Divorce Lawyers Dallas

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that one spouse’s use of marital funds for his or her own living expenses at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown could be shown to be so selfish and excessive and improper as to constitute an outright waste of marital funds. In re Hagshenas

Where some items of husband’s were exchanged for other property during the course of the marriage, but these “new acquisitions’ were also separately titled, such assets remained separate property regardless of the number or type of post marital exchanges as long as there has been no evidence of an intent to transmute. In re Sidden
It is only property owned at the time of the judgment of dissolution that the court may classify as “marital property”; property owned separately by the spouse before dissolution may be disposed of as he/ she deems fit, absent any contrary order of the court. In re Schwartz
Subsection (b) of this section does not prevent married persons from owning property separately during the marriage and disposing of it in any fashion that the property owning spouse may choose. Kujawinski v. Kujawinski

The money the wife contributed to her IRA account during the fifteen months she was married was marital property, as well as any increase in value attributable to that amount. In re Raad

The creation of marital joint tenancy property using non-marital funds results in a gift to the marital estate absent clear and convincing evidence. In re Flemming
Where the parties held certain property in join tenancy, a rebuttable presumption arose that defendant made a gift of an undivided one half interest in such property. Brongel v. Brongel
When property is taken in joint tenancy by husband and wife, there is a presumption of gift from the one furnishing the consideration to the other, and while this is the general rule, it is subject to the provisions governing the division and transfer of marital property and the award of property in lieu of alimony. Benson v. Benson
See Divorce San Diego

Past due installments of alimony and support money are a vested right, and the court has no authority to modify them in any particular, either as to amount or time of payment. Shuff v. Fulte.
Subsection (d) operates to define the person entitled to support as a judgment debtor and, therefore, such a person need only establish the existence of the obligation itself, i.e., the dissolution judgment and underlying agreement, and the obligor has the burden of proof with regard to a claim that he or she has satisfied the obligation in whole or in part. In re Jorczak.
By excluding the husband’s full pro form from a allocation from child support calculation, the trial court abused its discretion. In re Winne.
Where there has been a substantial change in circumstances, such as a change of custody, the factors set forth in this section should be applied and it is the responsibility of the parties to present the evidence with respect to the factors set forth therein. White v. White.
If the court determines that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, then the court should determine the amount of child support to be paid and in doing so, the court should follow the statutory guidelines set forth in this section. In re Stone.
See Divorce Phoenix