“Dissipation may be found where one spouse uses marital property for his or her own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time where the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md.App. 386, 401, 473 A.2d 499 (1984). We have defined dissipation as expending marital assets “for the principal purpose of reducing the funds available for equitable distribution.” Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat, 102 Md.App. 301, 311, 649 A.2d 1137 (1994).
Whether the use of marital property to pay attorney's fees constitutes dissipation.
In the case of Allison v. Allison 160 Md.App. 331, 864 A.2d 191 the Court determined: As a policy matter, attorney's fees should generally be viewed as a legitimate expenditure of marital funds. Since the law permits divorce, the law should permit spouses to spend the funds necessary to pay for legal services in divorce proceedings. Divorcing spouses usually do not have their own separate funds to pay their lawyers, so a rule that condemns the use of marital funds for legal services simply does not make sense. The doctrine of dissipation was developed as a tool to prevent and remedy economic misconduct that could frustrate an equitable distribution of partnership assets. Expenditures for legal services cannot be fairly characterized as economic misconduct. On the contrary, it should be viewed as entirely appropriate for people facing marriage breakdown to obtain the legal advice and assistance needed to equitably distribute marital assets.
Furthermore, it wastes resources to require spouses either to seek court permission before spending marital funds to obtain legal assistance or to seek a preliminary award of fees rather than spending the money necessary to obtain counsel. The doctrine of dissipation should remain available, however, to provide an avenue for redress if one spouse spends an unnecessary or unreasonable amount of marital funds on legal fees.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hello!
How does the concept of dissipation apply to the following:
- I moved out from the apartment my husband and I are leasing to temporarily room at my parents' house; they kindly let me borrow their electronics and vehicles when the need arises, but I create significant inconvenience for them;
- I hope to purchase the following items, sorted by priority and necessity:
> tuition for non-degree seeking courses;
> laptop;
> used vehicle;
> my own apartment lease;
> basic furniture: bed, dining table, chairs
What kind of justification/proof is necessary for a purchase of the above things not to be classified dissipation?
Is there a particular item cost under which dissipation cannot be claimed?
Thank you!
Post a Comment