“Dissipation of Assets” in Maryland Property Division

Published on
December 11, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Divorce

Basic Overview of Dissipation of Assets in Maryland

Property division is among the most significant and contentious aspects of divorce. This is why we have spent considerable effort discussing this important matter in the past. If one spouse behaves in a financially reckless or fraudulent manner just before or during the divorce, this can impact property division outcomes. The technical term for this type of financial misbehavior is “dissipation of assets.” The motivation for this type of behavior is usually the same or very similar: spouses dissipate marital assets to exact some form of revenge on the other spouse, usually in retaliation for initiating the divorce itself.

While this sort of behavior may not be extremely common, it is certainly not unheard of. And it happens with greater frequency than most laypeople assume.

Common Examples on Dissipation of Assets

Of course, the key thing about the dissipation of assets is that only marital assets are relevant. If a spouse recklessly wastes their own separate resources, this is irrelevant to the issue of the dissipation of assets. A spouse can drain all their separate resources during the divorce process without facing an allegation of dissipation of assets. The situation becomes quite different when a spouse begins to drain marital assets.

It’s possible to imagine all sorts of scenarios in which an allegation of dissipation of assets might be fitting. For instance, after a divorce has been initiated, a spouse using marital funds to take a new love interest on vacation might very well constitute a dissipation of assets. Or, if a spouse has reason to believe that divorce is imminent, a spouse who purposely wastes considerable assets on a “bad investment” might be guilty of dissipation. Similarly, giving away a lot of cash or assets during the divorce might also sustain an accusation of dissipation.

Key Takeaways on Dissipation of Assets

When spouses divorce, they must provide accurate disclosures regarding their current financial situation. This includes disclosures on marital assets. If a spouse hides assets, this can cause property division problems. Dissipating assets and also hiding assets can have serious consequences when it comes to dividing up the remaining assets. If, for instance, a spouse is found guilty of dissipating $50,000 from a marital account, that can cost the spouse $50,000 in the division process. Some spouses falsely assume that dissipated funds are merely “lost” and are no longer relevant; this isn’t the case. If a person is found guilty of dissipating assets, the court can take whatever action is necessary to balance out this matter and restore justice.

In practice, the court will alter the property division order so that the party guilty of dissipation receives less than they otherwise would have received.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

As mentioned, there can be a virtually limitless number of possible scenarios in which the dissipation of assets might occur. If you’d like to learn more, reach out to one of the top family law attorneys at The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Assets|Dissipation|Dissipation of Assets|Divorce|Family Lawyer|Financial issues|Financial misbehavior|financial situation|Investment|marital assets|Maryland Divorce Case|Maryland Divorce Lawyer|Maryland Family Law|Maryland Family Lawyer|Property Division|Resources|The Murphy Law Firm|Top Family Attorney in Maryland

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.