Search for: "Wife K. v. Husband K." Results 61 - 80 of 350
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
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]
15 Oct 2010, 5:27 am
Brannan, 898 F.2d 107, 108 (9th Cir. 1990) (wife who had moved out of a house she co-owned with her husband could consent to a search after her husband changed the locks), with United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 6:36 am
In particular, Appellant notes, the Information only declared that [she] had `[k]nowingly possessed or controlled’ child pornography. . . . [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 5:05 am by Greg Herman-Giddens
URL Pharma, Inc. involved an lawsuit by a decedent's estate against an ERISA plan administrator and the decedent's ex-wife, who was beneficiary as beneficiary of her ex-husband's 401(k) plan, seeking a declaration that the decedent's estate was entitled to the funds in the 401(k) account because of a waiver signed by the ex-wife as part of a property settlement upon divorce. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 2:13 pm
Ford f/k/a Phillips, in so doing reversing the lower Court’s award of fees and costs to the Former Wife on the basis that, while a finding was made as to the Former Husband’s superior ability to pay, no finding was made as to the Former Wife’s need, or her financial position. [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]