Chapter 6: Equitable Distribution

← Back to document page

Chapter openingReplacement 9/20/2016I. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3B . Social Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3C . Constitutionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4D . Right to Equitable Distribution (ED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4II. Tasks of a Trial Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A . Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5B . Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C . Valuation.

2. “With the advent of no-fault divorce, dependent spouses lost the ‘bargaining power’ of refusing to consent to a divorce. . . . The combination of no-fault divorce and a ‘title only’ rule for property distribution sometimes led to unconscionable results.” [McLean v.

  Consent, Divorce