A. The verified petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, annulment or legal separation shall allege that the marriage is irretrievably broken or void, that one or both of the parties desire to live separate and apart or, if the marriage is a covenant marriage, any of the grounds prescribed in section 25-903 or 25-904, whichever is appropriate, and shall set forth:
1. The birth date, occupation and address of each party and the length of domicile in this state.
2. The date of the marriage, the place at which it was performed and whether the marriage is a covenant marriage.
3. The names, birth dates and addresses of all living children, natural or adopted, common to the parties and whether the wife is pregnant.
4. The details of any agreements between the parties as to support, legal decision-making and parenting time of the children and maintenance of a spouse.
5. The relief sought.
B. Either party to the marriage may initiate the proceeding.
C. The only defense to a petition is:
1. For the dissolution of a marriage or legal separation, that the marriage is not irretrievably broken.
2. For a covenant marriage, that none of the grounds alleged for a dissolution of marriage or legal separation prescribed in section 25-903 or 25-904 is met.
3. For annulment, that the marriage is not void.
D. The court may join additional parties necessary for the exercise of its authority.
E. This section does not require a victim of domestic violence or a resident of a domestic violence shelter as defined in section 36-3001 to divulge the person's address, except that a means of communicating with the resident, such as a post office box or address of the person's attorney, must be disclosed.
Notes of Decisions
Duckstein v. Wolf, 282 P.3d 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 9× “He asserts that: (1) the trial court lacked the authority to enter the decree because Wife’s petition was not verified pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-314 (Supp. 2011); and (2) the court’s erroneous interpretation of Rule 85(C) denied Husband the opportunity to present evidence…”
Munari v. Hotham, 177 P.3d 860 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Even assuming that § 25-314 applies, 7 Petitioners do not dispute that Step-Father could be joined; in fact, it was Step-Father himself who moved to be joined.”
Garn v. Garn, 745 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “They were added as parties pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-314(D). Appellants argue that the trial court improperly added them as parties and that portions of the dissolution decree that pertain to them should be set aside.”
Lee v. Lee, 649 P.2d 997 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Craig in full payment of the alleged balance due. However, as noted, Mrs. Craig did not intervene in the action below, nor was she ordered joined as a party by the trial court pursuant to its authority under A.”
Tippit v. Lahr, 646 P.2d 291 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The court below, however, proceeded in this case without acquiring jurisdiction over any of the children, See A.R.S. § 25-314(D), and entered a judgment purporting to nullify a previous judgment granting the children a substantial property interest in appellee’s tort recovery.”
In Re Marriage of Gibbs, 258 P.3d 221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“We assume the trial court's reference in its ruling to § 25-314, rather than § 25-324, is a clerical error.”
Gersten v. Gersten, 219 P.3d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “13 A.R.S. § 25-314(D) (2007) (authorizing court to “join additional parties necessary for the exercise of its authority”); Ariz.”
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill, 960 P.2d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“section 25-314(D) allows the court to join parties “necessary for the exercise of its authority.”
Spector v. Spector, 382 P.2d 659 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 2× “She relies on A.R.S. § 25-314 which reads: “After an action for divorce is filed, the husband shall not contract any debts on account of the community property nor dispose of such property.”
Olvera v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “] However, the requirement that the child be “common to the parties” is contained not only in the clause with regard to child support, but it is also set forth in A.R.S. § 25-314(A)(3) as follows: A. The verified petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal…”
Villalba v. Villalba, 642 P.2d 901 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Either party to a decree of legal separation may file a petition for dissolution of marriage in accordance with the requirements of A.R.S. § 25-314. See A.R.S. § 25-325(B).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-314(A) — 4 cases
Duckstein v. Wolf, 282 P.3d 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“He asserts that: (1) the trial court lacked the authority to enter the decree because Wife’s petition was not verified pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-314 (Supp. 2011); and (2) the court’s erroneous interpretation of Rule 85(C) denied Husband the opportunity to present evidence…”
Munari v. Hotham, 177 P.3d 860 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Even assuming that § 25-314 applies, 7 Petitioners do not dispute that Step-Father could be joined; in fact, it was Step-Father himself who moved to be joined.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-314(A)(3) — 1 case
Olvera v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“] However, the requirement that the child be “common to the parties” is contained not only in the clause with regard to child support, but it is also set forth in A.R.S. § 25-314(A)(3) as follows: A. The verified petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-314(B) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-314(D) — 13 cases
Garn v. Garn, 745 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“They were added as parties pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-314(D). Appellants argue that the trial court improperly added them as parties and that portions of the dissolution decree that pertain to them should be set aside.”
Lee v. Lee, 649 P.2d 997 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
“Craig in full payment of the alleged balance due. However, as noted, Mrs. Craig did not intervene in the action below, nor was she ordered joined as a party by the trial court pursuant to its authority under A.”
Munari v. Hotham, 177 P.3d 860 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Even assuming that § 25-314 applies, 7 Petitioners do not dispute that Step-Father could be joined; in fact, it was Step-Father himself who moved to be joined.”
Tippit v. Lahr, 646 P.2d 291 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
“The court below, however, proceeded in this case without acquiring jurisdiction over any of the children, See A.R.S. § 25-314(D), and entered a judgment purporting to nullify a previous judgment granting the children a substantial property interest in appellee’s tort recovery.”
Gersten v. Gersten, 219 P.3d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“13 A.R.S. § 25-314(D) (2007) (authorizing court to “join additional parties necessary for the exercise of its authority”); Ariz.”
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.