Divorce Lawyers Dallas

Voluntary Payments
Bearing children or residing in the marital home do not operate to increase a wife’s equitable interest in property, and voluntary payments by a wife for family expenses during the time the husband and the wife are living together do not create an indebtedness from the husband to the wife in the absence of an agreement. Crenshaw v. Crenshaw
Estoppel
Wife’s acceptance of benefits under the decree did not estop her from attacking the decree in action for marital dissolution on appeal although wife accepted other benefits under the decree which were not in the nature of support or maintenance, such as attorney fees, and had collected rental proceeds on the property awarded to her under the decree for disposition of property, which virtually left the parties in a status quo position. In re Parr
Wife was barred from attacking a divorce decree by accepting benefits of divorce decree to the distinct disadvantage of husband where wife had been awarded marital home and all personal property therein, and subsequent to the divorce decree, she sold two pieces of personal property out of the marital home and she sold the marital residence and purchased another residence. Adams v. Adams
The doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply where plaintiff never communicated with defendant either verbally or in writing during the intervening years which followed the entry of decretal order, although plaintiff was silent during a long period when arrearages persisted because she sought legal advice during that time. Ellingwood v. Ellingwood

Where husband incurred substantial debt following entry of trial court’s restraining order prohibiting either party from utilizing marital assets without leave of court in order to satisfy his gambling debts, incurred without leave of court and without wife’s consent, the trial curt’s factual finding that husband dissipated marital assets was upheld. In re Sobo
Respondent failed to establish by clear and specific evidence how funds were spent or that he used them for marital purpose since he gave vague and contradictory statements that the funds were spent on certain items, petitioner often established that respondent’s testimony was false, and respondent admitted that he was unsure of where the money went or how the funds were spent. In re Rai
The trial court correctly concluded that petitioner dissipated funds from her living trust account; this withdrawal was made during the pendency of the proceedings, and her bare assertion that the funds were used to pay necessary expenses was insufficient to allow the court to find that the funds were properly withdrawn. In re Harding
Wife, who, while residing in residence and receiving funds from husband due to a court order which included an amount requested by her for payment of real estate taxes, failed to pay the real estate taxes, dissipated marital assets. In re Ryman
The determinative issue was not the precise time at which the dissipation by the husband occurred, but the fact that he used marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage during a period when only he had access to the fund; therefore, the trial court’s apportionment of marital property was equitable. In re Kaplan