Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 25
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215 (2026)

Liability of community property and separate property for community and separate debts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The separate property of a spouse shall not be liable for the separate debts or obligations of the other spouse, absent agreement of the property owner to the contrary.

B. The community property is liable for the premarital separate debts or other liabilities of a spouse, incurred after September 1, 1973 but only to the extent of the value of that spouse's contribution to the community property which would have been such spouse's separate property if single.

C. The community property is liable for a spouse's debts incurred outside of this state during the marriage which would have been community debts if incurred in this state.

D. Except as prohibited in section 25-214, either spouse may contract debts and otherwise act for the benefit of the community. In an action on such a debt or obligation the spouses shall be sued jointly and the debt or obligation shall be satisfied: first, from the community property, and second, from the separate property of the spouse contracting the debt or obligation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Alberta Sec. Comm'n v. Ryckman, 30 P.3d 121 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alberta Sec. Comm'n v. Ryckman, 30 P.3d 121 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “1999), we held that a judgment rendered against one spouse in a non-community property jurisdiction may be enforced against the community’s property consistent with due process as long as (1) the obligation on which the foreign judgment was based would have been a community…”
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Greene, 985 P.2d 590 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 15× “A.R.S. § 25-215 requires that a cause of action based upon such a community obligation be brought against both the husband and wife.”
C & J Travel, Inc. v. Shumway, 775 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 16× “§ 25-215(C) and (D) were stated by this court in Vikse: The reason for the statutory provision making the community liable for community obligations incurred outside the state is to protect the rights of those creditors regardless of the fact that the obligation was not incurred…”
Flexmaster Aluminum Awning Co., Inc. v. Hirschberg, 839 P.2d 1128 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 15× “The subsection pertinent to this appeal states: The community property is liable for the premarital separate debts or other liabilities of a spouse, incurred after September 1, 1973 but only to the extent of the value of that spouse’s contribution to the community property which…”
Rackmaster Sys., Inc. v. Maderia, 193 P.3d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 13× “1 Raekmaster asserted that the Mmnesota judgment arose from a community pursmt, was a community debt, and was entitled to full faith and credit.”
Oyakawa v. Gillett, 854 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “In this Court’s opinion, the above procedure does not comply with the dictates of A.R.S. 25-215 and fails to give the community of Arizona residents the protection of the “unique” requirements of the enactments of our legislature.”
Eng v. Stein, 599 P.2d 796 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 25-215 requires that a cause of action based upon such a community obligation be brought against both the husband and wife.”
Vikse v. Johnson, 672 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 14× “Even if this court were free to do this, this is certainly not the right case.”
Vikse v. Johnson, 672 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 14× “The appellants urge that Arizona should follow this lead in order to protect the innocent victim. Even if this court were free to do this, this is certainly not the right case.”
Deluna v. Petitto, 450 P.3d 1273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 25-215(B); see also Potthoff v. Potthoff, 128 Ariz.”
Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim, 193 P.3d 802 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 13× “”) section 25-215(0 (2007), Count II sought recovery against Hashim individually, and Count III sought recovery against the marital community to the extent of any contributions by Hashim pursuant to A.”
Heinig v. Hudman, 865 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “But see A.R.S. § 25-215(B) (1991): "The community property is liable for the premarital separate debts or other liabilities of a spouse, incurred after September 1, 1973 but only to the extent of the value of that spouse’s contribution to the community property which would have…”
Show all 89 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(A) — 5 cases
Lorenz-Auxier Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Bidewell, 772 P.2d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
GAF Corp. v. Diamond Carpet Corp., 572 P.2d 125 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
Hernandez v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
Lattin v. Shamrock (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(B) — 18 cases
Flexmaster Aluminum Awning Co., Inc. v. Hirschberg, 839 P.2d 1128 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “The subsection pertinent to this appeal states: The community property is liable for the premarital separate debts or other liabilities of a spouse, incurred after September 1, 1973 but only to the extent of the value of that spouse’s contribution to the community property which…”
Deluna v. Petitto, 450 P.3d 1273 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “See A.R.S. § 25-215(B); see also Potthoff v. Potthoff, 128 Ariz.”
Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim, 193 P.3d 802 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “”) section 25-215(0 (2007), Count II sought recovery against Hashim individually, and Count III sought recovery against the marital community to the extent of any contributions by Hashim pursuant to A.”
Marriage of Hines v. Hines, 707 P.2d 969 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Carpenter v. Carpenter, 722 P.2d 298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(C) — 12 cases
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Greene, 985 P.2d 590 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “A.R.S. § 25-215 requires that a cause of action based upon such a community obligation be brought against both the husband and wife.”
Alberta Sec. Comm'n v. Ryckman, 30 P.3d 121 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “1999), we held that a judgment rendered against one spouse in a non-community property jurisdiction may be enforced against the community’s property consistent with due process as long as (1) the obligation on which the foreign judgment was based would have been a community…”
Vikse v. Johnson, 672 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “Even if this court were free to do this, this is certainly not the right case.”
Vikse v. Johnson, 672 P.2d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “The appellants urge that Arizona should follow this lead in order to protect the innocent victim. Even if this court were free to do this, this is certainly not the right case.”
Lorenz-Auxier Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Bidewell, 772 P.2d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(D) — 48 cases
C & J Travel, Inc. v. Shumway, 775 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “§ 25-215(C) and (D) were stated by this court in Vikse: The reason for the statutory provision making the community liable for community obligations incurred outside the state is to protect the rights of those creditors regardless of the fact that the obligation was not incurred…”
Alberta Sec. Comm'n v. Ryckman, 30 P.3d 121 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “1999), we held that a judgment rendered against one spouse in a non-community property jurisdiction may be enforced against the community’s property consistent with due process as long as (1) the obligation on which the foreign judgment was based would have been a community…”
Rackmaster Sys., Inc. v. Maderia, 193 P.3d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “1 Raekmaster asserted that the Mmnesota judgment arose from a community pursmt, was a community debt, and was entitled to full faith and credit.”
Oyakawa v. Gillett, 854 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “In this Court’s opinion, the above procedure does not comply with the dictates of A.R.S. 25-215 and fails to give the community of Arizona residents the protection of the “unique” requirements of the enactments of our legislature.”
MacCollum v. Perkinson, 913 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(D)(10) — 1 case
Nat'l Bank of Arizona v. Moore, 122 P.3d 1265 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(D)(1991) — 2 cases
Elia v. Pifer, 977 P.2d 796 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
Samaritan Health Sys. v. Caldwell, 957 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(d) — 1 case
Heinig v. Hudman, 865 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “But see A.R.S. § 25-215(B) (1991): "The community property is liable for the premarital separate debts or other liabilities of a spouse, incurred after September 1, 1973 but only to the extent of the value of that spouse’s contribution to the community property which would have…”
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.