Omayaka v. Omayaka

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “dissipation occurs where one spouse uses marital property for his or her own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time where the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown” (quotation omitted)
• stating that trier of fact may assume “better” evidence available would have revealed issues with party’s case that less clear or reliable evidence presented did not disclose
• noting that a trial court, as the fact-finder, is “entitled 17 to accept – or reject – all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, whether that testimony was or was not contradicted or corroborated by any other evidence”
• “[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion remains on the party who claims that the other party has dissipated marital assets.”
• In a divorce case involving an allegation of dissipation of marital assets, this Court stated that the husband questioned the wife “about how she spent the funds that she withdrew from her bank accounts in 2005, thereby presenting the [trial c]ourt with both (1
• In a divorce case involving an allegation of dissipation of marital assets, this Court stated that the husband questioned the wife “about how she spent the funds that she withdrew from her bank accounts in 2005, thereby presenting the [tóal c]ourt with both (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).