Equal Amount
Court’s division of marital assets equally between the parties was not an abuse of discretion; wife’s contribution was considerable as she completed necessary household chores so husband could continue work on the farm, she worked and cared for three children and paid for many of the family’s day to day expenses. In re Nelson
The division of marital property in “just proportion in “just proportions,” does not mean that the property must be divided with mathematical equality; an unequal division may be made where the court has properly applied this section. In re Edison
The requirement that division be just does not mean that division must be equal. In re Sevon
A just proportion is not synonymous with an equal proportion of marital property. In re Clearman
The legislature could have provided for a 50-50 split of marital assets, but instead required the trier of fact to weigh the specified factors. In re Woodward
See Also: Divorce Philadelphia
