A. The court shall enter a decree of dissolution of marriage if it finds each of the following:
1. That one of the parties, at the time the action was commenced, was domiciled in this state or was stationed in this state while a member of the armed services and that in either case the domicile or military presence has been maintained for ninety days before filing the petition for dissolution of marriage.
2. The conciliation provisions of section 25-381.09 and the provisions of article 5 of this chapter either do not apply or have been met.
3. The marriage is irretrievably broken.
4. If the marriage is a covenant marriage, any of the grounds prescribed in section 25-903.
B. If both of the parties by petition or otherwise state under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken or if one of the parties so states and the other does not deny it, the court shall make a finding as to whether the marriage is irretrievably broken.
C. If one of the parties denies under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall hold a hearing to consider all relevant factors as to the prospect of reconciliation and shall do either of the following:
1. Make a finding as to whether the marriage is irretrievably broken.
2. Continue the matter for not more than sixty days for a further hearing. At the request of either party or on its own motion, the court may order a conciliation conference. At the next hearing the court shall make a finding as to whether the marriage is irretrievably broken.
D. A finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken is a determination that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
E. To the extent it has jurisdiction to do so, the court shall make provisions for legal decision-making and parenting time, the support of any natural or adopted child common to the parties of the marriage entitled to support, the maintenance of either spouse and the disposition of property.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
54
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case:
In re Marriage of Peck, 395 P.3d 734 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
In re Marriage of Peck, 395 P.3d 734 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 7× “3 Personal Jurisdiction ¶ 6 In the context of proceedings for the dissolution of marriage, A.R.S. § 25-312 authorizes the superior court to make provision for child custody, child support, the maintenance of either spouse, and the disposition of property, “[t]o the extent it has…”
Pettit v. Pettit, 189 P.3d 1102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 25-312(4) (2007) (emphasis added).”
Andrew R. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 224 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Also, in the absence of explicit language, it is unrealistic to assume a lay person would understand that the sixth-month time limit of Rule 60(c) applies when challenging a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity under A.R.S. § 25-312(E). Moreover, and most importantly, because…”
Porter v. Est. of Pigg, 854 P.2d 1180 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 10× “In that case, the court of appeals properly held: We agree with petitioner that the language of A.R.S. § 25-312 clearly mandates that all issues relative to the marital status and the termination thereof be resolved prior to entry of a decree of dissolution.”
Martin v. Martin, 752 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 25-312(1). Here, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction because Mrs.”
Cadwell v. Cadwell, 616 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 25-312 and 25-318. Other statutes require the court to consider and, if appropriate, make provision for the payment of maintenance and support for the benefit of a former spouse and children.”
Taylor v. Jarrett, 959 P.2d 807 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “These issues, though intertwined, are governed by different jurisdictional standards, and the shifting standards cause confusion when, as here, one of the parties does not reside in the forum state. ¶ 7 An Arizona court has statutory jurisdiction to enter a decree of dissolution…”
Bryan v. Bryan, 645 P.2d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Paragraph 4 of that section requires a finding that: “To the extent it has jurisdiction to do so, the court has considered, approved and made provision for child custody, the support of any natural or adopted child common to the parties of the marriage entitled to support, the…”
Williams v. Williams, 801 P.2d 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 25-312. While the state still has an interest in enforcing the support obligations that accompany marriage, this principle no longer necessarily leads to the conclusion that all antenuptial agreements concerning spousal maintenance are invalid.”
Brighton v. Superior Court, in & for Cty. of Pima, 526 P.2d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 6× “*292 A.R.S. § 25-312 provides: “Dissolution of marriage; findings necessary The court shall enter a decree of dissolution of marriage if it finds each of the following: 1.”
Marce v. Bailey, 636 P.2d 1225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 25-312. Questions of financial support, including spousal support, child support and spousal maintenance, are to be determined in the dissolution proceeding on the basis of the status and needs of the parties at the time of the dissolution, and not marital misconduct.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-312(1) — 5 cases
Martin v. Martin, 752 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. 1988).
“See A.R.S. § 25-312(1). Here, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction because Mrs.”
Taylor v. Jarrett, 959 P.2d 807 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“These issues, though intertwined, are governed by different jurisdictional standards, and the shifting standards cause confusion when, as here, one of the parties does not reside in the forum state. ¶ 7 An Arizona court has statutory jurisdiction to enter a decree of dissolution…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-312(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-312(3) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-312(4) — 5 cases
Pettit v. Pettit, 189 P.3d 1102 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“” A.R.S. § 25-312(4) (2007) (emphasis added).”
Porter v. Est. of Pigg, 854 P.2d 1180 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“In that case, the court of appeals properly held: We agree with petitioner that the language of A.R.S. § 25-312 clearly mandates that all issues relative to the marital status and the termination thereof be resolved prior to entry of a decree of dissolution.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-312(A) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-312(A)(1) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-312(E) — 4 cases
Andrew R. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 224 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“Also, in the absence of explicit language, it is unrealistic to assume a lay person would understand that the sixth-month time limit of Rule 60(c) applies when challenging a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity under A.R.S. § 25-312(E). Moreover, and most importantly, because…”
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.