division of property in a divorce

• Papp v. Papp, (Ohio 2013)

In overruling motion to terminate spousal support, trial court erred in holding that the only changes of circumstance that could support a termination of spousal support were the death of either party or remarriage of the obligee spouse. Nevertheless, this error was harmless, because the evidence in the record (a substantial increase in the obligor’s income, and no change in the obligee’s financial situation) does not support a termination of spousal support.Trial court did not err in holding that spousal support is not subject to termination because obligor spouse has now retired, and is receiving his income in the form of pension payments from a retirement account that was awarded to him in provision for the division of property in the divorce decree. Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Cash From Savings Doesn't Count for Child Support, Says Illinois Supreme Court

Regular withdrawals that an unemployed father took from his savings account should not have been treated as "income" for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment. The father was unemployed and lived off assets that he was awarded in the division of marital property in his divorce. Every month, the father withdrew $8,500 from a savings account to cover his monthly living expenses.

• Lawyers USA
• June 08, 2012

• Kingery v. Kingery, (Ohio 2005)

QDRO; clarification of division of property in a divorce decree; division of retirement benefits.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Federal Tax Consequences of Civil Unions

Introduction. -II. State Law Sometimes Determines Federal Tax Consequences: A. Family Relationships: 1. Parent-child Relationships: a. Presumption of Parenthood. b. Stepparents. 2. In-law Relationships. B. Property Rights: 1. Support Obligations. 2. Equitable Division of Property at Divorce. -III. Challenging the Tax Code. -IV. Conclusion.

• Capital University Law Review
• Nbr. 30-2, July 2002

• Steinke v. Steinke, (Ohio 2006)

The antenuptial agreement between the parties covered the increase in the pension, but did not cover the jointly filed income tax return refunds or the properties acquired after the marriage. The trial court did not err in it's division of property in the divorce proceedings.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Noll v. Veti, (Ohio 2005)

Divorce; Trial court determination of a property division in divorce proceeding; Distribution of marital property.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Kapadia v. Kapadia, (Ohio 2012)

The domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision to find appellant in contempt of court for her failure to pay her former husband the first installment of the property division as set forth in the divorce decree. Appellant did not meet her burden of proof that she was financially unable to comply with the terms of the decree. Requiring appellant as condition of purge to pay attorney fees necessary for former husband to pursue motion to show cause was not an abuse of discretion.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Wife Can Sue Husband's Divorce Attorney, Rules Minnesota Supreme Court

A wife could sue a divorce attorney for assisting her husband in misrepresenting the value of his business, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a summary judgment. The attorney represented the husband in his divorce. In the divorce case, a division of property was entered based on the husband having a $7.1 million interest in a tile business.

• Lawyers USA
• January 21, 2011

• St. Germaine v. St. Germaine, (Ohio 2010)

Appellant’s failure to provide a transcript of the trial court proceedings or an App.R. 9(C) statement precludes the court from reviewing the evidence to determine whether the trial court erred in ordering appellant to pay appellee $5,000 as part of the property division settlement in a divorce proceeding. Instead, the court must presume the regularity of the proceedings below. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Vergitz v. Vergitz, (Ohio 2007)

Division of marital property in a divorce will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion; marital debt is included in the division of martial property; loans taken out during a marriage are presumed to be marital loans and not the separate debt of one of the parties; the fact that loans were made to an emancipated child does not negate the basic principle that loans incurred during the marriage are presumed to be marital debt.

• Ohio Supreme Court