Search for: "Wife B v. Husband B"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,238
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2017, 8:53 am
P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). [read post]
10 May 2009, 10:11 am
Op. 03629 (2009), and reversed the Appellate Division holding that that marital property used to pay maintenance and child support to the husband's wife from a previous marriage should not be recouped to the marital estate. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 11:45 am
B. [read post]
24 Nov 2008, 9:57 pm
The letter is in response to Martinez v. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 4:46 am
Code § 666(a)(1)(B)” and “extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:45 am
” The complaint in B.L.R. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 9:01 pm
In the March, 2017 case, Yehia v. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 2:19 pm
In Durfee v. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 9:00 pm
Ward v. [read post]
10 May 2014, 12:39 pm
Based on Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] and he case of Miklos v Miklos, the court finds that the Supreme Court erred in failing to award the plaintiff maintenance retroactive to the date the application was first made, with credit to the defendant for any temporary maintenance payments made. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 7:42 am
App. 463, 467 (2) (a) (771 SE2d 148) (2015) (trial court must limit attorney fees awarded pursuant to OCGA § 9 15 14 (b) to those incurred because of the sanctionable conduct); Trotter v. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 4:03 am
Krstin Nicevski v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 10:39 am
Boggs v. [read post]
28 May 2011, 8:32 am
On 9-1-1985, the husband and wife together moved a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 4:04 am
If the Husband has earnings in excess of said sum, then the Wife may seek an increase in alimony from the Court. [read post]
22 May 2015, 3:21 pm
See, Kane v. [read post]
17 May 2023, 1:29 pm
Vallone v. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 4:00 am
The court addressed the disputed items and ordered the husband to pay the wife an equalization … Terasen Gas Inc. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2007, 5:13 am
Whitmore, 117068/06 ,Decided: October 5, 2007 Justice Doris Ling-Cohan NEW YORK COUNTY Supreme Court , the law firm of Sheresky Aronson & Mayefsky LLP successfully represented the wife in a matrimonial, and had their fees paid by the husband. [read post]
9 Jan 2022, 7:24 pm
Therefore, the wife’s misrepresentations regarding her relationship with the other man did not support an annulment under RCW 26.09.040(4)(b)(i). [read post]
