Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialcorporationdivorce
appealtrialdivorce

Related Cases

In re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms, 116 Cal.App.4th 201, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 146, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2531
View Case »
Friese v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.App.4th 693, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 558, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,141, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,852, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 972
View Case »
In re Estate of Toland, 180 Wash.2d 836, 329 P.3d 878
View Case »
United Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers of America v. 163 Pleasant Street Corp., 960 F.2d 1080, 15 Employee Benefits Cas. 1187
View Case »
Deluxe Ice Cream Co. v. R.C.H. Tool Corp., 726 F.2d 1209
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sample v. Sample, 152 Ariz. 239, 731 P.2d 604, 55 USLW 2479

Facts

Leonard E. Sample (husband) and Alice J. Sample (wife) were married for thirty-four years before the dissolution of their marriage on April 29, 1980. The original decree awarded the husband 72,922 shares of MEI corporate stock as his separate property. During the appeal, the husband received additional shares due to a stock split and sold shares to a Panamanian corporation in exchange for installment notes. The Court of Appeals later ruled that the stock should be treated as community property, leading to the trial court's decision to award the wife a ½ interest in the proceeds from the installment notes and dividends.

The pertinent facts are substantially uncontroverted. On April 29, 1980, Leonard E. Sample (husband) obtained a judgment of dissolution of his marriage to his wife of thirty-four years, Alice J. Sample (wife). The judgment also awarded 72,922 shares of MEI corporate stock (the stock) to the husband as his separate property. Wife appealed this aspect of the decree.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in dividing community property by valuing it as of a date other than the date of the original divorce decree?

The primary issue for us to determine in this dissolution case is whether the trial court, in dividing rights to community property on remand from an appellate court, abused its discretion when it valued the property as of a date other than the date of the original divorce decree.

Rule

The trial court has broad discretion in determining the scope of property awards in divorce actions, and the division of community assets must result in substantial equality.

It has long been recognized that under A.R.S. § 25–318 (A) our trial courts are vested with broad discretion in determining the scope of property awards in divorce actions.

Analysis

The court found that the trial court's choice of valuation date was legally correct under A.R.S. § 25–318 (A). The trial court traced the stock to award the wife a ½ interest in each installment note, redistributing benefits received by the husband pursuant to an erroneous judgment. The court emphasized that the equitableness of the result must stand the test of fairness on review.

Applying these standards to the case before us, this court finds no abuse of discretion. The trial court traced the stock to award the wife a ½ interest in each installment note and thereby redistributed to the wife the benefits received by the husband pursuant to an erroneous judgment.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the valuation date chosen for the community property.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Who won?

Wife prevailed in the case because the court upheld the trial court's decision to award her a ½ interest in the proceeds of the installment notes and stock dividends, affirming the equitable distribution of community property.

Wife suggests that this sale was not actually ratified until after this court's resolution of wife's appeal. While we acknowledge the factual dispute, we find it immaterial to the resolution of this case.

You must be