Bruce v. Froeb, 15 Ariz.App. 306, 488 P.2d 662 (1971); Baures v. Baures, 13 Ariz.App. 515, 478 P.2d 130 (1970). We can think of no possible reason why the rule would not be equally applicable where a judgment or decree orders installment payments in the division of property rights, and wife has suggested none. Other courts have so held. See, e.g., Dolly v. Nichols, 386 N.W.2d 261 (Minn.App.1986) (where decree had ordered that one spouse’s interest in the homestead be paid in installment payments, installments falling due outside the statutory period were barred in the enforcement action). Moreover, Division Two of this court has reached a consistent decision concerning installment payments under a contract. See Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Jones, 187 Ariz. 493, 930 P.2d 1007 (App.1996) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 12 Wife agrees on appeal that the trial
holding that the 120day period commences when the applicant appears in person for the interview holding that a suit for one installment payment does not preclude suit for a later installment holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due holding in part that the applicable limitation period commences on the due date of each matured but unpaid installment owed under a contract