Hatcher v. Hatcher
Arizona Court of Appeals
199 Ariz. 154, 933 P.2d 1222 (1996)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Julia Hatcher (plaintiff) and Marvin Hatcher (defendant) married in 1980. Marvin subsequently opted into the disability-insurance program offered by his employer, and the premiums were automatically deducted from Marvin’s paycheck. In 1984, Marvin lost his right arm in a work-related accident. The disability-insurance policy paid Marvin a $120,000 lump sum plus 54 months of structured payments. Marvin purchased a home and an apartment complex using a portion of the disability payments. Marvin took title to both the home and the apartment complex in joint tenancy with Julia. Julia filed for divorce in 1991 and argued that Marvin’s disability payments, and the home and apartment complex purchased using those payments, should be classified as community property because Marvin acquired the disability-insurance policy during the marriage using community funds. Marvin countered, arguing that the disability benefits were his separate property. The trial court held that (1) Marvin’s disability payments were his separate property and (2) despite being held in joint tenancy, the home and apartment complex purchased using the disability payments were also Marvin’s separate property because there was no evidence that Marvin intended to gift either to the community. Julia appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.