A distribution of more than half the marital property to the wife was upheld where (1) the husband had significant non-marital assets, including a farm which was appraised at $600,000, (2) a majority of the debt assigned to the husband consisted of the operating expenses of the farm, (3) the husband had a superior earning capacity, had more sources of income, and had a greater opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets and income, and (4) trial court awarded the wife sole custody of the children, but did not award her maintenance.
Award of less than one-half of the marital property to wife, while not generous, was justified in view of the husband’s greater contribution to the marital estate, the wife’s greater share of property immediately capable of producing income, and the substantial value of the property awarded to the wife.
General rule that an interested party should not be appointed trustee of a trust established from marital property, for minor trustee of a trust established from marital property, for minor child’s education and support, did not apply where adequate safeguards were instituted to ensure proper distribution of trust funds.
Although a judge must consider the tax consequences when dividing the marital property, the judge cannot consider the tax consequences of actions which are not necessary as a result of the judgment entered.
Property designated as non-marital pursuant to the exceptions in subsection (a) of this section may still be presumptively transmuted into marital property by the affirmative act of the contributing spouse, based on the presumption that the contributing spouse intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate.
Property designated as non-marital pursuant to the exceptions in subsection (a) of this section may be presumptively transmuted to marital property by affirmative act of the contributing spouse.
Divorce Dallas
Although this Act makes no provision for the filing of a third-party action in a dissolution proceeding to determine the parties’ rights in alleged marital property action held by the third party, the right to file a third-party action has been recognized where the alleged marital asset is held in trust.
Where a chose in action was the only asset of the parties from which they could meet support obligations, the power granted in subsection (i) was sufficiently broad to permit the divorce court, within its discretion, to order the sale of interest in litigation.
Assets purchase with separate funds remain separate property, regardless of the manner of holding title and regardless of the manner of holding title and regardless of the number of post-marital exchanges.
The entire increase in the value of a marital home should be considered marital property, even though husband was entitled to assert separate ownership of that portion of the home which was paid for by separate funds belonging to him.
Where the phrase “maintenance in gross” was simply another name for the petitioner’s award of marital property and was employed solely for tax purposes, and periodic maintenance was denied, the petitioner’s remarriage did not constitute grounds for a modification of the property distribution.
No contribution which is not traceable by clear and convincing evidence is reimbursable.
Trial court erred when it failed to reimburse the marital estate for the contributions made from the marital estate to husband’s non-marital residence.
Reimbursement for contributions is not mandated when property is given as a gift to the marital estate.
If non-marital property is transmuted into marital property, the party contributing the non-marital property is entitled to reimbursement of the value of such property provided: (1) the contribution is traceable by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the contributor did not make a gift of the non-marital property to the marital estate.
Because personal effort of a spouse is deemed a contribution by the marital estate, one spouse’s contribution of personal effort toward the non-marital property may entitle the marital estate, not the other spouse, to reimbursement from the non-marital estate receiving the contribution.
New York Divorce
Where determination of the value of a pension plan under present actuarial methods would have been difficult, if not impossible, the reserved jurisdiction approach should have been used such that the trial court would reserve jurisdiction in order to make an allocation of spouse’s interest in the pension when, as and if the retirement or pension benefits became payable; the formula that should be employed at that time would be a “just proportion” of the benefits determined by dividing the years of marriage by the total years of employment.
The trial court was directed to reserve jurisdiction over the future pension benefits, whether it would make a present percentage allocation of those benefits, or would reserve the decision for the future, was left to the court’s sound discretion.
As maintenance is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the court, reserved jurisdiction of the court, reserved jurisdiction over pension/savings benefits allows the court to apportion to the non-employee spouse an interest in pension benefits accrued during the marriage, yet at a time in future when the value of those benefits is no longer speculative.
Appropriate circumstances to enter a judgment of dissolution and reservation of questions for child custody, support and maintenance would be where the court does not have in personal jurisdiction over the respondent, or inability of a party to pay child support or maintenance if so ordered, or where the court has set aside an adequate fund for child support pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or where the child or children of the parties do not reside with either parent.
