Court Opinion

ID: 9536288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:57:09.061645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:30.016301
License: Public Domain

KRUCKER, C. J.,
concurs.
HOWARD, Judge (special concurring).
I agree with the decision only because we are bound by the decisions of our Supreme Court. I am, however, convinced that we are perpetuating an injustice and a wrong rule of law. I believe that the rule should be that when a spouse commits a tort, which would not subject the entire community property to liability, that at least the spouse’s one-half interest in the community property should be subject to liability.
A.R.S. § 25-215, subsec. B states:
“The community property of the husband and wife is liable for the community debts contracted by the husband during marriage unless specially excepted by law.”
Our court has in the past equated “community debts contracted” with tortious conduct. This was not the interpretation of the Spanish law whence our law on community property originated. See note 1, supra. In Gardner v. Gardner, 95 Ariz. 202, 388 P.2d 417 (1964), Justice *102Lockwood, in holding that alimony was not a “contracted” debt within the meaning of A.R.S. § 25-216, subsec. B, recognized that the section of our code deals only with obligations arising ex contractu and not ex delicto. I frankly do not think that biting off a piece of someone’s nose can be legitimately characterized as an action arising out of a contractual relationship,
... Our present rule creates an injustice because the innocent victim is denied recovery if the wrongdoing spouse has no separate property, which is often the case in this jurisdiction. I do not believe that the public policy of this state requires that the wrongdoer be allowed to hide behind the skirts of misapplied dogma.