Divorce Lawyers San Jose

Where respondent’s motivation at the time of transferring property title was to insulate himself and petitioner from difficulties in the event of the death of one or the other, the court’s decision to accept respondent’s testimony over that of petitioner was not an abuse of discretion.

One spouse may have a special equitable interest in property held in the other’s name, which interest may arise in many ways, and the court may award a share of the property representing such special interest in it.

Tax consequences of a property distribution are one of the factors to be considered by the court in making a property distribution upon dissolution of marriage; however, speculative tax consequences are inappropriate for the court’s consideration.

Divorce Dallas

Although federal income tax returns are admissible, given the proper foundation proof, it is incumbent on the trier of fact to determine as best he can what disposition is being made of the funds generated through depreciation or other sheltered income and this requires a balancing test: viz., the disposition of the current cash flow versus the ability to pay in a dissolution proceeding.

Where the related issues of maintenance to petitioner and the minor child and the payment of educational expenses were directly affected by the final property disposition, since these awards were substantially dependent upon the financial resources of the parties, including marital property, the maintenance and support awards would have to be re-evaluated by the trial court on remand so that it could properly consider any changes required in the disposition of such property.

While the trial court in its judgment did not specifically discuss the tax consequences of the sale of the farm and the office and rental property, where both parties would be equally affected by the sale the trial court, did not err with regard to the determination of tax consequences.

Where neither party has claimed on appeal that the trial court erred in determining the value of the marital property, the trial court’s finding as to the value of the marital property is the law of the case, and the only issue to be decided on remand is the proper distribution of the marital property.
Where it has been determined that the trial court erred in failing to consider or to evaluate a significant marital asset, the trial court upon remand must review all property and support awards in order to determine if any reallocation of assets is necessary.

Funds in an escrow account acquired in exchange for non-marital and marital property must be divided into their marital and non-marital components, with the marital components subject to equitable distribution.
Because parties were not able to divide household goods between themselves and because husband-defendant did not establish a special equity in all or part of the contents, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the sale and equal distribution of the proceeds and therefore, value placed on the goods by the trial court was irrelevant because of the equal distribution order.
Husband could not be allowed to deduct or receive credit for his share of payments made on behalf of wife and to satisfy his own proportionate share of the expenses upon sale of former marital home and division of proceeds under divorce decree.
Where the court was unable to determine from the record and from the vague and incomplete testimony of the witness for the bank exactly how the bank came into possession of the note and mortgage on the marital estate, the evidence was insufficient to support award of proceeds of sale to bank instead of wife.

New York Divorce

Where there was no evidence to support husband’s contention that he made a substantial contribution to owned rental property and wife obviously made the sole contribution to the property’s acquisition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding wife the complete interest in the property.

Wife’s testimony was not clear and convincing and, therefore, was insufficient to rebut the presumption that property acquired during marriage was presumed to be marital property where husband testified he transferred the property to wife only to protect the property from a possible malpractice action against him, and that he did not intend the property to be a gift.