Luczkovich v. Luczkovich

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that severance pay received post-separation was not marital property as the condition to receive the pay was related to the sale of the corporation, not to husband’s work during his marriage
• holding that “the burden is on the party who last had the funds to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the funds were used for living expenses or some other proper purpose” (citation omitted)
• affirming trial court determination that husband did not satisfy burden of proof to show propriety of expenditures through line of credit
• reversing valuation of marital property because the trial court, without explanation, used a different valuation date than the one previously ruled upon by the court
• considering \whether the severance pay was intended to compensate the employee for efforts made during the marriage or to replace post-separation earnings\
• citing, inter alia, Ressler v. Ressler, 434 Pa.Super. 563, 644 A.2d 753 (1994) and Franklin v. Franklin, 116 N.M. 11, 859 P.2d 479 (App.1993), cert. denied, 115 N.M. 795, 858 P.2d 1274 (1993

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).