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: Division
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

ALABAMA: Crenshaw v. Crenshaw, 717 So. 2d 422 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).
It was inequitable to require the wife to make the payments on the marital home for 11 more years and yet award the husband an equal division of the proceeds from the eventual sale of the home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ALASKA: Johns v. Johns, 945 P.2d 1222 (Alaska 1998).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction for possible future division of the husband's interim fishing permits.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: In re Marriage of Doherty, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (2002).
During the marriage, the wife agreed to relocate to California in connection with her employment. To induce her to make the move, the employer offered her a relocation package. Among the benefits in the package was a monthly mortgage subsidy.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: In In re Marriage of Duncan, 90 Cal. App. 4th 617, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833 (2001).
When marital or community property changes in value after the date of separation, the court must determine whether to value the property before or after the change occurred. The general rule is that the change is separate, and an earlier valuation date should therefore be used when the change results from the active efforts of one spouse alone. should be used.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: Rossi v. Rossi, No. B141041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. June 22, 2001).
The trial court held, and the appellate court affirmed, that the wife had intentionally concealed her lottery winnings prior to the divorce and that her conduct constituted fraud.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: In re Marriage of Stevenson, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 411 (1993).
The husband and wife separated in May 1990. The husband filed for dissolution in September 1990. He operated two small businesses. One was a general contracting business and the other was a Christmas tree lot operation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: In re Marriage of Comer, ___ Cal. 4th ___, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 155 (1996).
Many states recognize as a defense to child support arrears the fact that the custodial parent concealed the child. The leading case in the area is In re Marriage of Damico, 7 Cal. 4th 673, 872 P.2d 126, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787 (1994), wherein the Supreme Court of California held that concealment of the custodial parent and the child from the noncustodial parent until the child is an adult precludes child support payments that the custodial parent may seek to collect.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

COLORADO: In re Marriage of Speirs, 956 P.2d 622 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
Unpaid student loans obtained by the wife during the marriage were marital property and were properly distributed between the parties.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

COLORADO: In re Hunt, 22 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1088 (Colo. 1995).
In a major decision addressing an issue of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that the marital estate's percentage interest applies to the entire amount of retirement benefits received by each spouse, including postdivorce appreciation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Porter v. Porter, 61 Conn. App. 791, 769 A.2d 725 (2001).
The trial court valued the husband's car at the amount it could likely be sold for on the open retail market. The husband appealed, arguing that the court should have used the much lower value as a trade-in when purchasing a new car. The trial court's decision was affirmed on appeal.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Wendt v. Wendt, ___ Conn. App. ___, 757 A.2d 1225 (2000).
The trial court divided unvested stock options arising from the husband's employment and valued the marital assets as of the date of dissolution, notwithstanding its use of the word "separation".
Subscription Read More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Wilkes v. Wilkes, ___ Conn. App. ___, 738 A.2d 758 (1999).
A separation agreement regarding the couple's property was fair and equitable when the wife had the opportunity to review the husband's records before the preparation of the agreement, the wife was an attorney with experience in drafting complicated agreements, and the wife was assisted by her mother, a family law attorney.
Subscription Read More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Tyc v. Tyc, 40 Conn. App. 562, 672 A.2d 526 (1996).
A spouse's award or claim for workers' compensation is property subject to distribution in a dissolution action.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Askinizi v. Askinizi, 34 Conn. App. 328, 20 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1347 (1994).
The parties were divorced after an 11-year marriage. The wife was awarded 15% of the husband's federal government pension as alimony, totaling $400 per month. The court denied the wife's request that she be awarded a survivorship interest in the pension.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Singer v. Singer, 20 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1152 (D.C. 1994).
The parties were engaged in 1973. The parents of the husband-to-be gave the parties a home as a "wedding gift." The parents took title in their and their son's names. The parties delayed the marriage for six years, although they lived together in the home during this time.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Maddox v. Maddox, 750 So. 2d 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).
The husband's gift of real property to the wife was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
Subscription Read More About This Case

FLORIDA: Kranz v. Kranz, 737 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).
Credit card debt incurred by the wife during voluntary separation but before the filing of the petition for dissolution is not necessarily nonmarital debt, nor is it subject to unequal distribution.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So. 2d 257 (Fla. DCA 1994).
Household appliances that wife brought to the marriage must be awarded to her as her nonmarital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Schiller v. Schiller, 625 So. 2d 856 (Fla. DCA 1993).
Trial court could not distribute husband's partnership interest to wife; instead, it could impose a charging lien on the partnership interest for a specific dollar amount.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: McAvoy v. McAvoy, 662 So. 2d 744 (Fla. DCA 1995).
A payment schedule was necessary to enable the wife to enforce her lump-sum equitable distribution award.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Chabotte v. Chabotte, 707 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).
The trial court in a dissolution proceeding may not abdicate its statutory duty to distribute property by simplying ordering an equal division and directing the parties to accomplish that division by agreement of binding mediation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

GEORGIA: Avera v. Avera, ___ Ga. ___, 485 S.E.2d 731 (1997).
The husband established an irrevocable trust before the marriage and conveyed to it legal title to a home. During the marriage, the parties lived in the home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Dunseth, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 633 N.E.2d 82 (1994).
The trial court erred by ordering that the wife should not be responsible for any part of the parties' staggering debt.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Murphy, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 631 N.E.2d 893 (1994).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the wife only $220,000 from the husband's $1.8 million personal injury settlement.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Heinze, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 631 N.E.2d 728 (1994).
Future royalties from four books authored by the wife during the marriage were marital property, but the husband should be allocated only 25% of the net royalty payments in view of the wife's continuing efforts to generate sales.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Jarvis, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 614 N.E.2d 1294 (1993).
Award to wife of greater share of marital estate adequately compensated her for award of income-producing assets to husband.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Hall, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 663 N.E.2d 430 (1996).
The husband's workers' compensation award was marital property, and granting the wife one-half of the award was not an abuse of discretion.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Schweihs, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 650 N.E.2d 569 (1995).
Where the parties' dissolution case presented extraordinary circumstances in that the husband's interest in pending litigation was the only marital asset available for child support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a sale of the litigation interest.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Morris, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 640 N.E.2d 344 (1994).
Where the husband purchased a winning lottery ticket long after the parties separated but while they were still married, the trial court erred by refusing to award the wife any portion of the husband's lottery winnings on the theory that there was no shared enterprise.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Waggoner, 26 Ill. App. 3d 787, 634 N.E.2d 1198 (1994).
The parties were married for approximately six years when the husband injured his back while working for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

INDIANA: Vadas v. Vadas, No. 45S04-0103-CV-145 (Ind. Feb. 2, 2002).
The couple occupied a house that the husband had sold to his father before the marriage. The husband and wife maintained and renovated the house with the intention of buying it back. Unfortunately, the divorce intervened. In this case, the couple was married in April 1995.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

INDIANA: In re Marriage of Bartley, 712 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
The wife was entitled to a greater share of the marital assets on the grounds that she had resigned full-time employment and that the husband had dissipated the marital assets during the course of the marriage. The value of Social Security widow's benefits forfeited by the wife by reason of the marriage was not subject to inclusion in the calculation of the marital assets.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

IOWA: In re Marriage of Swartz, 512 N.W.2d 825 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
Lottery winnings to be received after dissolution were appropriately divided as property rather than future earnings, and an equal division of the winnings was equitable.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

KANSAS: In re Marriage of Buetow, ___ Kan. App. 2d ___, 3 P.3d 101 (2000).
Are Federal Employers' Liability Act benefits marital property, subject to division?
Subscription Read More About This Case

KANSAS: In re Monslow, 1996 WL 99797 (Kan. 1996).
The husband owned partnership interests in two patents for a cable television service which allows viewers to choose their own programming at their own times.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

KENTUCKY: McGinnis v. McGinnis, 920 S.W.2d 68 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995) (released 1996).
The husband's accrued ownership rights in nonvested shares of stock in a start-up venture capital company were marital property; it was not an abuse of discretion to structure a distribution to allow the wife an in-kind distribution of the stock shares if the company went public within seven years.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

LOUISIANA: Taylor v. Taylor, 772 So. 2d 891 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
The husband claimed that representations made by the wife during the divorce negotiations were false and thus the community property partition settlement agreement was lesionary.
Subscription Read More About This Case

MAINE: Berry v. Berry, 658 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1995).
The trial court improperly divided the parties' two wood lots when it awarded the lots to the husband but permitted the wife to harvest timber on the lots for 10 years.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MARYLAND: Jandorf v. Jandorf, ___ Md. App. ___, 641 A.2d 971 (1994).
Trial court must determine what personal property items are marital, and then value and distribute these assets, rather than simply ordering them to be sold.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MARYLAND: Lowery v. Lowery, 113 Md. App. 423, 688 A.2d 65 (1997).
In 1976, the husband received a rotator cuff injury related to his employment. He continued working for the employer while receiving medical treatment and even undergoing surgery to repair the injury. His employment ended after a plant shutdown in 1987, and he did not return to work after that date.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MINNESOTA: Lund v. Lund, 615 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
A division of property was reversed when it rested on a finding of fact that a farm operator could avoid the tax consequences of a property division and that finding of fact was not supported by the record.
Subscription Read More About This Case

MINNESOTA: Olsen v. Olsen, 552 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
Real property which was conveyed to the parties as joint tenants by the wife's uncle was marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MINNESOTA: Sweere v. Gilbert-Sweere, 534 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
According to the parties' divorce decree, in the event the husband sold all his stock in a closely held corporation, then the husband was to share the "gross proceeds" with the wife according to a certain formula.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Johnson v. Johnson, 823 So. 2d 1156 (Miss. 2002).
There was no evidence suggesting that the resulting informal division of property was intended to be final. Enforcing this sort of informal property division would encourage spouses to clean out the marital home upon departure, for fear of losing all ownership rights in property not taken.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Redd v. Redd, 774 So. 2d 492 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
Courts in most states are permitted to appoint independent experts to value businesses for purposes of divorce. In a case where funds to retain an expert are limited, use of an independent expert can be advantageous to both parties. Equitable Distribution of Property 7.05 (2d ed. 1994 & Supp. 2001).
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Graham v. Graham, 767 So. 2d 277 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
The division of the husband's and the wife's retirement accounts for the purposes of equitable distribution should be based on their value at the time of the divorce, not at the time of separation.
Subscription Read More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Draper v. Draper, 627 So. 2d 302 (Miss. 1993).
The trial court in a divorce case has authority to divest title from one spouse and vest it in the other spouse when equitably dividing marital assets.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Ballard v. Ballard, 77 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
Marital misconduct is a division factor even where it did not cause the marital breakdown, where it did place an added burden upon the innocent spouse during the marriage, such that the innocent spouse was compelled to contribute more to the marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Brill v. Brill, 65 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). At the time of divorce, the husband was vice-president of a large company. He signed a contract with his employer, stating that he would receive severance pay equal to three years of salary if he lost employment as a result of a future change in control of the company.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Nelson v. Nelson, 25 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
The trial court could consider the husband's marital misconduct when dividing the marital estate.
Subscription Read More About This Case

MISSOURI: Laffey v. Laffey, 4 S.W.3d 655 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
The husband claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in not assigning a value to the wife's pending personal injury claim and in dividing the marital property.
Subscription Read More About This Case

MISSOURI: Robertson v. Robertson, 3 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
A finding that the funds used to purchase and improve real estate were derived from the wife's assets without significant contribution from the husband was sufficient to support the awarding of all real estate to the wife.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Vehlewald v. Vehlewald, 853 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
Award to wife of a greater share of marital assets and a lesser share of marital debts was not an abuse of discretion, partly because husband received all of the income-producing property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Held v. Held, 896 S.W.2d 709 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the marital home to the wife while assigning to the husband the responsibility for any indebtedness owed to his parents for the home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Brooks v. Brooks, 863 S.W.2d 689 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
Perhaps the foremost legal principle involved in the construction of divorce decrees is that the court's ruling must be construed in accordance with common sense. The Missouri Court of Appeals recently had occasion to apply this rule to a rather uncommon fact situation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MONTANA: In re Marriage of Davis, ___ Mont. ___, 986 P.2d 408 (1999).
The statutory criteria for dividing marital property in a dissolution proceeding is the same whether the marital property was received by gift or by inheritance.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MONTANA: In re Marriage of Binsfield, ___ Mont. ___, 888 P.2d 889 (1995).
The trial court did not err in ordering an in-kind distribution of the parties' real property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEBRASKA: Medlock v. Medlock, 263 Neb. 666, 2002.NE.0000157 (Apr. 12, 2002).
The wife claimed that she was entitled to a share of the assets of a nonprofit religious corporation operated by the husband. The wife filed a petition for legal separation on July 2, 1997. The husband answered and cross-petitioned for dissolution. On September 18, 2000, the district court entered a decree of dissolution.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEBRASKA: Parde v. Parde, ___ Neb. App. ___, 591 N.W.2d 783 (1999).
The husband, a railroad employee, was injured during the parties' marriage. He filed an action against the railroad and negotiated a general settlement. Under the settlement, the husband received $152,994 at the time of settlement, and he was due to receive $98,750 on September 1, 2002.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEVADA: Shydler v. Shydler, ___ Nev. ___, 954 P.2d 37 (1998).
The trial court exceeded its authority by exempting toy soldiers, books, and other military collectibles from the marital estate and awarding them to the husband to be held in trust for the couple's son.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEVADA: Williams v. Waldman, 108 Nev. 466, 836 P.2d 614 (1992).
The parties were married in March 1962. The husband entered law school, and the wife supported the family. The parties divorced in 1965 and then remarried in 1967. Upon graduation, the husband began practicing as an associate in a private law firm; by 1980, he owned one-third of the stock in the firm.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW HAMPSHIRE: In re Crowe, ___ N.H. ___, 804 A.2d 455 (2002).
The trial court did not err in awarding the wife 25% of the parties' property after a marriage of only two years. The parties had a child, and the interests of the child made it appropriate that the wife not work, so that she had substantial financial needs.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW HAMPSHIRE: In re Preston, No. 99-536 (N.H. Oct. 3, 2001).
The couple married in 1963 and separated in 1996. In 1988, the husband was injured in an accident. The couple settled with the insurers in 1992 and entered into a structured settlement, which provided for an immediate lump-sum payment to the couple and their attorney and payments of $985 per month to the husband for 120 months, beginning in November 2000. The agreement provided that the insurers would purchase an annuity to make the future periodic payments.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Sinha v. Sinha, No. 89173, 2001NY.0005490 (N.Y. App. Div. July 12, 2001).
The wife claimed that the husband's claim for equitable distribution of marital property was barred by her discharge in bankruptcy, while the husband asserted that his claim remained viable against certain property that had been declared exempt property in the bankruptcy proceeding. In this case, after the commencement of the divorce action but before the divorce was final, the wife filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and listed the husband as a creditor.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Mattwell v. Mattwell, ___ A.D.2d ___, 600 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1993).
In dissolution of parties' long-term marriage, wife should not be awarded a greater share of marital property merely because she had been a long-term economic success and husband had been a relative economic failure.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Cooper v. Cooper, ___ A.D.2d ___, 630 N.Y.S.2d 158 (1995).
Distribution of marital funds should be based on consideration of statutory factors and not on parties' informal banking arrangement during the marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Witkowski v. Blaskiewicz, 20 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1555 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Aug. 31, 1994).
The parties became engaged while the woman was still married to another man. As a symbol of engagement, the man gave the woman a diamond ring. Seven years later, after spending five years as cohabitants, the woman broke the engagement. The man sought recovery of the ring.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Hay v. Hay, No. COA01-187 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2002).
The couple in this case was married in August 1972. They separated in July 1997 and were divorced in September 1998. The wife filed a complaint seeking alimony, temporary and permanent postseparation support, attorney's fees, writ of possession, equitable distribution, child custody, and child support in January 1998.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Khajanchi v. Khajanchi, ___ N.C. App. ___, 537 S.E.2d 845 (2000).
The lower court awarded most of the property and the debts to the husband. The husband and the wife were married on November 26, 1968, separated on February 29, 1996, and divorced on August 1, 1997.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Davis v. Sineath, ___ N.C. App. ___, 498 S.E.2d 629 (1998).
A residence titled as a tenancy by the entirety was marital property, but the use of the husband's separate funds to purchase and renovate the property justified awarding it to him, especially considering the very short duration of the parties' marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Weatherford v. Keenan, ___ N.C. App. ___, 493 S.E.2d 812 (1997).
The trial court did not err in imposing a constructive trust on improvements to the marital home, which the husband inherited from his parents after the parties' separation and before the divorce.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Upchurch v. Upchurch, ___ N.C. App. ___, 495 S.E.2d 738 (1998).
Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that assets held by the parties' son should be subjected to a constructive trust for the benefit of the marital estate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Burnett v. Burnett, 1996 WL 333375 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 1996).
The husband's mother conveyed certain real property to the husband. The deed recited that the conveyance was made in return for $10 "and other valuable consideration," 1996 WL 333375 at *1, but the parties did not actually exchange either the $10 or any other consideration. The trial court classified the property as marital, and the husband appealed.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Carlson v. Carlson, No. COA96-1098 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 1997)
A recent North Carolina case applied the excess earnings method to compute the goodwill of the medical practice of an invasive cardiologist. Under the excess earnings method, "goodwill" is defined as a function of the difference between the actual earnings of the practice involved and the average earnings of a practice operating in the same area under similar conditions.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH DAKOTA: Peterson v. Peterson, 600 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 1999).
Property division does not need to be equal to be equitable, but a substantial disparity must be explained. Here, the disparity was explained by the contributions of the wife and the conduct of the husband.
Subscription Read More About This Case

NORTH DAKOTA: Heggen v. Heggen, 541 N.W.2d 463 (N.D. 1996).
Allowing the husband to use nearly all of the marital estate to enhance his financial position, while requiring the wife to wait 25 years to receive her share, was clearly inequitable.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OHIO: Szerlip v. Szerlip, ___ Ohio App. 3d ___, 718 N.E.2d 473 (1998).
The husband and the wife entered into a private agreement to divide the household goods. This agreement did not prevent the trial court from determining the value of the property to be divided.
Subscription Read More About This Case

OHIO: Winkler v. Winkler, 117 Ohio App. 3d 247, 690 N.E.2d 109 (1997).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a public auction of the parties' farm without first securing an appraisal, where the husband did almost nothing to attempt a private sale and hampered the trial court's efforts to establish a value for the property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OKLAHOMA: Favell v. Favell, 1998 OK Civ. App. 22, 957 P.2d 556 (1998).
A noncompetition order issued against the husband in connection with the distribution of the parties' business was contrary to law and public policy.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: In re Marriage of Ward, 165 Or. App. 426, 998 P.2d 691
The wife was entitled to an equal division of property despite the short term of the marriage.
Subscription Read More About This Case

OREGON: Becker and Becker, 122 Or. App. 567, 858 P.2d 480 (1993).
Although wife's trust interests were not marital property, it was just and proper to award husband $2 million to compensate him for his reliance on those interests for retirement.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: In re Marriage of Pugh, 138 Or. App. 63, 906 P.2d 829 (1995).
Even though the husband's personal injury settlement was a marital asset, and even though he failed to rebut the presumption that the wife contributed equally to the acquisition of the settlement, the serious and permanent nature of his injury entitled him to a disproportionately greater share of it.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: Marriage of Day, 137 Or. App. 264, 904 P.2d 171 (1995).
Oregon law must be applied in an Oregon dissolution case to determine the distribution of the parties' assets, including real property located outside of the state.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: Nunez v. Nunez, 136 Or. App. 113, 902 P.2d 115 (1995).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the wife to make a loan to the husband that would enable him to pay his share of the parties' debt and to pay an "equalizing judgment."
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

PENNSYLVANIA: Twilla v. Twilla, ___ Pa. Super. ___, 664 A.2d 1020 (1995).
The wife should be compensated through an installment payment arrangement for her loss of equity in the marital home after the husband's failure to make the mortgage payments resulted in foreclosure.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH CAROLINA: Mallett v. Mallett, ___ S.C. ___, 473 S.E.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1996).
Termination benefits that the husband would receive following termination of his contract with State Farm were not marital property, because the payments were intended to replace renewal commissions that he would earn in the future.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH DAKOTA: Feldhaus v. Feldhaus, 646 N.W.2d 753 (S.D. 2002).
The parties were married in 1980, and they separated after 20 years of childless marriage. The husband was 61 years of age and the wife was 53 years of age. Both worked outside the home during the marriage, and they pooled their individual salaries and shared expenses.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TENNESSEE: Denton v. Denton, 33 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
The husband transferred certain property to wife, which portion later appreciated in value. The question confronting the court was how to characterize, first, the property and, second, the appreciated portion of the property.
Subscription Read More About This Case

TENNESSEE: McClellan v. McClellan, 873 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
Marital residence which was purchased with husband's separate funds but titled in both spouses' names was marital property, but trial court did not err in awarding home to husband.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TENNESSEE: Bookout v. Bookout, 954 S.W.2d 730 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
The trial court could award the wife more than one-half of the parties' substantial marital estate, in view of her greater contributions during the parties' professional training, her greater economic contribution to the acquisition of marital property, and her contributions as homemaker and primary caregiver to the parties' children.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TENNESSEE: Dellinger v. Dellinger, 958 S.W.2d 778 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting a certified financial planner to testify regarding the future economic effect of the parties' proposals for property division.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TEXAS: Lifshutz v. Lifshutz, No. 04-99-00860-CV (Tex. App. July 25, 2001).
During the divorce, the wife filed suit against the numerous companies, seeking to pierce the corporate veil and reach their assets for distribution as part of the community estate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TEXAS: Wright v. Eckhardt, 32 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App. 2000).
The wife was entitled to one-half of the husband's military retainer pay since she was awarded one-half of the husband's retirement benefits. In this case, the couple were divorced in 1994. The divorce decree awarded the wife one-half of the husband's employment retirement benefits, including benefits derived from the husband's service in the United States Navy.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TEXAS: Schlafly v. Schlafly, 33 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. App. 2000).
The husband contended that the trial court had erred in awarding his separate property to the wife and in awarding more that 90% of the community assets to the wife. In this case, the husband and the wife were married for three years before the husband filed for divorce.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TEXAS: In re Marriage of Wade, 923 S.W.2d 735 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996).
Termination benefits that the husband would receive following termination of his contract with State Farm were community property and should be valued as of the date of the divorce, taking into account the husband's years of employment as an agent prior to the marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Asgari v. Asgari, ___ Va. App. ___, 533 S.E.2d 643 (2000).
The question before the court was whether the husband's state employee disability benefits constituted "retirement benefits" within the scope of the statutory definition of marital property.
Subscription Read More About This Case

VIRGINIA: McLellan v. McLellan, ___ Va. App. ___, 533 S.E.2d 635 (2000).
The wife was entitled to an award of a portion of the husband's military disability retirement pay, according to the terms of the separation agreement.
Subscription Read More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Theismann v. Theismann, 22 Va. App. 557, 471 S.E.2d 809 (1996).
The trial court was not plainly wrong in concluding that the husband intended to make a gift when he placed assets in joint title with the wife, and the decision to make a relatively equal distribution of the gifted property did not constitute an abuse of discretion despite the short duration of the marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Lightburn v. Lightburn, 22 Va. App. 612, 472 S.E.2d 281 (1996).
The short duration of the parties' marriage did not justify awarding the wife one-half of the value of real property that the husband conveyed into a tenancy by the entirety two months before the parties' separation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 20 Va. App. 522, 458 S.E.2d 323 (1995).
The husband was persistently unfaithful to the wife during the greater part of the parties' marriage. Citing the negative noneconomic effects of the husband's adultery on the marital estate, the trial court awarded him only 40% of the marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Hayes v. Hayes, 22 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1131 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
The husband borrowed money from his wife to pay child support to a former wife and to improve his separate property. Upon divorce, the trial court held that it lacked authority to order the husband to repay the loan, reasoning that the loan was a nonmarital obligation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Rowe v. Rowe, No. 0843-96-2 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 1997).
The husband and his brother jointly operated a newspaper business in Fredericksburg, Virginia. The newspaper was separate property, but the husband's interest increased in value during the marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WASHINGTON: Barlow v. Barlow, No. 25408-5-II (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2001).
The husband appealed the trial court's property division, contending that the trial court improperly focused on the couple's past losses when dividing the assets and that the division was not fair and equitable. In this case, the couple married in 1994 after living together since the late 1980s. They separated in 1996 and finally divorced in 1999.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WASHINGTON: Dugan-Gaunt v. Gaunt, ___ Wash. App. ___, 915 P.2d 541 (1996).
A state statute prohibiting the transfer of workers' compensation benefits precludes a court from ordering a spouse to pay over workers' compensation benefits pursuant to a property distribution agreement.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WEST VIRGINIA: Pratt v. Pratt, ___ W. Va. ___, 475 S.E.2d 102 (1996).
The trial court erred in departing from the presumption of equal division for the parties' marital home, which had been purchased with funds gifted to the parties jointly by the wife's father.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WEST VIRGINIA: Jessee v. Aycoth, ___ W. Va. ___, 503 S.E.2d 528 (1998).
Where the parties' property settlement agreement provided for equal division of the proceeds from sale of the marital home but did not address the timing of the sale, it was not error to order the wife to sell the home once the parties' youngest child attained the age of 18 years.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WISCONSIN: Preiss v. Preiss, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 617 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 2000).
The division of the husband's pension plan as of the date of retirement, rather than as of the date of divorce, was warranted. On the other hand, the inclusion of the value of the husband's accumulated sick leave as an asset of the marital estate was error.
Subscription Read More About This Case

WYOMING: Bummer v. Collier, 864 P.2d 453 (Wyo. 1993).
The husband and wife were divorced in 1979. The husband was a partner in a partnership that had acquired title to certain real property the year before the divorce.
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.