8 results for 'cat:"Evidence" AND cat:"Family Law" AND cat:"Property"'.
J. Poissant finds the lower court properly divided the marital assets in this divorce matter. The husband argues that the marital home was jointly owned separate property and the lower court should not have been able to order it sold. The husband also argues that certain evidence, namely a drug test that showed he tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, benzoylecgonine, cocaine, and norcocaine, and expert testimony to the effect that he was a daily user of those drugs, should not have been allowed. But the husband did not object to the evidence or expert testimony at the time it was submitted into evidence, thereby waiving his right to later argue against their admission. The lower court made no error in its division of the marital estate. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Poissant, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 14-22-00810-CV, Categories: evidence, family Law, property
J. Longoria finds that the lower court properly entered a divorce decree awarding possession of certain property to the appellee. The appellant contends that the lower court erred by failing to submit a jury question "related to the characterization of the property." But any error in failing to submit his requested question was harmless. Additionally, the lower court's charge was not an "impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Longoria, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 13-22-00262-CV, Categories: evidence, family Law, property
J. Cadish finds the district court properly awarded the parents joint custody of their children in a divorce case. Both parents were found to have meaningful relationships with the children and the mother's allegations of domestic violence lacked credibility. The allegations were general and inconsistent, and the evidence was unverified or inconclusive. Various debts and property were correctly divided, though the court improperly awarded the father fees on the mother's dismissed motion for reconsideration, as it was not frivolous or harassing. Affirmed in part.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: 84334, Categories: evidence, family Law, property
J. Hixson finds the trial court properly divided property in a divorce case and awarded the marital home to the wife. Though the husband says the property was jointly owned pursuant to a written agreement, it was not mentioned in the pre-nuptial agreement nor identified in exhibits attached to the agreement. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hixson , Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: CV-22-742, Categories: evidence, family Law, property
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Thyer finds the circuit court improperly found that the entirety of the Roth IRA and the rollover IRA were marital property. Though the husband made contributions to the Roth IRA during the marriage, the Roth IRA and the rollover IRA were established before the marriage. All other aspects of the court’s property division are affirmed. Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Thyer, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: CV-22-646, Categories: evidence, family Law, property
J. Klappenbach finds the circuit court properly divided the parties’ property in this divorce decree. The ex-husband’s receiving of a portion of the value of the ex-wife’s niece’s home is proper as marital funds were used for the home’s improvement and to pay its monthly mortgage and utilities. Half of the wife’s work bonus that she had hidden and lied about was properly awarded to the husband. The wife was not awarded interest in the husband’s premarital home, premarital vehicle and marital retirement funds, and has not demonstrated that the court clearly erred. The circuit court was required, as the trier of fact, to determine the credibility of witnesses and to resolve conflicting testimony and its resolution of disputed facts will not be disturbed. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Klappenbach, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: CV-21-588, Categories: evidence, family Law, property