Divorce Lawyers San Jose

Under subdivision (c)(1) of this section, wife’s stock ownership plan was a non-marital asset that increased after marriage through contributions based on wife’s salary, a marital asset; as such, the entire stock plan would be classified as non-marital property subject to reimbursement to the marital estate for contributions made to the plan during the marriage. In re Phillips

Oral property settlement should not have been reduced to written judgment, where petitioner, before entry of judgment, raised significant concerns regarding tax consequences that could impact the economic circumstances of the parties, respondent raised concerns regarding her tax liability and the payment of credit card debts, and there was a significant likelihood of protracted post-judgment litigation over the disputed provisions of settlement agreement. In Lakin
Respondent shielded certain marital assets from the petitioner, thus preventing petitioner from making an informed decision to enter into the property settlement, or the trial court from making a fair and equitable distribution of the marital property in just proportion, such that the orally agreed-to settlement was unconscionable. In re Burch

Property division section of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/503(a), 504(a), was preempted by 42 U.S.C.S. § 407(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 301 et seq., which barred the transfer of social security benefits. In re Marriage of Hulstrom

When salaries, contributions and other evidence were considered, it was clear that both parties contributed to bank accounts and both parties were entitled to divisional shares in them; therefore the trial court abused its discretion in awarding wife-plaintiff the husband-defendant’s joint tenancy interest in the bank accounts. Fuqua v. Fuqua
Trial court did not err in finding that the defendant overcame the presumption of a gift of one-half of the $21,000 balance in the account and that the account was jointly held for convenience. Anagnostopoulos v. Anagnostopoulos
See Divorce New York

The presumption of marital property can be overcome only be clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence. In re Weiler
All property acquired by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be marital property, including property transferred into some form of co-ownership between the spouses. McCoy v. McCoy
As a general rule, under this section all property acquired by either spouse after the marriage, but prior to a judgment of dissolution, is presumed to be marital property. Kew v Kew
Once non-marital property is transferred to a husband and wife in joint tenancy, a presumption of transmutation and of gift to the marital estate arises. In re Durante
The party asserting the existence of an agreement to exclude certain property from marital property pool has the burden of proving its existence by clear and convincing evidence. In re Harris
In Illinois, all property acquired during the marriage is presumed marital unless excepted by statute; the burden is on the party seeking to rebut this presumption to prove by clear evidence that the property is statutorily excepted. In re Brooks
Where evidence essentially raised two separate presumptions with respect to the marital residence, including first the fact that the residence was acquired after the marriage raised a presumption of marital property, and, secondly, the fact that the property was taken in joint tenancy, presumption of a gift to the marital estate was raised and was not overcome. In re Nagel
Presumption of marital property applied to farm that husband acquired from his parents where wife’s uncontradicted testimony was that she worked to support the family during the years during which husband owned and attempted to make payments on farm. Hofmann v. Hofmann
A party claiming that property is non-marital by virtue of this section has the burden of proof to establish that it is non-marital. In re Scott