spouse claim in Arizona

2023It is true that a spouse may have a claim for reimbursement against “abnormal or excessive expenditures” of community funds by the other spouse upon showing that the community funds were “waste[d].” Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 7 (App. 1998).

2019Accordingly, the terms of the decree and DRO are not subject to post-judgment modification unless the court is satisfied relief is warranted pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85(b).3 See A.R.S. § 25-327(A) (“The provisions 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.”); Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74, 80, ¶ 17 (App. 2007) (holding a property settlement agreement is subject to relief under the civil counterpart to Rule 85); Schmidt, 158 Ari

2015Code § 2251 codifies the putative spouse doctrine, and directing the court to treat property acquired during the relationship as community property), disapproved on other grounds by Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 302 P.3d 211, 219 (Cal. 2013). 7 We cite to the 1992 version of the statute, as the statute was amended in 1996 to read “[m]arriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25–101.” See 1996 Ariz. Sess.

2015Code § 2251 codifies the putative spouse doctrine, and directing the court to treat property acquired during the relationship as community property), disapproved on other grounds by Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 302 P.3d 211, 219 (Cal. 2013). 7 We cite to the 1992 version of the statute, as the statute was amended in 1996 to read “[m]arriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25–101.” See 1996 Ariz. Sess.

2015See Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 335 , 256 P.2d 712, 714 (1953) (recognizing the right of an innocent party who believes there was a good faith marriage may be entitled to recover proportionate share of the property accumulated during the relationship); see also, Cal. Fam.

2015See Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 335 , 256 P.2d 712, 714 (1953) (recognizing the right of an innocent party who believes there was a good faith marriage may be entitled to recover proportionate share of the property accumulated during the relationship); see also, Cal. Fam.

2015Code § 4452 (1983) that codified the putative spouse doctrine); Estate of DePasse, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 143, 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (noting that Cal. Fam.

2014Kingsbery v. Kingsbery, 93 Ariz. 217, 225 , 379 P.2d 893, 898 (1963); In re Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 538, ¶ 27 , 225 P.3d 588, 595 (App. 2010).

2014Kingsbery v. Kingsbery, 93 Ariz. 217, 225 , 379 P.2d 893, 898 (1963); In re Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 538, ¶ 27 , 225 P.3d 588, 595 (App. 2010).

2014Kingsbery v. Kingsbery, 93 Ariz. 217, 225 , 379 P.2d 893, 898 (1963); In re Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 538, ¶ 27 , 225 P.3d 588, 595 (App. 2010).

2014Kingsbery v. Kingsbery, 93 Ariz. 217, 225 , 379 P.2d 893, 898 (1963); In re Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 538, ¶ 27 , 225 P.3d 588, 595 (App. 2010).

2000A creditor is not bound by the allocation.” Id. ¶ 16 However, in a scenario closer to the present one, in Elia v. Pifer this court held that “[a] valid premarital agreement abrogating community property rights precludes a creditor of one spouse from proceeding against the separate property of the other spouse on a claim arising during marriage.” Elia, 194 Ariz. at 84, ¶ 51 , 977 P.2d at 806 .

2000A creditor is not bound by the allocation.” Id. ¶ 16 However, in a scenario closer to the present one, in Elia v. Pifer this court held that “[a] valid premarital agreement abrogating community property rights precludes a creditor of one spouse from proceeding against the separate property of the other spouse on a claim arising during marriage.” Elia, 194 Ariz. at 84, ¶ 51 , 977 P.2d at 806 .

1998She is as much entitled to be recompensed for that contribution as if it were represented by the increased value of stock in a family business. 152 Ariz. at 320 , 732 P.2d at 211 (citation omitted). ¶27 Husband cannot change the community nature of the goodwill asset by merely changing the form of its ownership through incorporation.

1998She is as much entitled to be recompensed for that contribution as if it were represented by the increased value of stock in a family business. 152 Ariz. at 320 , 732 P.2d at 211 (citation omitted). ¶27 Husband cannot change the community nature of the goodwill asset by merely changing the form of its ownership through incorporation.