Here, to the marriage and rode a horse

Here, James insisted that his injury award
was separate property because he got the accident shortly after they had been
separated and he filed a suit for divorce. Sharon contended that community property
still exists even when the spouses were separate. Sharon also insist that according
to the Arizona rule, the right for compensating from the injury of one’s spouse
was community property. The Court found that the proper interpretation was
necessary for this case. When the separate property was defined, the word ‘acquired’
was used. In the case of Soto v Vandenventer, the court suggested an example that
if a wife brought a horse to the marriage and rode a horse and hit by car, then,
the injury from her accident would be community property, but the award from
the horse would be separate property. The body of James was his separate
property like the horse in case of Soto v Vandenventer. The loss of wage and
medical expenses would be community property like the wife’s injury in case of
Soto v Vandenventer. That is, the well-being award because of the spouse’s
injury would be separate property.