Dissipation of Assets was Shown
The trial court’s estimate that respondent had dissipated marital assets with a value between $50,000 and $80,000 was supported by the evidence. In re Smith
Where the court in a dissolution proceeding did not specifically order the husband to pay the mortgage, but prescribe alternative payments to be made by him, and he had the financial ability to prevent a foreclosure on the marital home and failed so to do, the husband’s sections constituted dissipation. In re Siegel
Where respondent relinquished one-third interest in a business at one-tenth of the guaranteed price, at a very questionable time for reasons benefiting only himself, thereby willingly depriving marital estate of over $45,000 in assets, his action clearly qualified as a dissipation of marital assets for which respondent would be held accountable in the property division. In re Hilkovitch
Record revealed ample support for finding that husband dissipated marital assets where husband failed to make monthly payments necessary to preserve and maintain property, resulting in mortgage foreclosure proceedings, resulting in the sale of the marital home, and failed to pay the taxes on Wisconsin property which accrued after the sale of the stocks ordered by the court. In re Cook
Where respondent never contributed financially to marriage in any way, yet she withdrew funds from a joint bank account and spent substantial sums of money during the brief course of the marriage, respondent dissipated marital resources. Naguit v. Serivner
