Thomas v. Thomas
In Thomas v. Thomas, 220 Ariz. 290, 205 P.3d 1137 (App. 2009), the parties' stipulated dissolution decree failed to mention a condominium purchased during the marriage. 220 Ariz. at 291,2, 205 P.3d at 1138.
Several years later, the husband filed a motion in the dissolution action for an order to show cause and asked that he be awarded one-half of the equity in the condominium. Id.
Because the parties did not dispute that the condominium was intentionally omitted from the stipulated decree, the Court concluded that it was separate property which the superior court lacked jurisdiction to allocate. Id. at 292-93,10, 12, 205 P.3d at 1139-40.
The Court explained that when former spouses hold an asset as tenants in common, "filing a separate action to resolve matters relating to the omitted property would be 'entirely consistent with the decree.'" Id. at 293-94,14, 205 P.3d at 1140-41 (quoting Dressler v. Morrison, 212 Ariz. 279, 282,16, 130 P.3d 978, 981 (2006)).
The Court concluded that because the condominium was no longer "marital property," the court lacked statutory authority to allocate it under Title 25, and therefore lacked jurisdiction. Id. at 294,16, 205 P.3d at 1141.