Court has authority to treat wasted assets as part of the marital estate regardless of whether it occurred within one year of filing.
Trial court properly exercised discretion in finding that husband did not commit waste by selling land for less than appraised value, or by taking one trip a year to Laos (but not more than one) or by withdrawing money from an account.
Husband was obligated to disclose gifted land – each party has an obligation to disclose all assets, no matter how acquired.
Failure on husband’s part to satisfy tax obligations falls within the definition of marital waste where husband exercised complete control over his business and made the business decisions.
Trial court properly excluded from the marital estate the value of three properties which husband choose not to acquire during the divorce. The law does not require a party to a prospective divorce to take advantage of an opportunity to acquire property that would increase the value of the marital estate.
Loss of $45,000 by day trading was waste where husband was unable to give credible information about how and when he lost the money. Court not limited to the one-year time frame in the statute.
Ex-husband has equitable interest in sale of stock and thus has standing to challenge its sale to prevent waste.
Sec. 767.275 includes in the marital estate the value of assets which would have been in the marital estate but for waste, gift inadequate exchange or lack of accounting. Nothing could be more relevant to the court’s division of marital assets than the wife’s allegations that the husband’s misrepresentations cause the marital estate to be depleted for his own benefit.
Contribution of attorney fees based upon H paying his attorney for divorce and for unrelated civil matter was designed to make estate whole and usual findings for attorney fees not required.
Debt arising from an investment was not a dissipation even though husband had sole control and the investment was made while the parties were separated.
Where husband paid $75,000 to parents just before commencement of divorce action, $30,000 was proper repayment of loan, but trial court properly found that the $45,000 in interest should be returned to the marital estate. No abuse of discretion in not ordering interest on the $45,000 for the time it was in husband’s parent’s possession.
Court can consider a party’s efforts to preserve marital assets or to deplete them.
Where husband closed out accounts and transferred funds within one year prior to filing, presumption statute seems to apply.
Trial court affirmed for valuing account including funds withdrawn by husband for his own purposes after action was commenced.
Where parties had previously given son $5,000 as a wedding gift, giving same gift to daughter during divorce action is not unreasonable or a fraudulent transfer.
Gambling debts are not a dissipation as gambling is legal and is a form of expensive entertainment.
Criminal activity constituted waste of marital assets and justified a disproportionate distribution of property in favor of the wife.
Poor business decision, in and of themselves, do not warrant a finding of misconduct, absent a finding of bad faith, intent to dispose or the like.
Wife’s gambling was financial misconduct.
Charitable contributions do not constitute waste.