Marital Home
MONTANA: In re Marriage of Foster, 324 Mont. 114, 102 P.3d 16 (2004).
The trial court erred by awarding the husband one-half of the marital home, which had been inherited by the wife before the marriage. The husband was entitled to share in the value added by his contributions during the marriage, but he was not entitled to share in the value of the property as of the date of the marriage, even though all property owned by either party is technically subject to division by the court. The wife's unilateral and secretive transfers of interests in the property to her children should not reduce the husband's interest, as the transfers were wrongful in nature. The trial court clearly erred in imposing a constructive trust upon the children's interests, as the children had not been joined as parties to the case, so that the court had no jurisdiction over their property.
Read More About This Case
NEW YORK: Palumbo v. Palumbo, 10 A.D.3d 680, 782 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2004).
The trial court erred by failing to give the husband credit for funds he spent to reduce the principal balance on the mortgage on the marital home after the parties' separation.
Read More About This Case
VERMONT: Slade v. Slade, ___ Vt. ___ , 872 A.2d 367 (2005).
The trial court did not err by awarding the wife the marital home only upon the condition that she refinance it to remove the husband's name from the mortgage. The trial court did not err by dividing the parties' credit-card debt equally, even though the husband earned much more than the wife, where the husband had made substantial payments on joint debts during separation. The husband did not dissipate property by withdrawing funds from his retirement accounts before separation to pay legal expenses to defend himself from criminal charges. The payments benefited the marriage by preserving the husband's earning capacity. The trial court did not err in dividing the marital property equally, even though the husband was guilty of infidelity and other fault.
Read More About This Case
MISSOURI: Comninellis v. Comninellis, 99 S.W.3d 502 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
The marital home, titled in the name of the husband's corporation, was separate property on the facts because it was acquired from funds earned before the marriage. A court can pierce the corporate veil if the corporate form is being used fraudulently to prevent the division of marital property. No piercing was necessary on the facts, however, as the corporate assets claimed by the wife were traced to nonmarital sources. A commercial property purchased during the marriage, partly with separate funds, has both marital and separate interests.
Read More About This Case
- All Marital Home Cases of Interest
- Recent Cases of Interest
|
|
