A. A decree of dissolution of marriage or of legal separation is final when entered, subject to the right of appeal. An appeal from the decree of dissolution that does not challenge the finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken does not delay the finality of that provision of the decree that dissolves the marriage beyond the time for appealing from that provision, and either of the parties may remarry pending appeal. An order directing payment of money for support or maintenance of the spouse or the minor child or children shall not be suspended or the execution of the order stayed pending the appeal.
B. Either party to a decree of legal separation may file a petition for dissolution of marriage in accordance with the requirements of section 25-314. The petition shall be filed under the same case number as the legal separation but shall be considered and shall proceed as a new and separate action with service of process in accordance with rule 40 of the Arizona rules of family law procedure. The court may enter a decree of dissolution of marriage in the new action in accordance with section 25-312 on terms that are just and without regard to section 25-327, subsection A, except that the provisions as to property disposition in the decree of legal separation or any property settlement agreement approved by the court may not be revoked or modified, unless the court finds the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state.
C. On request by a party at any time before the signing of the decree of dissolution or annulment by the court, the court shall order that the party's requested former name be restored.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
Natale v. Natale, 323 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Natale v. Natale, 323 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 32× “An appeal from the decree of dissolution that does not challenge the finding 3 As noted in Reeck, § 25-325 was not cited or argued to this court in Ghadimi and was not considered.”
Quijada v. Quijada, 437 P.3d 876 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “QUIJADA Opinion of the Court valued and divided on appeal, see A.R.S. § 25-325(A) (“A decree of dissolution of marriage .”
Reeck v. Mendoza, 304 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Like Civil Rule 54(b), Family Rule 78(B) states that a court has the discretion to enter final judgment as to “fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of…”
Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson, 390 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “¶ 27 Under A.R.S. § 25-325(A), the pendency of an appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to execute and enforce a support order, see Dyer v.”
In Re the Marriage Of: Bollermann v. Nowlis, 322 P.3d 157 (Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 3× “3d at 1125 ; see also A.R.S. §§ 25-325(A) (providing that dissolution decrees are “final when entered,” that parties may generally remarry pending appeals, and that child or spousal support orders remain effective pending appeal), -327 (child support orders).”
Marriage of Birt v. Birt, 96 P.3d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 25-325(A), -327. ¶ 18 Our holding that the division of community debts is not prospective for purposes of Rule 60(c)(5) is also supported by Twelve John Does v.”
In Re the Marriage of Gaddis, 957 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 25-325. Provisions in a decree “as to property disposition may not be revoked or modified, unless the court finds the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state.”
Danielson v. Evans, 36 P.3d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “2d 599 (1987); A.R.S. § 25-325(A); Kabat v. Nordensson, 152 Ariz.”
Brother v. Brother, 658 P.2d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 25-325 clearly indicates that the finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken may be reviewed on appeal.”
Arvizu v. Fernandez, 902 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“”) § 25-325. In 1981, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court increased the child support to $200 per month per child beginning in 1983.”
In Re Marriage of Reeder v. Johnson, 238 P.3d 123 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-325(A), the portion of the decree that dissolves the marriage remains in place.”
Smith v. Smith, 330 P.3d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See also A.R.S. § 25-325(A). In addition, no appeal was taken from the January 2011 ruling or the denial of Mother’s motion for clarification, and the time for such appeals has passed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-325(A) — 15 cases
Natale v. Natale, 323 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“An appeal from the decree of dissolution that does not challenge the finding 3 As noted in Reeck, § 25-325 was not cited or argued to this court in Ghadimi and was not considered.”
Quijada v. Quijada, 437 P.3d 876 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“QUIJADA Opinion of the Court valued and divided on appeal, see A.R.S. § 25-325(A) (“A decree of dissolution of marriage .”
Reeck v. Mendoza, 304 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“Like Civil Rule 54(b), Family Rule 78(B) states that a court has the discretion to enter final judgment as to “fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of…”
Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson, 390 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶ 27 Under A.R.S. § 25-325(A), the pendency of an appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to execute and enforce a support order, see Dyer v.”
In Re the Marriage Of: Bollermann v. Nowlis, 322 P.3d 157 (Ariz. 2014).
“3d at 1125 ; see also A.R.S. §§ 25-325(A) (providing that dissolution decrees are “final when entered,” that parties may generally remarry pending appeals, and that child or spousal support orders remain effective pending appeal), -327 (child support orders).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-325(B) — 4 cases
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.