Normal expenses for basic needs can cross the line if they are excessive. Buying a suit for work may be appropriate, but buying an expensive suit that isn`t typical of previous purchases could be a distraction. The context also includes the parties` past spending patterns. The most common way to treat dissipation is to treat the dissipated property as matrimonial property and then distribute what has already disappeared as that part of the marital cake. For example, a separated spouse who has wasted marital property in casinos may find that this amount is negatively credited to their share of the marital estate. Intent is not a consideration in the scattering of marital property by a problematic gambler who is addicted to the thrill of financial ruin. In divorce proceedings, courts sometimes issue pre-court orders to prevent dissipation of the fact, but this requires at least one party to prove that dissipation is likely. The issuance of matrimonial funds for a girlfriend or paramoron can be classified as a displacement of the marital estate. Dissipation of property is defined by Black`s Law Dictionary as follows: “The use of property for illegal or unjust purposes, such as the use of community property by a spouse for personal purposes when divorce is imminent.” For some couples, divorce is easy and consensual. Both parties agree that the marriage is better over and that they want to find a fair solution for both so that they can simply continue. In other cases, it`s not that easy.
Greed, anger and sometimes defiance are the main motivating factors for a divorce and it is a war from start to finish. One weapon in this war is to disperse wealth. This means deliberately wasting marital property so that the other person does not get it. This factor defines the types of expenses or withdrawals that can constitute dissipation. Many types of expenses or actions by matrimonial means can fall into this category. Some of the most egregious actions include buying gifts for a friend, losing play, giving money to friends or non-immediate family, or hiding money. Reckless investments that result in significant losses can also fall into this category. However, going back too far in time in terms of dissipation can lead to your own problems. First, time travel will undermine the basic policy that spouses can spend their money the way they want. Second, the more time a court goes back in time in terms of dissipation, the more complex the factual issues become.
When factual issues become complex, the costs of divorce litigation increase and it can become more difficult to settle the case amicably. In Sinha, the second district rejected a request for a difficult start date for the dissipation window. The court ruled that the evidence in the files shows that “the marriage began to break down irretrievably in the late summer of 2015.” The evidence she used to support her conclusion was that the payment of a temporary spouse and dependent child allowance, especially after the breakdown of the marriage, but before divorce, may be nodular. The payment of spousal and/or child support ordered by the court is not a conjugal purpose, since this maintenance is naturally paid by one of the spouses to the other for the benefit of the children. However, courts in some jurisdictions consider the payment of “reasonable living expenses” to be a valid marital purpose, not a distraction. Whether these expenses are reasonable and eligible may depend on whether they are paid before or after the classification of assets. During divorce proceedings, a court may take a number of different steps to protect matrimonial property from concealment or waste. However, before a divorce action is filed, the spouse`s options are limited. This is where the concept of dissipation comes into play. When one of the spouses dissolves the money of the marriage, the other spouse may request that the value of these dissipated assets be added to the marital succession. For example, suppose the marital estate has assets of $200,000.
If a court awarded each spouse 50% of the marital estate in divorce, each spouse would receive $100,000. Now suppose the marital estate was worth $400,000 before filing for divorce, but the husband transferred $200,000 to his girlfriend, who ran away with the money. The court could decide that the marital estate includes both the $200,000 in real assets and the $200,000 the husband gave to his girlfriend. The court could still give each spouse 50% of the marital estate, but the wife would receive the $200,000 in real assets and the husband would be credited with the $200,000 in dissipated assets. In practice, this means that the wife receives the entire marital succession and the husband receives nothing. Very often, when couples divorce, the courts have to deal with the distraction retrospectively by an unequal distribution of the remaining matrimonial property in favor of the victim party, usually the woman. Under Illinois law, spouses are free to spend their own money and transfer, sell, or give away their own property at will. For example, if a spouse has funds in their own bank or investment accounts, they can use those funds to do whatever they want during the marriage. One of the spouses does not have the legal right to prevent the other spouse from spending his or her money. The same rule applies to joint bank accounts. In a typical joint bank account, each party to the account has the right to withdraw all or part of the funds contained in that joint account.
While spouses often discuss how they spend money and what they buy, neither spouse can legally veto how the other spends money from a joint account. The Circuit Court ruled that dissipation could not legally take place until the marriage had been irretrievably broken. The District Court then held that it “could not determine the date on which the marriage was irretrievably broken”, so it considered the date on which the application for dissolution of the marriage was filed. The application to dissolve the marriage was filed about three months after the transfer of the $540,000, so the transfer could not constitute dissipation, according to the Circuit Court. A certificate or service of the letter of intent to claim dissipation must also be submitted to the court clerk. No. Illinois law provides that “[t]he dissipation occurred 3 years ago after the party claiming dissipation knew or should have known about the dissipation.” Illinois law also provides that under no circumstances may a request for dissipation be made more than five years before the filing of the marriage application. Although the second district did not need a difficult start date for dissipation, it did not go back for more than four months. Keeping track of your finances is a key aspect of your divorce proceedings. In particular, during the discovery phase of your divorce proceedings, your lawyer will ask you for all your bank and credit card statements for a specific period of time. Collecting and organizing your financial records is important to see how you and your spouse spend your money.