reimbursement claim in Arizona

2026Barron v. Barron, 246 Ariz. 580, 591, ¶¶ 43-44 (App. 2018), vacated in part on other grounds. ¶38 Here, the superior court found the case did not present “a unique set of facts or circumstances,” and “[t]herefore, an equal division of community property is appropriate to achieve equity.” But it did not address Husband’s request for reimbursement of post-petition mortgage payments, which he made at trial and in his pre-trial statement. ¶39 Husband testified that he paid $1,578.64 per month on the mortgage from September 2023 through the date of trial and produced supporting documentation.

2022However, in Bobrow, 241 Ariz. at 595, ¶ 14 , the husband was not obligated to pay spousal maintenance after the petition was filed in accordance with a premarital agreement, so the court could not consider the wife’s need for post-petition support as it did in Barron, 246 Ariz. at 591, ¶ 43. ¶22 In Barron, we affirmed denial of a reimbursement claim based in part on this inference.

2022However, in Bobrow, 241 Ariz. at 595, ¶ 14 , the husband was not obligated to pay spousal maintenance after the petition was filed in accordance with a premarital agreement, so the court could not consider the wife’s need for post-petition support as it did in Barron, 246 Ariz. at 591, ¶ 43. ¶22 In Barron, we affirmed denial of a reimbursement claim based in part on this inference.

2018Id. at 596-97, ¶¶ 15-20 . ¶14 Wife argues that Husband’s mortgage payments should be excepted from the reimbursement rule outlined in Bobrow because, in that case, the spouses both continued to live in the marital residence during the relevant period. 241 Ariz. at 594 n. 4, ¶ 5.

2026See Barron v. Barron, 246 Ariz. 580, 591, ¶¶ 43-44 (App. 2018), vacated in part on other grounds, 246 Ariz. 449 . ¶22 Father first contends he should be reimbursed for post- petition mortgage payments on the marital residence, which was determined to be his sole and separate property.

2022Baum v. Baum, 120 Ariz. 140, 146 (App. 1978).

2022See Morga v. Friedlander, 140 Ariz. 206 , 209–10 (App. 1984).

2021See Troutman v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 170 Ariz. 513, 517 (App. 1992) (“The party who asserts a fact has the burden to establish that fact.”). ¶20 Here, Husband paid community obligations pursuant to temporary orders that expressly noted he might be entitled to “equalization upon entry of the final decree as a result of his interim payment[s].” But though Husband offered an exhibit summarizing the expenses he claimed to have paid, he did not disclose the statements, bills, or other documentation upon which the summary was based, so the court excluded the summary.

1992App.2d 635 , 270 N.E.2d 616, 622 (1971) (reimbursement clause in a rental agreement was unenforceable and the rental agency's insurance company could not collect for damages paid to a third party pursuant to the Illinois for-rent motor vehicle financial responsibility statute, even though they were incurred by the renter while driving contrary to the terms of the contract, because enforcing the reimbursement clause would effectively nullify the insurance coverage required by the statute given the broad restrictions in the contract).

1992Co. v. Nelsen Steel & Wire Co., 132 Ill.App.2d 635 , 270 N.E.2d 616, 622 (1971) (reimbursement clause in a rental agreement was unenforceable and the rental agency’s insurance company could not collect for damages paid to a third party pursuant to the Illinois for-rent motor vehicle financial responsibility statute, even though they were incurred by the renter while driving contrary to the terms of the contract, because enforcing the reimbursement clause would effectively nullify the insurance coverage required by the statute given the broad restrictions in the contract).