In Re Marriage of Tietz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• indicating that general and vague statements that the allegedly dissipated funds were spent on marital expenses or used to pay bills are insufficient to avoid a finding of dissipation
• finding Zells inapplicable to accounts receivable, which are assets already earned with a known value but not yet coHected
• evidence that the husband transferred $35,976 from a joint account to his individual checking account
• “In the present case, respondent undisputedly withdrew the funds when the marriage was experiencing an irretrievable breakdown.”
• lawyer’s accounts receivable have already been earned and have known value; they are “future income” only in the sense that they will be collected in the future
• lawyer's accounts receivable have already been earned and have known value; they are \future income\ only in the sense that they will be collected in the future

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).