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: Marital Home
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: Tollefsen v. Tollefsen, 981 P.2d 568 (Alaska 1999).
While the trial court found that the marital home required substantial repairs before it could be sold, it failed to take into account the cost of these repairs when deciding upon the couple's property division.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ALASKA: Cox v. Cox, 882 P.2d 909 (Alaska 1994).
Given the speculative nature of the testimony regarding sale costs and the lack of a firm selling date, it was not error for the trial court to deduct only a portion of the selling costs.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: In re Marriage of Brand, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179 (1996).
The trial court may order exclusive use and a deferred sale of the marital home even when the spouse who will not reside in the home has a separate property interest in the home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Billings v. Billings, 54 Conn. App. 142, 732 A.2d 814 (1999).
Mortgage payoffs must be subtracted from the market value of the marital residence before computing a split in net proceeds from the sale of the residence. The wife is not entitled to additional credit for mortgage payments that were included in the original deductions, however.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: McDiarmid v. McDiarmid, 649 A.2d 810 (D.C. 1994).
The trial court abused its discretion in failing to revalue the marital home when the husband made a proffer that the home had increased in value substantially during the lengthy period between the hearing and the trial court's equitable distribution decision.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Gore v. Gore, 638 A.2d 672 (D.C. 1994).
Property may be distributed in divorce proceeding even though a third party holds legal title to the property, where the third party has been joined and has been found to hold the title in constructive trust for the spouses.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Williams v. Williams, 766 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).
The temporary award of the marital home to the wife was an abuse of discretion.
Subscription Read More About This Case

FLORIDA: Bryan v. Bryan, 765 So. 2d 829 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).
The wife was not entitled to a greater interest in the marital home based on her contribution of nonmarital assets, since the trial court found no special equity arising from the nonmarital contributions.
Subscription Read More About This Case

FLORIDA: Gallinar v. Gallinar, 763 So. 2d 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).
Was the husband entitled to a special equity in the marital home, given his contribution of premarital assets for the down payment?
Subscription Read More About This Case

FLORIDA: Collins v. Collins, 737 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).
The wife's father lent money to the couple for a down payment on the marital home, yet this did not create a special equity for the wife in the home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Todd v. Todd, 734 So. 2d 537 (Fla. Dist. C App. 1999).
The trial court awarded the husband exclusive use of the marital home without providing that the possession would terminate upon remarriage. The court of appeal held that this was error.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Hosack v. Hosack, 679 So. 2d 852 (Fla. DCA 1996).
The trial court erred by guaranteeing the husband a minimum amount from the sale of the marital home without regard to the amount of the actual sale price.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

GEORGIA: Morrow v. Morrow, 272 Ga. 557, 532 S.E.2d 672 (2000).
The marital home, albeit incomplete in construction, had been awarded to the husband after the couple's first divorce. The home was completed during the second marriage, and 50% of the home was awarded to the wife.
Subscription Read More About This Case

GEORGIA: Horsley v. Horsley, ___ Ga. ___, 490 S.E.2d 392 (1997).
Under the "source of funds" rule, the spouse contributing nonmarital property is entitled to an interest in the property in the ratio of the nonmarital investment to the total nonmarital and marital investment, with the remaining property to be characterized as marital.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Carter, 317 Ill. App. 3d 546, 740 N.E.2d 82 (2000).
The circuit court was incorrect in not considering the husband's dissipation of marital assets when it equitably distributed the couple's marital property in equal proportions. In this case, the couple married in 1973. In October 1998, the wife filed for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Frey, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 630 N.E.2d 466 (1994).
Lists which parties drew up during separation did not constitute valid, binding settlement agreement.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Meadow, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 628 N.E.2d 702 (1993).
The home which husband had deeded to wife during parties' separation in exchange for her transfer to him of her interest in other real property was her nonmarital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

KANSAS: In re Marriage of Wade, ___ Kan. App. 2d ___, 884 P.2d 736 (1994).
The husband's life estate in the marital residence was properly valued and divided between the parties by awarding the wife one-half of its value.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

LOUISIANA: Brehm v. Brehm, 762 So. 2d 1259 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Is a home built with community funds on the husband's separate property community property?
Subscription Read More About This Case

MAINE: Tibbetts v. Tibbetts, 2000 Me. 210, 762 A.2d 937 (2000).
Could the court order the partition of the real property in order to satisfy the district court order?
Subscription Read More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Pittman v. Pittman, No. 1999-CA-00147-COA (Miss. Ct. App. June 5, 2001).
In this case, the couple were married in 1975 while they were both students at Emory University. After the wife completed nursing school, she was employed as a nurse while the husband worked on his doctorate at a seminary. After his graduation, the husband became a minister, and the wife continued as a nurse.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSISSIPPI: Welch v. Welch, 755 So. 2d 6 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
The chancellor can consider property acquired outside the couple's marriage when measuring overall equity. In addition, the fact that the sale of the marital home would be contingent upon the husband's agreement as to his interest in the home was not manifest error.
Subscription Read More About This Case

MISSOURI: Ray v. Ray, 877 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
When valuing equity in the marital home, it is not appropriate to deduct a hypothetical real estate commission unless there is some indication that the house may be sold in the near future.
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

MONTANA: In re Marriage of Barker, ___ Mont. ___, 870 P.2d 86 (1994).
The fact that the wife single-handedly rescued the marital home from foreclosure supported the court's conclusion that she should be awarded all the equity in the marital home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Kraeger v. Kraeger, ___ A.D.2d ___, 706 N.Y.S.2d 471 (2000).
The marital residence did not become marital property where its increase in value was primarily due to market forces and inflation, but the husband was entitled to one-half of the amount of the actual value added by improvements to the residence.
Subscription Read More About This Case

NEW YORK: Chan v. Chan, ___ A.D.2d ___, 701 N.Y.S.2d 114 (1999).
The wife was entitled to 25% of the appreciation in value of the marital residence.
Subscription Read More About This Case

NEW YORK: Teabout v. Teabout, ___ A.D.2d ___, 703 N.Y.S.2d 571 (2000).
The court is allowed to consider fairness in awarding equitable distribution in a dissolution proceeding, and therefore the husband could be excluded from a share in the marital home, based upon his neglectful conduct.
Subscription Read More About This Case

NEW YORK: Rindos v. Rindos, ___ A.D.2d ___, 694 N.Y.S.2d 735 (1999).
The wife was granted exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence until emancipation of the couple's youngest child.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Marano v. Marano, ___ A.D.2d ___, 607 N.Y.S.2d 359 (1994).
The trial court erred in ordering the immediate sale of the marital residence, where wife needed to occupy it as the custodial parent and she appeared able to maintain the residence herself.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: DiSanto v. DiSanto, ___ A.D.2d ___, 604 N.Y.S.2d 413 (1993).
Decision to award marital home to wife was supported in part by evidence that husband led her to believe she would eventually receive home if she accepted relatively low support and maintenance payments during the period of separation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Hay v. Hay, No. COA01-187 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2002).
The husband appealed an equitable distribution judgment awarding an unequal division of the marital estate in his favor. Questions that arose included whether the husband was entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit of the total sum of monthly mortgage payments that he paid postseparation and whether payments and depreciation in the mortgage balance should have been treated as divisible property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OHIO: Haslem v. Haslem, ___ Ohio App. 3d ___, 727 N.E.2d 928 (2000).
The value of the marital contributions toward the marital residence was properly divided by the trial court and was not an abuse of discretion.
Subscription Read More About This Case

OREGON: In re Marriage of Thomas, ___ Or. ___, 981 P.2d 382 (1999).
The husband was ordered to pay for the upkeep of the marital home until it was sold. The husband contended that this constituted a "spousal support order," which could be modified.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: Rykert v. Rykert, 146 Or. App. 537, 934 P.2d 519 (1997).
The trial court did not err by applying a 39% tax discount to the husband's termination benefits while not applying any tax discount to the expected capital gain on the sale of the family home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: Davis v. Davis, 146 Or. App. 507, 934 P.2d 451 (1997).
The marital home should have been sold immediately rather than delaying the sale until the parties' child reached age 21, because it was the only valuable marital asset.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

PENNSYLVANIA: Bolze v. Bolze, 427 Pa. Super. 599, 629 A.2d 1031 (1993).
Improvements that husband and wife made to marital home titled in name of husband's parents did not create a marital interest in the home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH CAROLINA: Hough v. Hough, ___ S.C. ___, 440 S.E.2d 387 (Ct. App. 1993).
Evidence supported trial court's finding that marital home, although titled in name of husband's mother, was marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH CAROLINA: Murray v. Murray, ___ S.C. ___, 439 S.E.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1993).
Home which husband paid for before the marriage was not transmuted to marital property merely because the parties lived there for the duration of their 17-year marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH DAKOTA: Abrams v. Abrams, 516 N.W.2d 348 (S.D. 1994).
Even if the sale of the marital home were not immediately contemplated, it was reasonable for the trial court to consider the net value of the home to the party who received it.
SubscriptionRead 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

UTAH: Thomas v. Thomas, 987 P.2d 603 (Utah Ct. App. 1999).
The trial court refused to put a value on a business owned and operated by the husband and held that the husband's use of income from his business to pay temporary support obligations and his own living expenses was not an improper dissipation of a marital asset. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the husband the value of his premarital interest in the family home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

UTAH: Wiles v. Wiles, 871 P.2d 1026 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).
The trial court's property distribution, which awarded the home to the wife and the lien to the husband for his share of the home's value, superseded the wife's ability to enforce her homestead exemption against the husband's interest in the property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

UTAH: Baker v. Baker, 866 P.2d 540 (Utah Ct. App. 1993).
The totality of circumstances supported the trial court's decision to order the sale of the marital home, despite the wife's argument that she and the minor children should be allowed to remain there.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Martin v. Martin, ___ Va. App. ___, 489 S.E.2d 727 (1997).
Where the wife recognized that a home was undervalued and convinced the husband to invest his separate funds in it, she contributed "personal effort" for the purpose of determining how to classify the increase in value of the property.
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

WYOMING: Davis v. Davis, 980 P.2d 322 (Wyo. 1999).
Evidence of appreciation was sufficient to find increased value in the marital home for the purposes of equitable distribution.
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.