Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 32-714 (2026)
Community property and homestead — Revision on appeal.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Community property and homestead — Revision on appeal.
The disposition of the community property, and of the homestead, as above provided, is subject to revision on appeal in all particulars, including those which are stated to be in the discretion of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1951–2010 · leading case: Barrett v. Barrett, 232 P.3d 799 (Idaho 2010).
Barrett v. Barrett, 232 P.3d 799 (Idaho 2010). “[3] Although this Court possesses authority to revise the disposition of community property on appeal, I.C. § 32-714, the determination whether property has been transmuted is a question of fact turning on intent.”
Hooker v. Hooker, 511 P.2d 800 (Idaho 1973). “We have reviewed the matter at length, and after considering the evidence and the disposition of the property made by the trial court, we are of the opinion that the trial court's distribution, taken as a whole, is equitable.”
Lawson v. Lawson, 394 P.2d 1008 (Idaho 1964). “I.C. § 32-714 provides however, that the disposition of the community property is subject to revision on appeal in all particulars, i.”
Davis v. Davis, 353 P.2d 1079 (Idaho 1960). “We are aware of the rule that where a marriage is dissolved on grounds of adultery or extreme cruelty, the disposition of the community property is committed to the discretion of the trial court in the first instance, I.”
Rankin v. Rankin, 691 P.2d 1236 (Idaho 1984). “See I.C. § 32-714, which provides: “The disposition of the community property and of the homestead, as above provided, is subject to revision on appeal in all particulars, including those which are stated to be in the discretion of the court.”
Nielsen v. Nielsen, 394 P.2d 625 (Idaho 1964). “Although this court has authority on appeal to modify the trial court’s decree regarding the disposition of the community property (I.C. § 32-714), our attention has not been called to the existence of any special equities on the side of appellant which would justify us in…”
McNett v. McNett, 501 P.2d 1059 (Idaho 1972). “Although this Court has the statutory power to revise all particulars of the community property disposition made by the lower court (I.C. § 32-714), we think that in this case it would be more appropriate to remand the case so that the district court may hear any further…”
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 245 P.2d 785 (Idaho 1952). “nnecessary to consider the grounds which were urged by appellant and the court found constituted cruelty, justifying the divorce, except to note that respondent’s indifference to appellant and his association with another woman, though not illicit, caused appellant such…”
Warner v. Warner, 283 P.2d 931 (Idaho 1955). “Both parties testified quite fully as to the character and value of property acquired subsequently to the marriage in March, 1953.”
Jordan v. Jordan, 275 P.2d 669 (Idaho 1954). “However, we have recognized that under Section 32-714, I.C., the disposition made of the community property is subject to the paramount and superior discretion.”
Empey v. Empey, 296 P.2d 1028 (Idaho 1956). “Where a divorce is granted on grounds of extreme cruelty, the disposition of the community property is committed to the discretion of the trial judge in the first instance; Smiley v. Smiley, 46 Idaho 588 , 269 P.”
Farmer v. Farmer, 340 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1959). “589 , subject however, to the paramount and superior discretion of the appellate court, and more than one-half may be awarded non-offending spouse; I.C. § 32-714; Jordan v. Jordan, 75 Idaho 512 , 275 P.”
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.