Ample evidence supports the finding that the husband's loss of his first company was due to diminished business caused by adverse publicity attendant to certain criminal proceedings against him, and not a wasteful dissipation of a marital asset. The loss of the business occurred several years before the commencement of this action, and there is no evidence that the husband's criminal acts were intended to deprive the wife of a marital asset or otherwise directed against her...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
