Distribution of Marital and Non-Marital Property
In General
After classification, each spouse’s non-marital property is given to that spouse, and the marital property is divided in just proportions. Moore v. Moore
The trial court is not required to award marital assets to a party in an amount equal to or in excess of the amount of marital liability assigned to that party. In re Werries
Subsection (a) of this section contains an exclusive list of non-marital property; once classified, the non-marital property; once classified, the non-marital property of each spouse is assigned to that spouse and the marital property is equitably divided between them. In re Voight
Property division is preferred to maintenance in the statutory scheme. In re Drennan
For a case discussing disposition of property under former section 17 of the Divorce Act, see Lawyer v. Lawyer
Abuse of Discretion
Where there was evidence husband had substantial future earning ability, trial court committed an abuse of discretion by awarding him the bulk of marital assets, which included his medical practice, and should have awarded wife other marital property as an offset, or ordered husband to make payments to her. In re Charles
Where to petitioner and the respondent were 54 years of age at the time the petition for distribution was filed, where both parties worked outside of the home during the marriage and contributed to the marital property, where the marriage lasted for almost 19 years and petitioner was awarded custody of child, and although child was 17 years old and would soon be going to college, she would stay at the marital residence with her mother when she came home from college and where the petitioner’s income was approximately $18,000 per year, while respondent’s annual income was approximately $44,000, the court’s distribution of marital property was an abuse of discretion in light of the aforementioned factors and the fact that the respondent had significantly more earning power than petitioner and had sufficient resources to make the payments to petitioner as directed. In re Eidson
