gold digger
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Rutgers University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
904
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by AdmiralSteelFinch39
Paper: Gold Digger
Date: March 28
th
, 2023
Link: https://advance-lexis-com.libdb.njit.edu:8443/api/permalink/5e9985a0-ef39-4620-ab0f-
b36a1001a724/?context=1516831
Case: In re Prill, 2021 IL App (1st) 200516
The case of Marriage of Jane S. Prill and David R. Prill involved a dispute over the characterization and division of property in their divorce proceeding. The parties were married in
1992 and separated in 2012. During the course of their marriage, they acquired various assets, including real property, vehicles, retirement accounts, and bank accounts. Jane claimed that certain assets were her separate property, including an inheritance she received during the marriage, a bank account in her name only, and a vehicle she purchased prior to the marriage. David disputed these claims, arguing that the inheritance was marital property because it was commingled with other marital funds, the bank account was marital property because it was used
for marital expenses, and the vehicle was marital property because it was purchased during the marriage and used for marital purposes.
The trial court determined that the inheritance was Jane's separate property, but that the bank account and vehicle were marital property subject to division. The court also divided the parties' retirement accounts and real property, awarding Jane approximately 60% of the total value of the community property. Jane appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the court erred in characterizing the bank account and vehicle as community property. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's decision.
The court found that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the bank account and
vehicle were used for marital purposes and therefore were community property.
Jane also argued that the trial court erred in its division of the community property, contending that the court should have awarded her a larger percentage of the community property. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that the trial court's division of the property was within its discretion and supported by the evidence. Jane gave the following testimony. David was controlling and she would do what David asked because he would be verbally and emotionally abusive if she did not. While she had various jobs outside of the home during the marriage, they did not last long because David wanted her to stay home and raise their
children. David was employed as the chief financial officer for a company and largely handled the family’s finances. Jane was capable to do well in her professional life but because of David she couldn’t, and he goes abusive verbally and emotionally when Jane oppose his controlling nature. David appealed the decision, arguing that the court had made several errors in its ruling, including an incorrect calculation of child support and an unfair division of property. However, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the lower court's decision, finding that there was no error in the calculation of child support and that the property division was fair and equitable. As mentioned in case report “David gave the following testimony. He did not want the marriage to end. Jane wanted a fresh start, and he wanted to give her what she asked for, and her main goal was to be debt free.” His testimony was somewhat confusing to the court. As mentioned in court case as per David, Jane’s main goal was to be debt free and therefore, he offered her fresh start and not to get divorce and in return he will do what she asks for, but he was neglecting the actual
problem where Jane didn’t want to be controlled by her husband and have freedom of work.
This was the case of financial tension about sex across the class line and gender inequality. The case being only a few years old, says a lot about the society. We are still seeking for the gender equality across all sex. Even if Jane was able to work and be independent, the poor
mindset of David didn’t allow her as she was made solely responsible to take care of the kids. Trying to prove Jane a gold digger was not only a mistake but also a crime committed by David. In conclusion, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in all respects, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in characterizing and dividing the property. The case of Marriage of Jane S. Prill and David R. Prill involved a divorce dispute between the two parties, with the court ultimately granting the divorce and awarding custody of the children to Jane, as well as ordering David to pay child support. David's appeal was unsuccessful, and the lower court's decision was upheld by the Appellate Court of Illinois.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Work Site
In re Prill, 2021 IL App (1st) 200516, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 485 (Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division September 3, 2021, Decided).
https://advance-lexis-
com.libdb.njit.edu:8443/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:63HN-44K1-F016-S1XT-
00000-00&context=1516831
.