Flower v. Flower

223 Ariz. 531, 225 P.3d 588 (2010)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Flower v. Flower

Arizona Court of Appeals
223 Ariz. 531, 225 P.3d 588 (2010)

Facts

Norman Flower (plaintiff) was 76 years old and Judy Flower (defendant) was 55 years old when they married in January 2006. Before the marriage, Norman owned a house known as the Sugar Creek house, and Judy owned a house known as the Queen Valley house. After the wedding, Norman transferred title to the Sugar Creek house to Judy and himself as community property with right of survivorship. Norman and Judy made improvements to the Queen Valley house. The improvements cost at least $32,000, which Norman and Judy funded by incurring debt, including a home-equity line of credit on the Sugar Creek house. Norman and Judy accrued a total debt of over $61,000 during the marriage. Norman filed a petition for annulment in January 2007, and Judy counter-petitioned for divorce. At trial, the main issues were the allocation of the Sugar Creek house’s value and the allocation of debt relating to the improvements to the Queen Valley house. Norman conceded that he gave a one-half interest in the Sugar Creek house to Judy but argued, among other things, that equitable principles supported awarding him the entire interest in the Sugar Creek house. Judy argued, among other things, that Norman gave her a one-half interest in the Sugar Creek house and the improvements on the Queen Valley house as gifts, and thus he should be solely responsible for paying the debt. The trial court denied Norman’s petition for annulment and then turned to the allocation of assets and debt. The trial court determined that a substantially equal allocation would be inequitable. The court awarded the entire interest in the Sugar Creek house to Norman, reasoning that the community did not contribute towards improving the house’s value and that the home-equity line of credit reduced the community’s equity in the house. The trial court held that any claim that Judy might have to the Sugar Creek house was compensated by the improvements to the Queen Valley house. The trial court awarded the entire interest in the Queen Valley house to Judy. Finally, the trial court found that the community, not Norman, incurred the debt for the improvements and assigned $42,000 in debt to Norman and $16,000 in debt to Judy. Judy appealed, arguing that the trial court should have ordered a substantially equal allocation.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership