Commingling Separate Property With Community Property in Arizona
DUE TO COVID-19 AND OUR NEED TO ENSURE THE HEALTH OF OUR CLIENTS, ALL INITIAL CLIENT CONSULTATIONS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY PHONE. YOU MAY CALL US AT (480)305-8300 TO SCHEDULE A TELEPHONE CALL WITH ONE OF OUR EXPERIENCED FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS.
Earnings of either spouse during a marriage are community property in Arizona. However, any money earned or assets acquired before marriage by a spouse is the separate property of that spouse.
An increase in the value of that separate property during the marriage is also separate property. However, if the spouse’s efforts during marriage caused the increase, there could be a community property interest in that separate property.
In Porter v Porter, 195 P.2d 132 (1948) the Arizona Supreme Court considered the fairness of a property division in an Arizona divorce.
Facts of the Case
Mr. Porter and Mrs. Porter were married in 1928. The husband owned considerable property before the marriage including interests in two corporations, one of which employed him. The wife owned nothing before the marriage and she did not work outside the home during the marriage.
The couple had two children and remained married for almost 20 years. During that time, Mr. Porter’s accountants kept very detailed records of his money. His wages from his job were deposited into a joint bank account. His earnings from his holdings were placed in other accounts.
The husband’s earnings did not meet the family’s needs. Therefore, he often transferred money from his separate accounts to the joint account, keeping careful records. When the couple divorced, his separate accounts contained a lot of money.
The trial court hired a Special Master to inspect the books. It found that the vast bulk of the money and assets were Mr. Porter’s separate property and awarded it to him. Mrs. Porter was given custody of the children, the family residence, and alimony. Both spouses appealed from the decision. Each essentially argued the court divided the property inappropriately.
Arizona Law Regarding Separate Property of Married People
The Court of Appeals stated it was not necessary to break new legal ground in this appeal. Rather, it simply applied clear Arizona law to the facts of the case. It first recited that law.
In Arizona, all income earned and property acquired by either spouse during a marriage is presumed to be community property. In order for one spouse to rebut this, he must present clear, convincing, nearly conclusive evidence the property is his separate property. That evidence must show that property is his separate property, and doubts will be resolved in favor of it being community property.
On the other hand, in Arizona, the property that a husband owns before marriage is separate property. All the increase, rents and profits from that property are also his separate property.
Money earned from a separately owned business can be partly or completely community property. That is what happens if the increase results from that spouse’s efforts during the marriage.
Court Did Not Find Commingling
The wife argues that because the couple blended separate and community funds, the separate property lost its separative characteristic. However, the Court said mingling alone does not cause the separate property to lose its character. That only applies when commingling “results in confusion and loss of identity of separate items entering into the combined fund.” This did not happen with Harold’s separate money.
The Court found that the husband’s income was at all times distinguishable. Although separate and community property was sometimes mixed, the husband’s separate property could always be determined.
Listing Property as Community on Taxes Not Conclusive
Wife points to the fact that Harold listed all of his property as community property on his income tax returns. She says that stops him from claiming otherwise in divorce court. The Court, however, did not agree. It said this was evidence for the trial court to consider, but not conclusive evidence.
The Court also rejected the wife’s next argument. She argued that the fact that her name was on the deeds and conveyances meant that Mr. Porter gifted her half. The Court noted that lenders, not Husband, put her name in the documents. Therefore, the Court could not find that Harold intended a gift to her.
Trial Court Incorrectly Found House to Be Community Property
The trial court declared the family home to be community property and awarded it to the wife. The Court of Appeals found that it was the husband’s separate property. It awarded the house to him and increased wife’s alimony by $200 for housing expenses.
The Court amended the trial court’s decision, awarding the family home to the husband, and increasing wife’s family support by $200 per month.
If you need information about commingling separate property in Arizona, you should seriously consider contacting the attorneys at Hildebrand Law, PC. Our Arizona divorce attorneys have over 100 years of combined experience successfully representing clients in divorce cases in Arizona.
Our family law firm has earned numerous awards such as US News and World Reports Best Arizona Family Law Firm, US News and World Report Best Divorce Attorneys, “Best of the Valley” by Arizona Foothills readers, and “Best Arizona Divorce Law Firms” by North Scottsdale Magazine.
Call us today at (480)305-8300 or reach out to us through our appointment scheduling form to schedule your personalized consultation and turn your Arizona divorce case around today.
Arizona Family Law Attorneys in Scottsdale and Tucson Arizona
Other Articles About Community Property in Arizona
- Community Lien on Sole and Separate Property in Arizona
- Community Lien in Arizona
- Community Liens Separate Property in Arizona
- Community Property and Personal Guaranty in Arizona
- Determining Community Versus Sole Property in Arizona
- The difference Between Community and Separate Property in Arizona
- Disclaimer Deed in a Divorce in Arizona
- Divide Retirement Accounts in an Arizona Divorce
- Dividing Property Not Included in Divorce Decree in Arizona
- Division of Debt in an Arizona Divorce
- Do Rules Regarding Property Apply to Debts in an Arizona Divorce
- Enforce Division of Property and Debt in an Arizona Divorce
- Enforcing a Property Settlement Agreement in Arizona
- Filing a Lis Pendens in a Divorce in Arizona
- How is Property Divided in a Divorce in Arizona
- How to Divide Property in Arizona When a Spouse is Hiding Assets
- Is All Property Community Property in Arizona
- Is Arizona a 50 50 State in a Divorce
- Is Separate Property Divided in Arizona Divorce
- Marital Property Laws in Arizona
- Military Retirement Pay and Divorce in Arizona
- Pensions and Divorce in Arizona
- Separate Property Used to Purchase a Home During Marriage in Arizona
- Sole and Separate Property Divorce Arizona
- Is a Spouse Liable for Credit Card Debt in Arizona
- Stock Options Divided in an Arizona Divorce Case
- Stock Options in an Arizona Divorce
- Unequal Division of Property in Arizona Divorce
- Unfair Separation Agreement in Arizona
- Valuation and Distribution Options For Pensions in an Arizona Divorce
- What is Community Property in Arizona
- What is Separate Property in Arizona
Chris Hildebrand wrote the information on this page about commingling separate property in Arizona to ensure everyone has access to information about family law in Arizona. Chris is a divorce and family law attorney at Hildebrand Law, PC. He has over 24 years of Arizona family law experience and has received multiple awards, including US News and World Report “Top Arizona Divorce Attorneys”, Phoenix Magazine “Top Divorce Law Firms”, and Arizona Foothills Magazine “Best of the Valley” award. He believes the policies and procedures he uses to get his clients through a divorce should all be guided by the principles of honesty, integrity, and, quite frankly, actually caring about what his clients are going through in a divorce or family law case. In short, his practice is defined by the success of his clients. He also manages all of the other attorneys at his firm to make sure the outcomes in their clients’ cases are successful as well.