Honnas v. Honnas
Decision Date | 15 July 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 15855-PR,15855-PR |
Parties | Raymond C. HONNAS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Dorothy E. HONNAS, Respondent/Appellee. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C. by Douglas H. Clark, Jr., Tucson, for petitioner/appellant.
Anderson & Taylor, Ltd. by Thomas W. Anderson and Pamela M. Katzenberg, Tucson, for respondent/appellee.
This case concerns the distribution of assets because of a marriage dissolution. We accepted the petition for review by appellee Dorothy Honnas to review a memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CIV 3975 (filed November 19, 1981). We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. Art. 6, § 5(3) and Ariz.R.Civ.App.P. 23. We vacate only that portion of the memorandum decision pertaining to Dorothy's participation in the value of the family residence and remand the matter to the superior court for a redetermination of her interest and reconsideration of the spousal maintenance award in light of the revised distribution.
The parties were married in June, 1974. Prior to the marriage, Raymond Honnas owned what became the family residence. The home was improved and appreciated in value from $55,000 to $130,000 during the marriage. Two rooms were added to the residence while the couple resided there. Some of the monies for this improvement came from community funds. Dorothy worked with the contractor and did the painting and wallpapering on the addition. Dorothy also contributed substantial maintenance work on other parts of the house. During the marriage $6,092 paid on the mortgage was from community funds.
The Court of Appeals held:
(Emphasis added.)
The Court of Appeals awarded one-half of the community funds expended as mortgage payments and improvements to Dorothy, but disallowed her participation in the increased value of the residence.
Cockrill, 124 Ariz. at 53, 601 P.2d at 1337. Recognizing that appreciation of property could be due to multiple factors, we discarded the "all or none rule" and held that "profits, which result from a combination of separate property and community labor, must be apportioned accordingly." Id. at 54, 601 P.2d at 1338.
In the instant case the Court of Appeals misconstrued Cockrill when it said that because the increased value of the residence was due primarily to its inherent nature, the entire increase was separate property. We agree that much of the increase in value is likely due to inflation. As the Court of Appeals notes, however, even Raymond acknowledged that the addition to the home increased its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Berger, In re, 1
...72 Ariz. 253, 233 P.2d 459 (1951). See also Tester v. Tester, 123 Ariz. 41, 597 P.2d 194 (App.1979). Honnas v. Honnas, 133 Ariz. 39, 40-41, 648 P.2d 1045, 1046-1047 (1982). The husband argues that the underlying purpose of the value measure of contribution, as opposed to the cost measure, i......
-
In Re The Marriage Of: David Ramsay
...v. Bell-Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 5, 169 P.3d 111, 113 (App.2007) (alterations in original) (quoting Honnas v. Honnas, 133 Ariz. 39, 40, 648 P.2d 1045, 1046 (1982)). Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be community, “and the spouse seeking to overcome the presumption ......
-
Femiano v. Maust
...expended but also the increase in value attributable to the community contribution during the marriage. See Honnas v. Honnas , 133 Ariz. 39, 41, 648 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1982) ; Lawson , 72 Ariz. at 262, 233 P.2d at 468. Early appellate decisions held that the community lien should account for ......
-
Saba v. Khoury
...this Court directed trial courts to select "whichever will achieve substantial justice between the parties." Id.¶10 In Honnas v. Honnas , 133 Ariz. 39, 41, 648 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1982), this Court affirmed 516 P.3d 895 Lawson ’s value-at-dissolution approach, see supra ¶ 8, to determine the v......
-
How Community Property Jurisdictions Can Avoid Being Lost in Cyberspace
...evident. As mentioned above, blog posts are literary works and therefore 55. See L A . CIV. CODE art. 2368 (2011); Honnas v. Honnas, 648 P.2d 1045, 1046 (Ariz. 1982); Jensen v. Jensen, 665 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Tex. 1984); Legg v. Legg, 75 P. 130, 132–33 (Wash. 1904); Jurado v. Jurado, 892 P.2d ......
-
§ 7.04 Characterizing Improvements
...(refusing to grant interest). Washington: Conley v. Moe, 7 Wash.2d.355, 110 P.2d 172 (1941). [57] See, e.g.: Arizona: Honnas v. Honnas, 133 Ariz. 39, 648 P.2d 1045 (1982). Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.075. Idaho: Hiatt v. Hiatt, 94 Idaho 367, 487 P.2d 1121 (1971). New Mexico: Chance v. Kit......