepnick, 3 P.3d 1082 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(B) — 19 cases

Birdsell v. Petersen (In Re Petersen), 437 B.R. 858 (D. Ariz. 2010). “Defendant posits that A.R.S. §§ 25-214 and 25-315, “sever[] the spouse’s rights to independently manage, control and dispose of community property!.”

Neal v. Neal, 570 P.2d 758 (Ariz. 1977).

Garn v. Garn, 745 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).

Eng v. Stein, 599 P.2d 796 (Ariz. 1979).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(C) — 38 cases

MacCollum v. Perkinson, 913 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “A.R.S. § 25-214. These include "[a]ny transaction for the acquisition, disposition or encumbrance of an interest in real property" and "[a]ny transaction of guaranty, indemnity or suretyship.”

Consol. Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm, 682 P.2d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that there had been a “joinder” for purposes of A.R.S. § 25-214. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon the following language in Hamada v.”

Rackmaster Sys., Inc. v. Maderia, 193 P.3d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “However, it limits such power by providing in part that: “Except as prohibited in § 25-214, either spouse may contract debts and otherwise act for the benefit of the community.”

Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss, 238 P.3d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “AR.S. § 25-214. Section 25-214 requires such joinder after service of a petition for dissolution of marriage when that petition ends in dissolution, but it does not require joinder for fees incurred before the petition is filed, or for fees incurred when no dissolution…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(C)(1) — 8 cases

Hammett v. Hammett, 453 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “See A.R.S. § 25-214(C). Wife argues that because A.”

Geronimo Hotel & Lodge v. Putzi, 728 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1986). “A.R.S. § 25-214. However, the lease warranted both title and the purported lessor’s authority to enter into the lease.”

Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest, 449 P.3d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(C)(2) — 20 cases

First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari, 399 P.3d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “1999) (purpose of § 25-214(0(2) is “to protect one spouse against obligations undertaken by the other spouse without the first spouse’s knowledge and consent”).”

Lorenz-Auxier Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Bidewell, 772 P.2d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(C)(3) — 4 cases

Hammett v. Hammett, 453 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “See A.R.S. § 25-214(C). Wife argues that because A.”

Rosenbaum v. Lovely (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

Ramsay v. Wheeler-ramsay, 232 P.3d 1249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Cardinal & Stachel, P.C. v. Curtiss Est. of Leela Curtiss (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(C)(l) — 2 cases

Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 658 P.2d 210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Meritor Sav. Bank v. Camelback Canyon Investors, 792 F. Supp. 697 (D. Ariz. 1992).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(c)(2) — 1 case

Sadeghi v. Majaly (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-214(c)(l) — 1 case

Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 658 P.2d 210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.