Search for: "C Husbands" Results 921 - 940 of 3,366
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Mar 2019, 1:22 pm by Neil Cahn
There was no evidence in the record to support a finding that Villar pursued the contempt motion frivolously or to harass the parties for settling their case (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][2]). [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 10:39 am by jameswilson29@gmail.com
  In her bankruptcy filing, the wife listed her interest in the 401(k) plan as a contingent, unliquidated claim against her ex-husband on her schedule B of personal property, but did not list it as exempt on her schedule C of exempt property. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 11:06 am by Neil Cahn
As a result, the Third Department affirmed the award to the wife by Albany County Supreme Court Justice Joseph C. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 10:59 am
Section 179 provides an alternative to standard, straight line depreciation, which KRS 403.212(2)(c) mandates as the only allowable method. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 6:32 am by David Smith
C is the sole legal owner of a small ara of farmland with farmhouse in Wales by survivorship from her husband. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 8:00 pm by Stephen Bilkis
(c) of the Domestic Relations Law is unconstitutional and his consent to the adoption would therefore be required under the Caban case unless for some reason, such as abandonment, that consent may be dispensed with. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 9:00 am
Family Code §4320 (c)] Although Section 4320(c) speaks of earning capacity, the code does not specifically define what it means. [read post]
20 Mar 2010, 5:10 am
It was not reasonable to conclude that defendant’s wife had apparent authority to enter his locked gun cabinet where defendant had the only key, and she had never been in it. [read post]
Oct. 8, 2013)(married couple sold rental real estate to son for $28,000 in return for promissory note in wife's name; note could not be sold or assigned; husband entered nursing home and made Medicaid application; state Medicaid agency determined that note was available resource and, as a result, husband ineligible for Medicaid benefits; trial court determined that note was an available resource on basis that promissory notes are available resources; appellate court reversed… [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 4:03 am by Sam Hasler
The fact that the property is available for Husband's continued use and occupancy at a minimal yearly rent is relevant under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5(c) as an economic circumstance of the parties and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering this interest in dividing the marital estate. [read post]