Pennsylvania is an equitable distribution state, which means the court will “equitably and fairly” divide, distribute, or assign the marital property between the parties, regardless of marital misconduct. “Marital property” generally means all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage. All property acquired by a spouse during their marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of how title is held.
The case Abbott v. Abbott involves a dispute between a divorced husband (respondent) and wife (appellant), regarding the beneficial ownership of their former matrimonial home, its furniture, and some shares. The home was built on land that had been given by the respondent's mother. The trial judge declared that both the house and the shares were beneficially owned by the parties in equal shares and ordered that the house be sold and the proceeds divided equally, with an adjustment to reflect the appellant’s joint ownership of the furniture.
Bosanac v. Commissioner of Taxation, decided by the High Court of Australia, concerned the ownership of a residential property in Perth, Western Australia. The husband and wife lived in the property from 2006 until 2015, despite separating in 2012–2013. Although the property was paid for using funds from a joint loan account and secured against properties owned separately by the couple, it was registered solely in the wife's name.
Law No. 10783 of September 18, 1946 enshrines certain civil rights to women in Uruguay. The law provides that men and women have equal civil capacity (Article 1), and a married woman may freely administer and dispose of her own property (Article 2). In the event of a dissolution of marriage, marital property shall be divided equally between spouses or their respective heirs (Article 2). Real estate that constitutes marital property acquired in the name of one spouse may not be alienated without the express consent of both spouses (Article 5).
The Married Persons (Property) Act (the “Act”) sets out the law on property ownership by a married couple in Guyana. Under the Act, property owned independently by either spouse before marriage does not automatically become joint property upon marriage. Instead, each spouse retains individual ownership of their property. A married woman who has property transferred into her sole name is treated as the sole owner.
The Married Women’s Property Act allows married women to acquire, hold, and dispose of any real or personal property as her own property in Antigua and Barbuda. The Act also contains provisions governing the disposition of various forms of property owned by married women, including loans, stocks, investments, trusts, life insurance, debts, and liabilities. Additionally, the Act provides that married women are entitled to the same civil and criminal remedies as unmarried women for the protection and security of their separate property.
The Primary and High Courts ruled that the wife was not entitled to any share of the matrimonial assets amassed by her former husband during their marriage. She appealed, arguing that her domestic services contributed to the acquisition of matrimonial assets. The Court noted the theories over whether household work could count as part of the joint effort in the acquisition of funds and acknowledged the difficulties facing divorced women. The Court also emphasized that the role of the Court was not to forward public interests, but to interpret the law without judgment.
A couple lived together as husband and wife for nine years and had two children together. The couple was not married under Islamic law, and the children were born out of wedlock. The husband subsequently passed away, and the wife requested that the estate not be distributed in accordance with Islamic law, which would have prevented her from receiving a share of the estate. The brother of the deceased challenged this request, contending that she had no right to the estate, and that she had contributed nothing to the amassing. The trial court registered a decision in favor of the wife.
In a divorce settlement, a former husband was ordered to pay maintenance of Tshs 10 000 per month to his former wife. He appealed on claims that his adultery was unfairly held responsible for the dissolution of the marriage, and that his income could not sustain the maintenance payments ordered by the lower court. He also argued that his former wife had earned no income during the marriage and thus should not be entitled to a share of the matrimonial assets.
