Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Contemporary family law practice abounds with allegations of dissipation and misappropriation of marital assets. Over a generation ago, few contested divorce actions involved claims of economic misconduct. As the current recession deepens, these claims are not only on the rise, but they appear to be the rule in many cases. Indeed, the tool box of the modern family lawyer is brimming with instruments designed primarily to prevent a spouse from intentionally, fraudulently or recklessly liquidating, transferring, alienating or encumbering marital assets. In addition to granting injunctions and other forms of special relief, family courts are increasingly joining third parties as additional defendants, issuing attachment proceedings, and in some of the more egregious cases, imposing constructive trusts.
These tools, however, are used to prevent or enjoin dissipation that occurs after the parties have already separated. Today, however, family lawyers are confronting issues involving pre-separation dissipation, even though many divorce statutes contain little or no guidance on whether assets dissipated or misappropriated prior to separation can be “added-back” into the marital estate for distribution purposes. This is not to say that these statutes are silent generally on the issue of dissipation. To the contrary, in dividing the marital estate, many state laws look to the contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the property subject to division. Pre-separation dissipation is a relatively new concept, which argues for the inclusion of the dissipated asset into the martial estate, even though the dissipation took place during the marriage and prior to the date of separation or the commencement of the action. Put another way, if a spouse deliberately or recklessly dissipates marital assets either in contemplation of divorce or during a period when the marriage is in serious jeopardy, can the spouse guilty of economic misconduct be charged with those dissipated assets at the time of equitable distribution or community property division?
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.