Divorce Lawyers San Jose

Both a wife’s dissipation of marital assets and a consideration of her husband’s pain, suffering, and disability as a quadriplegic were properly considered by a trial court in making a distribution of marital assets in the couple’s divorce, and an award of 75% of the marital assets to the husband was not an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Zweig
Where wife’s salary, were she to return to teaching, would be approximately $18,000 per year and husband’s gross income would be approximately 25 time this amount, and award of 55% of the marital assets to wife and 45% to husband was not an abuse of discretion. In re Scafuri
In light of respondent’s lower earning capacity, as evidenced by the fact that she remained out of the work force during most of the marriage and when she re-entered the work force she worked only low paying jobs, and the circumstances under which she lived during the year in which the petitioner had virtually full use of that year’s lottery payment, division of marital property was not beyond the bounds of reason especially where each party would receive equal lottery payments thereby making any disparity insignificant, and where the overall percentage of marital property received would be approximately 51% for the respondent and 49% for the petitioner. In re Mahaffey
When one spouse makes a greater contribution to the marital assets, the court may be justified in awarding him or her a large share of the marital property. In re Jones
Where, among other things, one spouse had little involvement with the other spouse’s business and had contributed little to marital assets, and over the years, one spouse had advanced funds to the other for payment of bills, care repairs, and other expenses, in addition to temporary maintenance payments, the court’s 60%apportionment of the business awarded to one spouse and 40% to the other was proper. In re Jones