Skip to content
  • Maryland
  • Virginia
  • Washington, D.C.

Divorce Lawyers

Thyden Gross and Callahan LLPCounselors and Attorneys at Law

301-907-4580

 

Maryland Divorce Legal Crier

News and comments about divorce, child support, child custody, alimony, equitable property distribution, father’s rights, mother’s rights, family law, laws on divorce and other legal information in Maryland.

The Case of the Disappearing Dough

?I knew she was trouble the minute she walked into my law office. For one thing, she starts crying as soon as she sits down.

“What can I do for you, ma’am,” I say as I push the box of tissues across the desk.

“My husband has a mistress,” she replies between sobs, “and he is spending all our savings on her. I have the credit card receipts. He is buying her jewelry, taking her out to fancy dinners and going on vacations with her. He has spent $50,000 on her.”

‘Well, we can file for divorce based on adultery,” I tell her. “And we can make a claim for dissipation.”

“What’s dissipation?” she says, her eyes lighting up.

I put on my air of authority and explain, “Well, the court can only divide up what’s there on the day of divorce, usually. But the law makes an exception when someone has dissipated marital assets.”

I pull up the case on my computer. It’s Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat, 102 Md. App 301 (1994). I tell her, “Dissipation is one spouse’s expenditure of marital funds for (1) his or her own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an lrreconcilable breakdown.”

“We got him!” she shouts. ‘That means I get my $50,000 back.” She’s not crying at all now.

“Not so fast,” I say. “First of all, the $50,000 is marital property, so your claim is only for a marital share of that, let’s call it $25,000. And there’s another condition.”

“What’s the other condition?” she asks me.

I read out loud from the Jeffcoat case, “and (2) for the principal purpose of removing the funds available for equitable distribution.”

“Well, of course, he’s removing the dough, isn’t he?”, she says. “He’s spending it on her, isn’t he? It’s disappearing from our savings account each month.”

“Ah,” I say. “The dough is disappearing alright. But, that’s not all we have to prove. Notice the case says it has to be for the principle purpose of removing the funds available to distribute. In other words, is he spending the dough on his girl friend because he wants to show her a swell time or is he doing it to hide the dough from the divorce court?”

“I see, it’s complicated,” she says, giving me her best smile. “Can you help me?”

“Maybe,” I say. “Let’s talk about my fee.”

Subscribe

Related posts:

  1. The Case of Amaryllis and Sylvester Harper
  2. Source of Funds Theory
  3. On Marital and Nonmarital Assets
  4. Sylvester and Amaryllis – Who Won?
  5. The Holston Alimony Case

Leave a Reply

 
© 2012 Thyden Gross and Callahan LLP. All rights reserved.