Dissipation of Marital Funds

[kate554]

What is the name of your state? Missouri

My husband is having an affair, and has spent at least 10K of marital funds on the affair, possibly a lot more since I am not sure when it started. (I have absolute proof on what I've found so far.)

I've been reading up on Dissipation.

Is it usually the case that the 'dissipator' has to return all money to the marital estate before the division is made? ie, I would get half of what he spent on his affair?

(any chance for getting all of it? )

If it is relevant, we are still living together. I move out soon, but we will still be married for awhile... haven't filed yet.

[seniorjudge]

Q: Is it usually the case that the 'dissipator' has to return all money to the marital estate before the division is made? ie, I would get half of what he spent on his affair?

A: Either that or he would get a debit to his share of the distribution of marital property.


Q: (any chance for getting all of it? )

A: Yes; dissipators are frowned upon in Missouri courts.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Q: Is it usually the case that the 'dissipator' has to return all money to the marital estate before the division is made? ie, I would get half of what he spent on his affair?

A: Either that or he would get a debit to his share of the distribution of marital property.


Q: (any chance for getting all of it? )

A: Yes; dissipators are frowned upon in Missouri courts.

Unless they are women dissipators.

There is a reason that the state of Missouri is nicknamed "MISERY".

[kate554]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Q: Is it usually the case that the 'dissipator' has to return all money to the marital estate before the division is made? ie, I would get half of what he spent on his affair?

A: Either that or he would get a debit to his share of the distribution of marital property.

Q: (any chance for getting all of it? )

A: Yes; dissipators are frowned upon in Missouri courts.

Thank you once again, seniorjudge!

[JETX]

Sorry, but based on the information in your post, 'dissipation' would likely NOT apply.
In order for it to apply, there would have to have been done in PURPOSE to hide, transfer or squander the marital assets.

11. Dissipation or wasting of assets.
If there is evidence that one spouse squandered marital properties, the trial court may order reimbursement in the dissolution proceeding. Layton v. Layton, 687 S.W.2d 214 (Mo. App., W.D. 1985), citing Calia v. Calia, 624 S.W.2d 870 (Mo. App., W.D. 1981). See also Schneider v. Schneider, 824 S.W.2d 942 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). For example, where the marital residence is foreclosed upon and one of the spouses has the means to prevent the foreclosure and ultimate loss of equity in the asset, the court may charge the offending party with the loss in the property division. Heins v. Heins, 783 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990).
[url]http://www.divorcenet.com/states/missouri/mo_art10[/url]

Further, even if your attorney were to successfully argue that these funds were dissipation, you would have to determined and quantified. And that would include a FULL evaluation of what you claim that "has spent at least 10K of marital funds on the affair."

"A party alleging squandering of property must present evidence of it, or no squandering will be found. A court cannot divide marital funds that are already spent, absent a finding of squandering."
Judy v. Judy, 998 S.W.2d 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)

[kate554]

I've read other cases where spending marital funds on an affair was considered dissipation.

As for a full evaluation by the court, I have an indisputable paper trail. I only said "at least 10K", because that's how much I've found so far, and I assume there is more.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by kate554

I've read other cases where spending marital funds on an affair was considered dissipation.

As for a full evaluation by the court, I have an indisputable paper trail. I only said "at least 10K", because that's how much I've found so far, and I assume there is more.

As I told you before, this is a tough row to hoe. These kinds of findings are heavily fact-specific.


Wife did not do good here:

[url]http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/9feeaa016b52eb938625691a0069e853?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,dissipation,marital[/url]

...As Wife correctly points out, a trial court may order reimbursement of squandered or secreted marital property or include such assets as part of the marital property. However, the court opinions cited by Wife(FN6), and other opinions that apply the same principle, do not compel a trial court to take the action Wife now urges, i.e., "provide [Wife] with credit" for Husband's alleged dissipation of $63,825.77 received from the sale of cattle after separation and during the pendency of the case. See Mistler, 816 S.W.2d at 253.
In the cases relied on by Wife, appellate courts affirmed trial court decrees that either ordered one party to reimburse squandered assets or adjusted the marital property division because one spouse dissipated assets. In Hogrebe, the reviewing court examined the records and concluded there was "substantial evidence" to support the trial court's conclusion that appellant had dissipated assets. 727 S.W.2d at 197. It is clear from reading Schneider, 824 S.W.2d at 947, Nedblake, 682 S.W.2d at 856, and Bland, 652 S.W.2d at 692, that those courts concluded the evidence in the respective records supported the trial courts' findings that the appellant in each case had secreted or squandered marital property. In the case before us, there was no finding, explicit or implicit, of dissipation....

[JETX]

Dissipation of marital assets usually involve cases where the other spouse has secreted funds (pension, property, etc.). Though there are a few (very few) cases where a court found for the petitioner in a case of 'funds spent on paramour' (meals, hotels, even gift jewelry) to be recoverable dissipation.... there were other circumstances.... including that the expenditures must have occurred after the marriage was irretrievably broken down and without the acquiescence of the other party.