Divorce Cases Finding No Dissipation of Marital Funds
National Legal Research Group, Inc.)
Cases finding no dissipation often rely upon a general rule that the payment of reasonable living expenses is a valid marital purpose. A Virginia court explained:
We find no reason to distinguish between voluntary and court-ordered spousal support in the application of marital waste jurisprudence. In both cases, the expenditure is for a valid marital purpose and does not constitute dissipation of marital assets in a deliberate attempt to affect a monetary award.
Thomas v. Thomas, 40 Va. App. 639, 645-46, 580 S.E.2d 503, 506 (2003); see also Judy v. Judy, 998 S.W.2d 45, 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (husband "used the [marital] money to pay marital bills, both parties’ debts, to support himself, and to pay Wife’s temporary maintenance"; no dissipation); Romkema v. Romkema, 918 S.W.2d 294, 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) ("Husband testified some of the funds were used to pay Wife’s maintenance"; no dissipation); Thomas v. Thomas, 987 P.2d 603, 609 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (husband "used business funds, a marital asset, to pay his support obligations and to meet his own needs during the pendency of the divorce proceedings"; "consistent with the parties’ historical practices, income from the business was used to pay family expenses"; no dissipation).
Information provided by:
National Legal Research Group, Inc.
Recommend Page | Print Page