Navigation Bar
< Home Page[About Us]


Why?
Subsription Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: Alimony
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

ALABAMA: Mosley v. Mosley, 747 So. 2d 894 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the business to the husband and the business property to the wife where it could have awarded the income-producing property to the former wife in lieu of periodic alimony.
Subscription Read More About This Case

ALASKA: Ulsher v. Ulsher, 867 P.3d 819 (Alaska 1994).
Alimony payments should not be included as part of the recipient's share of marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ARIZONA: Diefenbach v. Holmberg, No. 2 CA-CV 00-0174 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 30, 2001).
The trial court held that the death of the former wife terminated the husband's obligation to pay spousal maintenance.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: Olsen v. Olsen, 20 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
The parties were divorced in 1974 after a 24-year marriage. The husband had been serving in the armed forces during the parties' marriage. Pursuant to the divorce decree, he was ordered to pay the wife spousal support of $400 per month for 11 years.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 708 A.2d 949 (1998).
A medical degree earned during marriage is not property subject to equitable distribution, but the other spouse is normally entitled to compensation through an alimony award if the couple's assets are insufficient to permit compensation through the property division.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: McLean v. McLean, 652 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. DCA 1995).
The wife, who had received more than $1 million in property distribution, should nevertheless be awarded permanent alimony, because she should not be expected to convert a pension plan awarded to her into an income-producing asset.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

IOWA: In re Marriage of Martin, No. 1-215/00-1629 (Iowa Ct. App. June 13, 2001).
The issue presented was whether a particular provision in the parties' divorce decree was in the nature of alimony or of property division.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

IOWA: In re Marriage of Trickey, 589 N.W.2d 753 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
Modification of alimony following a bankruptcy discharge of property settlement obligations does not violate federal law if the modification merely takes into account the fact that one spouse will no longer receive the property settlement payments upon which the original support award was premised and the discharge results in changed financial circumstances.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

KANSAS: In re Monslow, 1996 WL 99797 (Kan. 1996).
In the same case, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $450 per month alimony for 48 months, plus 20% of any salary increases above his average monthly gross income at the time of divorce.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MASSACHUSETTS: Heins v. Ledis, 422 Mass. 477, 664 N.E.2d 10 (1996).
An award of alimony to reimburse the wife for her lost investment in the husband's business was improper.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MASSACHUSETTS: Johnston v. Johnston, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 531, 649 N.E.2d 799 (1995).
An alimony award to the wife in the amount she had received for many years during the pendency of the divorce action was not excessive even though she received $3 million as an equitable division of the parties' property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Guy v. Guy, 736 So. 2d 1042 (Miss. 1999).
The Supreme Court of Mississippi definitively stated that professional degrees are not marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Neville v. Neville, 734 So. 2d 352 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
Evidence that the husband made significant contributions to the wife's medical school expenses and that the wife's adultery led to the dissolution of the marriage supported the equitable distribution award of alimony to the husband while denying him rights to the wife's medical practice.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Southwick v. Southwick, ___ A.D.2d ___, 612 N.Y.S.2d 704 (1994).
No statutory basis for including imputed earnings in the marital estate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Vadala v. Vadala, No. COA00-205 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2001).
The trial court felt it was unable to consider the parties' pattern of saving for their retirement in determining alimony.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Potts v. Tutterow, ___ N.C. ___, 442 S.E.2d 90, 94 (1994).
In the parties' 1991 divorce action, the wife was awarded $54,420 in alimony, to be paid in semi-monthly installments of $420. The wife remarried a year later, and the husband stopped making payments.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

PENNSYLVANIA: Bullock v. Bullock, ___ Pa. Super. ___, 639 A.2d 826 (1994).
In a 1959 desertion and nonsupport action, the husband was ordered to pay the wife $35 per month in spousal and child support. No support payments were ever made. The wife did not know of her husband's whereabouts until 1991.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

RHODE ISLAND: Wrobleski v. Wrobleski, 653 A.2d 732 (R.I. 1995).
A sizeable alimony award to the wife was not an abuse of discretion even though the trial court also awarded her $1.3 million as part of equitable distribution.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH CAROLINA: Gilfillin v. Gilfillin, Op. No. 25267 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Mar. 26, 2001).
The divorce decree order required the husband to establish a $300,000 alimony trust to secure periodic alimony payments to the wife in the event he predeceased her.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TENNESSEE: Bogan v. Bogan, No. E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2001).
An "objectively reasonable retirement" at age 59, where the husband was eligible to retire with full benefits.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WISCONSIN: In re Marriage of Maley, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 519 N.W.2d 717 (Ct. App. 1994).
Capital gain derived by husband from selling an asset awarded to him from the marital estate should not be included as income for child support purposes, where the sale price of the asset was no greater than the value placed on the asset at the time of divorce.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WEST VIRGINIA: Wood v. Wood, 20 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1139 (W. Va. 1993).
Upon the parties' divorce in 1990, the wife was awarded spousal support of $500 per month until September 1992. The case was appealed and remanded for a reconsideration of a child support award. Subsequently, the former husband filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding in federal court.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WEST VIRGINIA: Hager v. Hager, No. 29688 (W. Va. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2001).
The wife in a divorce case took the position that she had never been previously employed outside the home and was disabled and incapable of working. The trial court agreed and made a substantial alimony award.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WISCONSIN: Olski v. Olski. 22 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1075 (Wis. 1995).
When the parties were divorced in 1985, the court found that the husband owned retirement benefits which constituted marital property. Opting for the immediate offset method of pension division, the court awarded the retirement benefits entirely to the husband, awarded the wife other property of equal value, and terminated all of the wife's rights in the pension.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page


State Home Archives Bulletin Menu Chat Rooms Family Law Links Publications Menu Dictionary


About Us | Monthly Newsletter | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Contact Us | Advertising

The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice. A lawyer should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters. Divorce Source, Inc. is also not a referral service and does not endorse or recommend any third party individuals, companies, and/or services. Divorce Source, Inc. has made no judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating professionals. Read our Terms & Conditions.

© 1996 - 2012 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.