Dissipation of Assets was Shown
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. Scrivner
Based upon the contradictions in respondent’s testimony as to whether transfer of parcel of land to his son was a gift or for value and the transfer’s proximity in time to the dissolution proceedings, the court did not err in finding that respondent dissipated this marital asset. In re Hellwig
Respondent acted contrary to the best interests of the marriage in his haste to reach the bank to withdraw $3,500 from joint account at about the time he left petitioner, and the evidence led to the conclusion that the money was taken to deprive the petitioner of it under circumstances which showed that the respondent was attempting to seize marital property before he left the petitioner, especially since he paid this money to his former wife for a questionable reason; the trial judge should have applied the relevant factors set forth in subsection (c) of this section to compensate the petitioner for the respondent’s dissipation of funds. Klingberg v. Klingberg
