About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


20 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law. 135 (2006-2007)
Dissipation of Marital Assets and Preliminary Injunctions: A Preventive Approach to Safeguarding Marital Assets

handle is hein.journals/jaaml20 and id is 149 raw text is: Dissipation of Marital Assets Comment, DISSIPATION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS: A PREVENTIVE APPROACH TO SAFEGUARDING MARITAL ASSETS I. Introduction In an ideal world, the phrase as long as we both shall live means a newlywed couple remains married to the same person for their entire lives and the term divorce does not exist. In an ideal world, even if divorce exists, the couple walks away amica- bly with divorce papers in one hand and the settlement agree- ment in another. Unfortunately, this idyllic world does not exist and a dissolu- tion proceeding is often wrought with contentious litigation in- cluding custody battles and property disputes involving parties hiding assets, failing to disclose all marital assets in which one spouse is unaware of, or selling or conveying marital property unbeknownst to the other party. In the real world, the law de- fines such conduct as dissipation of marital assets in which recog- nition, preliminary preventive orders, and post-dissipation remedies are awarded when such conduct exists. In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, a court must take into consideration wasted assets to provide both parties with a fair result. Just as a court may consider positive contributions to the marriage in making an equitable distribution award, it can also consider 'negative' contributions in the form of squandering and destroying marital resources. . . . To allow one spouse to squander marital property is to make an equitable award impossible.' This article first focuses on the court-adopted definitions of dissipation and types of conduct arising to the level of dissipation of marital assets. Part III of this article then directs attention to recent measures taken by state legislatures to prevent dissipation from becoming an issue in dissolutions. Whether a statute autho- rizes an automatic injunction upon filing or enables a party to file I Booth v. Booth, 371 S.E. 2d 569, 572 (Va. Ct. App. 1988). Vol. 20, 2006