Factors to consider regarding dissipation of marital assets.

March 14, 2019

Marroquin v. Marroquin, 2019 UT App 38 (Filed March 14, 2019).

This is a good case for looking at relevant factors a court should look at when confronted with a claim for dissipated assets. The court outlined some relevant factors on this issue:

¶33 When determining “whether a party should be held accountable for the dissipation of marital assets,” there are “a number of factors that may be relevant,” including (1) “how the money was spent, including whether funds were used to pay legitimate marital expenses or individual expenses”; (2) “the parties’ historical practices”; (3) “the magnitude of any depletion”; (4) “the timing of the challenged actions in relation to the separation and divorce”; and (5) “any obstructive efforts that hinder the valuation of the assets.” Rayner v. Rayner, 2013 UT App 269, ¶ 19, 316 P.3d 455. “While marital assets are generally valued as of the date of the divorce decree, where one party has dissipated an asset, hidden its value or otherwise acted obstructively, the trial court may, in the exercise of its equitable powers, value a marital asset at some time other than the time the decree is entered, such as at separation.” Parker v. Parker, 2000 UT App 30, ¶ 13, 996 P.2d 565 (quotation simplified).

Marroquin v. Marroquin, 2019 UT App 38 (Filed March 14, 2019).

To read entire case, Click HERE.

December 28, 2018
Does Separate Property Become Marital Property When Titled as Joint Tenants? It Depends...

This is an appeal from a district court’s division of property and award of alimony in the aftermath of a […]

Read More
July 14, 2022
Utah law requires only a fair and equitable, not an equal, division of the marital debts

Fox v. Fox, 2022 UT App 88 (Filed July 14, 2022) The parties married in 1997 and wife filed for […]

Read More
February 14, 2019
A court may deviate from an informal custody arrangement when best interests analysis (distance between the parties) or changes in circumstances (school starting) dictate.

Nebeker v. Orton, 2019 UT App 23 (Filed February 14, 2019). In this case, a father was not involved in […]

Read More
envelopephone-handsetmap-markermagnifiercrossmenuarrow-up-circle