## Facts

- Anthony Toth (age 87) and Gloria Snyder Toth (age 66) married on December 13, 1993.
- The next day, the husband used $140,000 of his sole and separate funds to buy a residence titled to both spouses as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- About two weeks after the wedding, the husband moved out of the marital bedroom.
- On January 10, 1994, the husband filed for annulment; the matter ultimately proceeded as a dissolution.
- A dissolution decree was entered on September 19, 1995.
- The residence was the only asset at issue for division.
- The trial court awarded the wife $15,000 and awarded the husband the remainder of the residence’s value.

## Issues

1. Whether “equitable” division of joint tenancy property under A.R.S. § 25-318(A) requires a substantially equal division absent statutory misconduct factors.
2. Whether joint tenancy property should be divided under A.R.S. § 25-318(A) using the same equitable framework applied to community property, and what factors the court may consider.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s property division.
- The Court held that an equitable division under A.R.S. § 25-318(A) does not require an equal or substantially equal division in every case.
- The Court held that joint tenancy property and community property are to be treated alike for purposes of equitable division under A.R.S. § 25-318(A).
- The Court upheld the largely unequal award as within the trial court’s discretion given the short marriage, the husband’s separate-fund purchase, and the wife’s lack of contribution to acquisition of the residence.

## Legal Principles

- Under A.R.S. § 25-318(A), a dissolution court must divide community, joint tenancy, and other commonly held property “equitably,” which may be unequal when fairness so requires.
- “Equitable” is broader than “equal absent statutory misconduct” and is not limited to the statute’s listed misconduct-type considerations (e.g., abnormal expenditures, concealment, destruction, fraud).
- Joint tenancy property is divided under the same equitable rubric as community property, even though joint tenancy is traditionally classified as separate property.
- In determining an equitable division, the court may consider the source of funds used to acquire the property, the duration of the marriage, and other fairness-related circumstances bearing on the outcome.
- A spouse’s placing separate funds into jointly titled property may create a presumptive gift interest, but that presumption does not eliminate the court’s discretion to reach an unequal yet equitable division on dissolution.

## Conclusion

The court held that A.R.S. § 25-318(A) permits unequal division of joint tenancy property when equity warrants it, and affirmed a substantially unequal award where a very short marriage and the husband’s separate-fund purchase made an equal split unfair.


Toth v. Toth, 190 Ariz. 218, 946 P.2d 900 (Ariz. 1997)