Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Asset freezing is a form of interim or interlocutory injunction which prevents a defendant to an action from dealing with or dissipating its assets so as to frustrate a potential judgment. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions [ 1 ] and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect.
Continue reading → The post Divorce Laws in Indiana appeared first on SmartAsset Blog. If you’re careful, though, a divorce doesn’t have to bring financial ruin. You just have to make sure ...
Here’s an overview of how different types of investment accounts are handled during a divorce, and steps you should take to keep everything legal and above board. Retirement accounts and pensions
The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act §307 (UMDA §307) [3] also allows for the equitable distribution of property and lists factors the court should consider, e.g. "the duration of the marriage, and prior marriage of either party, antenuptial agreement of the parties [which is the same as a prenuptial agreement or premarital agreement], the ...
Asset freezing – Legal process preventing a defendant from moving their assets beyond a court's jurisdiction (Mareva injunction) Burden of proof (law) – Obligation on a party to prove their case; Civil law (common law) – Branch of English common law; Court of equity – Court authorized to apply principles of equity to cases
Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the authorities. In the United States, it is a type of criminal-justice financial obligation . It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime.
Legal separation (sometimes judicial separation, separate maintenance, divorce a mensa et thoro, or divorce from bed-and-board) is a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a de facto separation while remaining legally married. A legal separation is granted in the form of a court order.
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.