Dissipation is the use of marital property for the sole benefit of one of the spouses for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. In re Parker
In its legal sense, dissipation is defined as the use of marital property for the sole, but not necessarily personal, benefit of one of the spouses for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. In re Hagshenas
Dissipation is defined as the use of marital property for the sole benefit of one spouse for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. In re Philips
Dissipation refers to the use of marital property for the sole benefit of one of the spouses for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time that the marriage is undergoing irreconcilable breakdown. In re Hazel
By its very definition, dissipation occurs after the marriage is irreconcilably broken down. In re Getautas
Dissipation of marital assets by one spouse in contemplation of dissolution of marriage is an unacceptable practice, and may be found where a spouse uses marital property for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time at which the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. In re Hellwig
Womens Divorce Lawyers
Because wife suggested the antenuptial agreement, freely entered into it with knowledge and comprehension of the nature of the agreement, was represented by counsel, and there was neither misrepresentation of husband’s assets, nor a gross disparity in the relative wealth of the parties, and there appeared to have been no fraud, coercion or unconscionability, the contract was properly executed, defenses to the contract were defeated, and the trial court correctly ruled that the antenuptial agreement was valid. In re Byrne
Trial court determination that joint custody would not be in the best interests of the children, in large part, because the husband resided far from his children, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion. In re Hahin
While the parties shared custody, the judgment for dissolution gave mother the primary physical custody of son and thus, the trial court properly could have considered this factor in maintaining the primary physical custody of son with mother. In re Kartholl
The scope of questioning in a child custody interview is largely a matter of the judge’s discretion; he is not limited to asking what the children expressly prefer but may determine this from their answers to other questions. Their personality, and other circumstances. In re Milovich
Prior Hearing
The trial court erred in considering evidence obtained from a previous hearing held before a different judge in determining custody of the children; where evidence is contradictory on matters crucial to a determination of comparative parental fitness, the court does not serve the best interests of the child unless it has the ability to discern the truth be personally observing the demeanor of the conflicting witnesses. In re Akins
Properly Excluded
Evidence, offered by a former husband, to show that prior to the order awarding his former wife custody, evidence that wife had temporarily worked in a tavern, at hours which precluded her giving proper care to the child was properly excluded where this was not a continuing condition. Handrich v. Handrich
