Search for: "Husband v. Wife"
Results 821 - 840
of 6,700
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2015, 12:11 pm
In the Howard case, the ex-husband had agreed to be responsible for certain debts the ex-wife had also co-signed. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 8:06 am
Sadler v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 4:45 am
In Shippen v. [read post]
10 Aug 2006, 6:39 am
Read the case at this link: Becker v. [read post]
23 Dec 2021, 7:36 am
In an alimony case captioned Speigner v. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 2:41 pm
In 1985, in O’Brien v. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 3:00 am
Cameron v. [read post]
Maintenance and Child Support Payments to First Spouse Are Not Recoverable By Second Wife in Divorce
11 May 2009, 12:43 pm
This is a far reaching decision because, for instance, a second wife cannot now recover from her husband marital funds used to pay his first wife spousal maintenance or child support. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 1:29 pm
In this case, the wife (petitioner) filed for a an injunction against her husband (respondent). [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 10:30 pm
In S.M.C. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 10:00 pm
Accordingly, both Husband and Wife were plaintiffs in the lawsuit.When the case finally settled, Husband received approximately $231,000.00 and Wife received approximately $14,000.00 for her part of the claim. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 7:23 am
Barrs. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 4:02 am
Background This recent High Court case concerned financial remedy proceedings brought by the wife (“W”, aged 43) against the husband (“H”, aged 47). [read post]
28 Aug 2016, 7:05 am
According to court records, Husband and Wife divorced in 1996, at which time the court ruled the husband was to pay the wife $1,500 each month in spousal support until the wife either remarried or died. [read post]
10 May 2009, 1:31 pm
Husband and wife are in their early sixties. [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 8:52 am
Ohio) in Doe 1 v. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 10:08 am
Iglicki v. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 2:39 pm
Klimek v. [read post]
12 Feb 2017, 8:37 am
In Parvin v. [read post]
12 Feb 2017, 8:37 am
In Parvin v. [read post]
