Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 05-04-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: FN2020-004318
Judge: Glenn A. Allen
Court: Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Phoenix, Arizona family law lawyers represented the parties in a dispute over ownership for a house.
¶2 Husband and Wife met in 2011 and began living together sometime between late 2011 and early 2012. In 2013, three years before they married, Husband and Wife signed a contract to purchase a house on 5th Street in Phoenix ("the House"). The deed conveying the House listed only Husband as grantee. Husband and Wife lived together in the House for a few months before moving into another home they purchased together; they then rented out the House. The couple married in 2016, and Wife petitioned for divorce in 2020.
¶3 Wife conceded the House was not community property but claimed she had an interest in it based on an alleged agreement with Husband to combine financial resources and jointly purchase properties. She relied on Cook v. Cook, 142 Ariz. 573 (1984) (holding in part that unmarried cohabiting couples could enter enforceable agreements to pool their income and divide assets), and Carroll v. Lee, 148 Ariz. 10 (1986) (holding in part that service to a shared household can be sufficient consideration to support an implied agreement between unmarried cohabitants to jointly acquire and own property) to support her contract theory and argued the cases were relevant to her claim both in her pleadings and at trial. Husband argued that the House was his sole and separate property.
¶4 Wife claimed she and Husband each paid approximately half of the $22,000 purchase price of the House, including a $10,000 down payment, using funds from joint bank accounts. Wife testified in support of her claims and introduced as evidence the purchase contract, a bank
3
statement showing a $10,000 withdrawal from a joint account shared by the parties, and "money receipts" signed by the seller of the House stating he received payments totaling $19,000 from the parties. In 2021, before the dissolution trial was set, Wife filed a separate civil lawsuit against Husband asserting an interest in the House.
¶5 The superior court assigned the House to Husband as his sole and separate property in the dissolution decree. Wife appeals. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") Sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
* * *
¶2 Husband and Wife met in 2011 and began living together sometime between late 2011 and early 2012. In 2013, three years before they married, Husband and Wife signed a contract to purchase a house on 5th Street in Phoenix ("the House"). The deed conveying the House listed only Husband as grantee. Husband and Wife lived together in the House for a few months before moving into another home they purchased together; they then rented out the House. The couple married in 2016, and Wife petitioned for divorce in 2020.
¶3 Wife conceded the House was not community property but claimed she had an interest in it based on an alleged agreement with Husband to combine financial resources and jointly purchase properties. She relied on Cook v. Cook, 142 Ariz. 573 (1984) (holding in part that unmarried cohabiting couples could enter enforceable agreements to pool their income and divide assets), and Carroll v. Lee, 148 Ariz. 10 (1986) (holding in part that service to a shared household can be sufficient consideration to support an implied agreement between unmarried cohabitants to jointly acquire and own property) to support her contract theory and argued the cases were relevant to her claim both in her pleadings and at trial. Husband argued that the House was his sole and separate property.
¶4 Wife claimed she and Husband each paid approximately half of the $22,000 purchase price of the House, including a $10,000 down payment, using funds from joint bank accounts. Wife testified in support of her claims and introduced as evidence the purchase contract, a bank
3
statement showing a $10,000 withdrawal from a joint account shared by the parties, and "money receipts" signed by the seller of the House stating he received payments totaling $19,000 from the parties. In 2021, before the dissolution trial was set, Wife filed a separate civil lawsuit against Husband asserting an interest in the House.
¶5 The superior court assigned the House to Husband as his sole and separate property in the dissolution decree. Wife appeals. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") Sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
Outcome: Afformed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: