remanding for further factfinding where “trial court expressly focused on just the husband’s financial contributions to the acquisition of the marital property, without regard to any contributions by the wife or the fact that she was markedly less able to acquire assets given the parties respective earning capacities”
How later courts described this case
- remanding for further factfinding where “trial court expressly focused on just the husband’s financial contributions to the acquisition of the marital property, without regard to any contributions by the wife or the fact that she was markedly less able to acquire assets given the parties respective earning capacities”
- reversing the trial court’s disproportionate division of marital property where the court had failed to state with precision the factors it deemed relevant in reaching its result
- tax liabilities are an appropriate and a relevant factor for consideration in dividing property upon divorce
- rejecting challenge to court’s verbatim adoption of party’s findings and conclusions but adopting a stricter standard of review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FERREN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join in Judge HARRIS’ opinion for the court but write separately to clarify that, although the wife must have free choice as to whether she “will, or will not, sign a joint tax return with the husband,” ante at 146, the court is entitled to rely on her decision in making its award; and if she were to choose to sign a joint return but later changed her mind, the husband would be entitled to seek modification of the award.