2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works s1

715 P.2d 1246 Page 1 148 Ariz. 558, 715 P.2d 1246 (Cite as: 148 Ariz. 558, 715 P.2d 1246)

205k258 k. Improvements on Separate Prop- Court of Appeals of Arizona, erty. Most Cited Cases Division 2, Department B. Cost of fulfilling husband's need for transportation during life of marriage, represented by husband's Allan K. CAMERON, Petitioner/Appellee, car's depreciation and interest paid to finance its pur- v. chase, was community need properly deducted from Leslie Ann CAMERON, Respondent/Appellant. community payments for car in establishing amount No. 2 CA-CIV 5357. of community lien on it.

Dec. 18, 1985. [3] Husband and Wife 205 270(8) Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1986. Review Denied March 11, 1986. 205 Husband and Wife 205VII Community Property Decree of dissolution was entered in the Superior 205k270 Actions Court, Pima County, Cause No. D-047656, Lina Ro- 205k270(8) k. Evidence. Most Cited Cases driguez, J. Wife appealed contending that community Uncontroverted testimony of husband, a certified assets and liabilities were wrongly computed, and public accountant, was sufficient to justify finding of spousal maintenance should have been awarded her. existence of community liabilities to husband's moth- The Court of Appeals, Livermore, J., held that: (1) er for loans for community needs and of amount of purchase of automobile with community funds for unpaid tax liability for community income. wife's use was not gift which extinguished husband's community interest in property, and (2) husband [4] Divorce 134 151 properly deducted depreciation from principal paid by community in establishing amount of community 134 Divorce lien on value of husband's car. 134IV Proceedings 134IV(M) New Trial Affirmed. 134k151 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Denial of motion for new trial in marriage dissolution West Headnotes proceeding, premised on assertion that court had not considered value of husband's partnership interest in [1] Husband and Wife 205 266.4 accounting firm as community asset, was not error where nothing was offered to show why issue was 205 Husband and Wife not litigated in original proceeding. 205VII Community Property *559 **1247 Karp, Stolkin & Weiss, P.C. by Stephen 205k266 Transactions Between Husband and M. Weiss and Elaine C. Hardin, Tucson, for petition- Wife er/appellee. 205k266.4 k. Gifts. Most Cited Cases Fact that car, purchased with community funds, was Mary Anne Peters, Tucson, for respondent/appellant. birthday “gift” for sole use of wife did not establish that husband intended to relinquish his community LIVERMORE, Judge. interest in car, making it wife's separate property. This is an appeal from a decree of dissolution termi- [2] Husband and Wife 205 258 nating a three-year marriage, in which the appellant wife contends that the trial court erred in computing 205 Husband and Wife community assets and liabilities and in refusing to 205VII Community Property award spousal maintenance. We affirm.

[1] The wife first contends that an automobile pur- should be determined. chased for her use with community funds should have been treated as her separate property because it *560 **1248 [3] The wife next contends that the evi- was gift to her from her husband. While a married in- dence of the husband's indebtedness to his mother for dividual can give his or her community interest in loans for community needs and of the amount of un- property to a spouse so as to make it the separate paid tax liability for community income was insuffi- property of the spouse, Schwartz v. Schwartz, 52 cient to justify the court's findings as to the existence Ariz. 105, 79 P.2d 501 (1938), that can be accom- of these community liabilities. This point was not plished only by a clear showing that the giver intend- raised below. In any event, it is meritless. The testi- ed to relinquish his community interest in the gift. mony of the husband, a certified public accountant, Armer v. Armer, 105 Ariz. 284, 463 P.2d 818 (1970). was sufficient; there was nothing to contradict it. Such a burden is carried neither by the fact that the car was intended for the sole use of the wife nor by The wife next argues that she should have been the argument that it was a birthday gift. Such “gifts” awarded spousal maintenance. On the record present- between spouses of assets intended for community ed to us, it appears that the wife was capable of sup- use are no more than a designation of whom the pri- porting herself. No abuse of discretion by the trial mary user will be and not a deliberate attempt to con- court has been shown. Sommerfield v. Sommerfield, vert community property into separate property. 121 Ariz. 575, 592 P.2d 771 (1979); Battiste v. There is ample evidence to support the trial court's Battiste, 135 Ariz. 470, 662 P.2d 145 (App.1983). finding that the car was community property. The husband's willingness to let the wife have the car as part of the dissolution is not evidence that it was her [4] The wife argues finally that the trial court erred in separate property. failing to grant her motion for a new trial premised on the assertion that the court had failed to consider as a community asset the dollar value of the hus- [2] At the time of the marriage, the husband owned a band's partnership interest in an accounting firm. No Porsche on which he owed $46,781. During the mar- evidence was adduced to show that there was such an riage, the community expended $30,748 in principal interest. Nothing was offered to suggest why that is- and interest. At dissolution, he still owed $22,512. In sue had not been litigated in the original proceeding. order to determine what the community lien should Denial of a new trial in such circumstances is not er- be, the husband deducted from the principal paid by ror. the community ($24,359) the amount of the depreciation of the car ($7,725), and this value ($16,634) was accepted by the trial court. The wife now contends Affirmed. that the lien should be for $30,748, the total amount expended in principal and interest. During the life of HATHAWAY, P.J., and LACAGNINA, J., concur. the marriage the car fulfilled a community need. The Ariz.App.,1985. cost to fulfill that need was a combination of depreci- Cameron v. Cameron ation in the principal value of the asset and the inter- 148 Ariz. 558, 715 P.2d 1246 est paid to finance its purchase. Those costs are ap- propriately borne by the community and eliminated END OF DOCUMENT from any lien on the value of the car. See generally Hanrahan v. Sims, 20 Ariz.App. 313, 512 P.2d 617 (1973). This conclusion is not changed by the fact that the car was used exclusively by the husband; his needs during the marriage were a portion of the needs of the community. Flynn v. Allender, 75 Ariz. 322, 256 P.2d 560 (1953), does not dictate a contrary result. That case held only that a lien would result in these circumstances, not how the value of that lien