Investment Accounts
An investment account was properly classified as marital property, notwithstanding that the husband’s non-marital assets funded most of the account, where he made no effort to segregate his funds or limit the wife’s access to them and the parties used the accounts to fund their joint checking account. In re Gattone
IRA Account
The money in the wife’s IRA account on the date she married was non-marital property, as well as any increase in value attributable to that amount. In re Raad
Joint Business Ownership
The trial court did not err in its judgment that the parties’ business was marital property where, except for the litigation, the manifest weight of the evidence showed that the parties gave no particular thought to a division of ownership in the business at the time it was formed and the parties intended to own it as a marital asset. In re Hagshenas
Joint Tenancy
Where property is taken in joint tenancy by a husband and wife, that property is marital property even where the purchase money is supplied by one spouse, unless the presumption that a gift was intended is overcome. In re Wingader
Line of Credit
A line of credit is not recognized as a marital asset. In re Phillips
Loans
The trial court erred in failing to classify a loan made by respondent to a non-marital asset as marital property where respondent held a 1/3 interest in the non-marital asset, a balance sheet listing its assets and liabilities showed a not payable to respondent in the amount of $6,200, respondent admitted loaning the money to it, but he stated that another person paid almost all of it for him and he owed the money to that person, respondent later admitted making payments of $800 and $350, and petitioner identified three withdrawals made from the parties’ joint savings account as funds given to the non-marital asset. In re Miller
The evidence did not support the conclusion that loans to the respondent were income; accordingly, the distribution of marital property was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Smith
