|
|
|
Cases of Interest: Interest
© National Legal Research Group, Inc.
ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Blinderman, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 669 N.E.2d 687 (1996).
The trial court's award of prejudgment interest was improper, where the award was not authorized by statute or by the parties' agreement, and where the court set forth no equitable considerations justifying the award.
Read More About This CaseMICHIGAN: Norman v. Norman, 201 Mich. App. 182, 506 N.W.2d 254 (1993).
Simple interest, and not compound interest, was payable on amount owed by wife to husband, where divorce judgment did not expressly provide for compound interest.
Read More About This CaseMONTANA: In re Marriage of DeBuff, ___ Mont. ___, 50 P.3d 1070 (2002).
The trial court was not required to consider speculative capital gains taxes which might be due at some future point if the husband sold his share of the marital property. The trial court did not err by refusing to recognize a $120,000 marital asset merely because the husband's income had exceeded his expenses by this amount in a prior tax year.
Read More About This CaseNEBRASKA: Priest v. Priest, 251 Neb. 76, 554 N.W.2d 792 (1996).
The wife should be required to pay simple interest at the rate of 8% on the unpaid balance of the husband's lien on the marital home.
Read More About This CaseNORTH DAKOTA: Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 553 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1996).
The wife should be required to pay simple interest at the rate of 4% on the money judgment granted to the husband.
Read More About This CaseGo to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| 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. |