Kelly v. Kelly

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Kelly v. Kelly

540 P.2d 201, 24 Ariz. App. 582, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 778

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedSeptember 30, 1975

Docket2 CA-CIV 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 540 P.2d 201 (Kelly v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelly v. Kelly, 540 P.2d 201, 24 Ariz. App. 582, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 778 (Ark. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

In this appeal from a decree of divorce, appellant questions the award of the home and custody of the minor children to appellee, her former spouse.

In her pleadings appellant described the home as community property. At trial appellee testified that the house was held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Appellant’s counsel at trial raised the jurisdiction of the court relative to the home but did not offer the deed in evidence, nor was there any testimony that the parties accepted a deed to the home as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as community property.

In her motion for a new trial, the wife disputed the award of the home to the husband and attached a copy of the deed showing proper acceptance by the parties. The court denied the motion.

At the time of trial, the court had no jurisdiction to make an equitable award of joint tenancy property. Becchelli v. Becchelli, 109 Ariz. 229, 508 P.2d 59 (1973). The evidence at trial did not establish that the home was held in joint tenancy. DeMarce v. DeMarce, 101 Ariz. 369, 419 P.2d 726 (1966). However, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time, Rojas v. Kimble, 89 Ariz. 276, 361 P.2d 403 (1961), and the parties cannot by consent give the court jurisdiction over subject matter which it would not otherwise have. Porter v. Porter, 101 Ariz. 131, 416 P.2d 564 (1966); Rodieck v. Rodieck, 9 Ariz.App. 213, 450 P.2d 725 (1969). The trial court erred in not granting a new trial on the issue of the status of the home.

The custody of the minor children was hotly contested. An investigation was conducted by a court social worker pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 25-335. The evidence shows that the trial court did not err in awarding custody of the minor children to appellee.

That part of the judgment awarding appellee the home, Lot 13, Block 5, of Mission Terrace, is reversed and the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

KRUCKER and HATHAWAY, JJ.¡ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

In this appeal from a decree of divorce, appellant questions the award of the home and custody of the minor children to appellee, her former spouse.

In her pleadings appellant described the home as community property. At trial appellee testified that the house was held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Appellant’s counsel at trial raised the jurisdiction of the court relative to the home but did not offer the deed in evidence, nor was there any testimony that the parties accepted a deed to the home as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as community property.

In her motion for a new trial, the wife disputed the award of the home to the husband and attached a copy of the deed showing proper acceptance by the parties. The court denied the motion.

At the time of trial, the court had no jurisdiction to make an equitable award of joint tenancy property. Becchelli v. Becchelli, 109 Ariz. 229, 508 P.2d 59 (1973). The evidence at trial did not establish that the home was held in joint tenancy. DeMarce v. DeMarce, 101 Ariz. 369, 419 P.2d 726 (1966). However, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time, Rojas v. Kimble, 89 Ariz. 276, 361 P.2d 403 (1961), and the parties cannot by consent give the court jurisdiction over subject matter which it would not otherwise have. Porter v. Porter, 101 Ariz. 131, 416 P.2d 564 (1966); Rodieck v. Rodieck, 9 Ariz.App. 213, 450 P.2d 725 (1969). The trial court erred in not granting a new trial on the issue of the status of the home.

The custody of the minor children was hotly contested. An investigation was conducted by a court social worker pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 25-335. The evidence shows that the trial court did not err in awarding custody of the minor children to appellee.

That part of the judgment awarding appellee the home, Lot 13, Block 5, of Mission Terrace, is reversed and the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

KRUCKER and HATHAWAY, JJ.¡ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 P.2d 201, 24 Ariz. App. 582, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-kelly-arizctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack