Venkursawmy v. Venkursawmy
Order requiring parties to prepare a list of property and distribute items by “pick and choose” method is reversed as such an award affords no basis for appellate review.
Shea v. Shea
Order requiring parties to prepare a list of property and distribute items by “pick and choose” method is reversed as such an award affords no basis for appellate review.
Yates v. Yates
Order that wife prepare two lists of household furnishings and husband chooses one of the lists is affirmed.
Kronforst v. Kronforst
Profit sharing cannot be both asset for division and income for alimony.
Wetzel v. Wetzel
Trial court erred in dividing stock in kind. Where there are sufficient assets, any form of joint control or ownership of assets by divorced people should be avoided. The elimination of the source of strife and friction is sought and the financial affairs of divorced parties separated as far as possible.
In Re Marriage of Spheeris v. Spheeris
Husband should have been given the option of either paying cash to equalize estate or transferring property in kind. Abuse of discretion by court not to have provided this option.
In Re Marriage of Thorpe v. Thorpe
(1) Reversed for trial court to explain reasons for its division of property. (2) Property disposed of within one year of divorce petition is presumed to be marital property. (3) Source of assets is a consideration, but premarital property is not automatically excluded.
In Re Marriage of Weiss v. Weiss
(1) Maintenance and property division are inter-dependant. (2) Law firm buy-out is a property division asset, not income, since it can be presently valued.
In Re Marriage of Duffy v. Duffy
When installment payments are awarded to one party in a divorce, interest is appropriate.
Ashraf v. Ashraf
(1) Court gave due consideration to husband’s costs and tax considerations in making property division. (2) Court abused its discretion by using its own figure of 15% as a tax reduction on retirement plans, thus ignoring uncontradicted expert opinion.