In Matter of Marriage of Jasper v. Jasper
Sixty-forty property division affirmed in short marriage – wife suffered no “setback” due to the marriage.
In Re Marriage of Tozer v. Tozer
Unequal property division upheld where husband had substantial excluded property.
Marriage of Schwartz v. Linders
Court can consider prior inherited status of property.
Marriage of Parrett v. Parrett
Unequal property division affirmed where husband built business.
In Re Marriage of Herdt v. Herdt
Unequal division of property affirmed. Wife made more than husband. Court awarded husband his retirement in lieu of maintenance from wife. This was a proper exercise of discretion.
In Re Marriage of Prosser v. Cook
Unequal division affirmed due to relatively short marriage (8 years) where husband brought substantially all of the property into the marriage.
In Matter of Marriage of Sellers v. Sellers
Unequal division of property (75 – 25 in favor of wife) affirmed where wife brought some property into marriage and trial court concluded that husband had not been economically disadvantaged as a result of the marriage.
In Re Marriage of Hokin v. Hokin
Use of a coverture fraction to divide a retirement plan may be appropriate, but not in this case because the trial court considered the husband’s financial contributions to be greater than the wife’s contributions as homemaker and primary child caretaker.
In Re Marriage of LeMere v. LeMere
Trial court erred in deviating from an unequal division of the largest asset in the marital estate upon consideration of only one statutory factor, neglecting entirely the other statutory factors.
In Re Marriage of Dutchin v. Dutchin
While survivorship benefit is an asset, the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by determining that it would be unfair to divide it equally where the underlying pension was treated as an income stream rather than as an asset. Trial courts have a broad discretion in attempting to fashion the most equitable and fair result.