Search for: "Wife K. v. Husband K." Results 41 - 60 of 294
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Oct 2020, 5:16 am
In Haley v Haley, however, the husband's challenge to the award was ultimately successful.The background to the arbitration award was the same as we have heard before: the parties were expecting a final hearing of the wife's financial remedies application, only to be told a week before that no judge was available to hear the case, and that the matter would have to be listed for an unspecified date in the future. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 8:21 am by PaulKostro
Div. 1978), the appellate court upheld a trial judge’s determination that a husband’s conveyance of property to himself and his wife which the husband had owned personally before the marriage, constituted a gift, thereby creating a tenancy by the entirety. [read post]
12 May 2008, 11:11 am
After the QDRO was entered, the Judge recognized the ex-wife's right to receive 17% of the ex-husband's monthly pension. [read post]
9 Sep 2018, 11:30 pm
See reports, below.CASESR v K [2018] EWFC 59 (04 September 2018)Judgment in financial remedy proceedings, in which the central issue was whether the husband and his business associates had fabricated or exaggerated the husband's liabilities, in an attempt to defeat the wife’s claim. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 11:14 am by WOLFGANG DEMINO
HUSBAND agreed that WIFE was entitled to fifty percent of the future disbursements from his 401(k) plan, but not from his ESOP. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 2:00 pm by Neil Cahn
In their statements of current net worth, the husband’s 401(k) was now valued at $620,490.00 and the wife’s plan at $14,224.73. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 2:35 pm by Law Lady
Dissolution of marriage -- Equitable distribution -- Error to treat an IRA account inherited by husband from his mother as a marital asset and to award it to wife -- Where parties entered into a stipulation to sell a commercial marital property, with wife to receive $250,000 from the sale proceeds, which she was to use as temporary support for herself and children, it was error for trial court to decline to treat the funds given to wife as either previously paid… [read post]
26 May 2014, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
It was further discovered that on or about March 10, 2013, the wife changed her designation of the husband as the sole named beneficiary on her Prudential life insurance policy to the husband as a 1% primary beneficiary, the parties’ daughter K. as a 49% beneficiary and daughter R. as a 50% beneficiary. [read post]
25 May 2015, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
So held the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its May 20, 2015 decision in Su v. [read post]