The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H and Mary were married in Wyoming in 1950. They traveled extensively throughout the United States and the world. In August 1979, they returned to the United States from Singapore, where H had worked for Union Oil Company of California. The parties became domiciled in California. They bought a townhouse in Prescott, Arizona as a planned retirement home. w moved into the Prescott townhouse in December 1979, taking with her a substantial portion of the furnishings from the couple's California home. H remained in California, intending to join his wife upon his planned retirement. During the period they remained separated, H gave W money for living expenses and payments on the townhouse mortgage. W filed this action in Arizona seeking dissolution of the marriage in 1982. At no time has H ever resided in Arizona. The trial ruled in part that, under Arizona law, H's post-separation earnings in California were community property. H appealed. H contends that the trial court erred by applying Arizona rather than California law to the issue of whether his post-separation earnings were separate or community property.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.