Martin v. Martin
156 Ariz. 440, 752 P.2d 1026, 1986 Ariz. App. LEXIS 778 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Arizona dissolution proceedings, a court may apply its quasi-community property statute (A.R.S. § 25-318(A)) to characterize a non-resident spouse's post-separation earnings as community property if it has personal jurisdiction over that spouse. However, a trial court's authority to divide marital property is limited to existing community assets and liabilities, and it cannot award a separate money judgment for "net community income" that no longer exists at dissolution or for funds properly spent according to court orders.
Facts:
- Richard Martin (husband) and Mary Martin (wife) married in Wyoming in 1950 and traveled extensively due to Richard’s work.
- In August 1979, the parties became domiciled in California after returning from Singapore, where Richard worked.
- Shortly after moving to California, Richard and Mary purchased a townhouse in Prescott, Arizona, as a planned retirement home.
- Mary moved into the Prescott townhouse in December 1979, taking furnishings from the California home, while Richard remained in California, intending to join her upon retirement.
- During the three-year separation (December 1979 - 1982), Richard lived in California, worked for Union Oil Company, and maintained almost total control over the marital assets, sending Mary money for living expenses and mortgage payments.
- Richard claimed 100 shares of Gulf Oil stock and a 2/5ths interest in the Dry Lake Farm trust as his separate property, asserting he purchased them with income from an initial 1/5th separate property interest in the trust (received as a gift in 1962), but these funds were commingled with his regular salary (community property) in a New Mexico joint bank account.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Martin (wife) filed an action seeking dissolution of the marriage in Arizona in 1982.
- The trial court found certain shares of Gulf Oil stock and a partial interest in the Dry Lake Farm trust to be community property, and ruled husband’s post-separation earnings were community property under Arizona law.
- The trial court awarded Mary Martin a money judgment of $46,688 representing her share of the "net community income" during the three-year separation.
- The trial court also awarded Mary Martin a second money judgment of $9,473 representing funds husband depleted from joint savings accounts to make court-ordered spousal maintenance and attorney’s fees payments to wife.
- The trial court awarded Mary Martin $2,000 a month in spousal maintenance.
- Richard Martin (husband) appealed, alleging numerous errors in the property division and spousal maintenance award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona's quasi-community property law (A.R.S. § 25-318(A)) apply to a non-resident spouse's post-separation earnings, and does an Arizona trial court have the statutory authority to award a money judgment against one spouse for community income dissipated or funds spent pursuant to court order that no longer exist as marital assets at the time of dissolution?
Opinions:
Majority - Brooks, Judge
Yes, an Arizona trial court may apply Arizona's quasi-community property law to characterize a non-resident spouse's post-separation earnings as community property when it has personal jurisdiction over that spouse. However, no, the trial court does not have the authority to award a money judgment for "net community income" that no longer exists at the time of dissolution or for funds properly depleted for court-ordered payments. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Gulf Oil stock and the additional 2/5ths interest in the Dry Lake Farm trust were community property because they were acquired during the marriage and the husband failed to prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that they were purchased with separate funds, especially given the commingling of funds. Regarding the choice of law for post-separation earnings, the court held that Arizona's quasi-community property law (A.R.S. § 25-318(A)) applies even when only one spouse is domiciled in Arizona, superseding the traditional Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws rule. The court rejected the interpretation in In re Marriage of Roesch (California) which required both spouses to be domiciled in the state, finding Roesch misconstrued Addison v. Addison. The court emphasized that A.R.S. § 25-318(A)'s broad language encompasses property acquired by "either spouse outside this state" and that judicial economy and uniformity of result favor this approach. Since the husband voluntarily submitted to Arizona’s personal jurisdiction, applying Arizona substantive law raised no constitutional issues. However, the court reversed the $46,688 money judgment for "net community income" from the separation period and the $9,473 judgment for depleted joint savings accounts. The court reasoned that A.R.S. § 25-318(A) limits the trial court's authority to dividing existing community assets and liabilities at the time of dissolution. The $46,688 judgment represented property that no longer existed and was an impermissible retrospective accounting. While the statute allows considering excessive expenditures to disproportionately divide existing community property, it does not authorize a separate money judgment against a spouse for non-existent funds. The $9,473 judgment was improper because the funds were openly depleted by the husband, in compliance with prior court orders for spousal maintenance and attorney's fees. The court distinguished this from case law in non-community property states, asserting that Arizona courts lack jurisdiction to award a portion of one spouse's separate property to the other under § 25-318(A). Finally, the court affirmed the award of $2,000 a month in spousal maintenance, finding sufficient evidence to support it, given the wife's age (61), limited work history as a nurse, the long marriage, and the husband's good health and high earning potential. The case was reversed in part and remanded for a revised judgment consistent with the opinion.
Concurring in part; dissenting in part - Grant, Presiding Judge
No, the trial court should have the authority to award a money judgment to compensate for community property dissipated by one spouse, even if those assets no longer exist at the time of dissolution. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's narrow construction of A.R.S. § 25-318(A) regarding the trial court's authority to award the $46,688 money judgment. He argued that such a narrow interpretation encourages spouses to hide or waste assets between separation and divorce, distorting the true value of marital property. The dissent asserted that a trial court should be able to consider dissipated property when formulating a property settlement, especially when one spouse had total control over marital assets and dissipated them for their own benefit. He cited A.R.S. § 25-318(A)'s language allowing courts to consider "excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition" as implying authority to award an amount equal to one-half of the dissipated assets. Such an award, he argued, could be satisfied from sole and separate assets or even future income, drawing parallels to case law from non-community property states like Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri. He further noted that the husband's equivocal and uncooperative testimony regarding income dissipation during the separation period should be given proper consideration by the trial court, which observed the witness's credibility. The dissent would have affirmed the trial court's $46,688 money judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of an Arizona trial court's equitable powers in dissolution proceedings within a community property framework. It establishes that Arizona's quasi-community property law extends to property acquired by a non-resident spouse, promoting uniformity and judicial economy, provided personal jurisdiction is secured. However, the ruling strictly limits property division to existing community assets and liabilities, precluding courts from creating money judgments for past income or properly expended funds, even in the face of perceived inequity due to one spouse's control or dissipation of assets. This potentially forces injured spouses to seek a disproportionate share of remaining property rather than a compensatory judgment against non-existent funds or separate property, highlighting the legislative preference for clear statutory boundaries over broad judicial discretion in property division.
