Monkman v. Arellano, 156 P.3d 1140 (Ariz. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Monkman v. Arellano, 156 P.3d 1140 (Ariz. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the individual seeking modification has the burden of establishing changed circumstances with competent evidence.”
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Senter v. Senter (arizctapp, 2016-07-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Senter v. Senter
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the individual seeking modification has the burden of establishing changed circumstances with competent evidence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Poage v. Brooks
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jenkins, 215 Ariz. at 39, ¶ 16.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amadore v. Lifgren (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Id. at 39, ¶ 16.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hitt v. Hitt
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
The parent seeking the modification “has the burden of establishing changed circumstances with competent evidence.” Jenkins, 215 Ariz. at 39, ¶ 16, 156 P.3d at 1144. ¶8 Mother asserted there had been a substantial and continuing change in circumstances, yet offered no explanation or evidence of what had changed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nash v. Nash
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
The superior court has broad latitude to fashion an appropriate award of child support, and we will uphold the award unless it is “devoid of competent evidence.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 215 Ariz. 35, 37, ¶ 8 , 156 P.3d 1140, 1142 (App.2007) (quotation omitted). ¶ 17 At trial, Mother called Michael Mxs-kei, a certified public accountant, who testified that based on the family’s historical expenditures, Mother was entitled to receive $22,500 in monthly child support. 6 On appeal, Mother argues the superior court erred by holding that because she failed to prove she is entitled to that precis…
cited Cited "see" state/michaelson v. Michaelson
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See 215 Ariz. at 37, 39, ¶¶ 4-5, 17; 26 U.S.C. § 1031 (outlining like- kind exchanges of real property and federal income tax consequences).
discussed Cited "see" Milinovich v. Womack
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jenkins v. Jenkins, 215 Ariz. 35, 39, ¶ 15 , 156 P.3d 1140, 1144 (App.2007) (concluding that sale of farmland was not gross income for purposes of calculating child support because land was exchanged for other like-kind property); Burnette v. Bender, 184 Ariz. 301, 304 , 908 P.2d 1086,1089 (App.1995) (concluding that capital gain from sale of commercial fishing boat was not gross income for purposes of calculating child support; only the interest produced from capital gain was in-cludable as gross income).
discussed Cited "see" Budavari v. Glenn
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jenkins v. Jenkins, 215 Ariz. 35 , 40, ¶ 21, 156 P.3d 1140 , 1145 (App. 2007) (finding no abuse of discretion in family court’s denial of mother’s request for modification of child support because mother failed to establish that father’s employment or earnings had undergone a substantial and continuing change).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John MONKMAN
v.
Hon. Silvia R. ARELLANO, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Pinal, Judge, Michael Apelt Rudi Apelt and State of Arizona ex rel. Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General, Real Parties in Interest
No. CV-07-0136-PR.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Apr 26, 2007.
156 P.3d 1140
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 83%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Arizona (1)

ORDER

Petitioner John Monkman has filed a Petition for Review of a Special Action Decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals and a Request for Interlocutory Stay of the Proceedings or, in the Alternative, for Expedited Special Action Hearing and Decision. Real Party in Interest Rudi Apelt has filed a response to the request for stay or expedited decision.

IT IS ORDERED that the request for interlocutory stay is denied, as petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for a stay under Rule 5 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for expedited decision on the petition for review of a special action decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for review is denied, as petitioner has not established that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in declining to accept special action jurisdiction.

A panel composed of Chief Justice McGre-gor, Vice Chief Justice Berch and Justice Bales participated in the determination of this matter.

For the Court:

/s/ W SCOTT BALES

W SCOTT BALES, Justice.