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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-318.01 (2026)

Military retirement benefits; disability related waiver

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

In making a disposition of property pursuant to section 25-318 or 25-327, a court shall not do any of the following:

1. Consider any federal disability benefits awarded to a veteran for service-connected disabilities pursuant to 10 United States Code section 1413a or 38 United States Code chapter 11.

2. Indemnify the veteran's spouse or former spouse for any prejudgment or postjudgment waiver or reduction in military retired or retainer pay related to receipt of the disability benefits.

3. Award any other income or property of the veteran to the veteran's spouse or former spouse for any prejudgment or postjudgment waiver or reduction in military retired or retainer pay related to receipt of the disability benefits.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Sandra Howell v. John Howell, 361 P.3d 936 (Ariz. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sandra Howell v. John Howell, 361 P.3d 936 (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 29× “In 2010, the Arizona Legislature enacted A.R.S. § 25-318.01 to prohibit courts from “making up” for the resulting reduction in MRP by awarding additional assets to the non-military ex-spouse.”
Merrill v. Merrill, 284 P.3d 880 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 17× “¶ 21 In its order dismissing Wife’s petition, the superior court accepted Husband’s contention that A.R.S. § 25-318.01 (West 2012) foi’bids the relief Wife sought.”
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz, 435 P.3d 1032 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “¶21 Husband also argues the superior court erred by considering his military benefit based on A.R.S. § 25-318.01, which provides that when making a property disposition, a court cannot "[c]onsider any federal disability benefits awarded to a veteran for service-connected…”
In Re Marriage of Dougall, 316 P.3d 591 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “The trial court therefore did not err by considering Richard’s VA disability benefits in determining his ability to pay the arrearages.”
Diane Merrill v. Robert Kenneth Merrill, 362 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 24× “A.R.S. § 25-318.01. We recently held that neither federal law nór § 25-318.”
In Re the Marriage of Priessman, 266 P.3d 362 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “Because Kurt's appeal does not involve the legal processes described in § 12-1539, or the disposition of property implicating § 25-318.01, we limit our analysis to the applicability of § 25-530.”
Cassinelli v. Cassinelli, 4 Cal. App. 5th 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “( Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-318.01 , 25.530.) However, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that these statutes apply only when the original divorce judgment dividing the retired pay was entered after the statutes’ effective date.”
Servin v. state/quezada (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Without explanation, Father cites A.R.S. § 25-318.01, which prohibits a court making “a disposition of property pursuant to [A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-318.01(1) — 1 case
Merrill v. Merrill, 284 P.3d 880 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “¶ 21 In its order dismissing Wife’s petition, the superior court accepted Husband’s contention that A.R.S. § 25-318.01 (West 2012) foi’bids the relief Wife sought.”
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.