Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Long v. Longgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Long v. Long, 1997 ME 171, ¶¶ 4-18 , 697 A.2d 1317, 1320-24 . 2004See, e.g., Long v. Long, 1997 ME 171, ¶¶ 4-18 , 697 A.2d 1317, 1320-24 . | 1 | 3 |
Spooner v. Spoonergreen2 sentences2014Thus, under a pure application of the “source of funds” rule, the court would have determined how much of the current value was attributable to the investment of nonmarital funds in the property and set that amount aside as nonmarital and not subject to disposition by the court. 10 property,” id. § 953(1)(A), in its ultimate disposition of the marital asset.5 Accordingly, although the court may have erred initially in applying concepts related to the source of funds rule when disposing of the marital real estate, it ultimately corrected any error and carried out its statutory responsibility to 2007Spooner v. Spooner, 2004 ME 69, ¶ 7 , 850 A.2d 354, 358 (citation omitted). 1. | 1 | 2 |
Knowles v. Knowlesgreen1 sentence2012See Coppola v. Coppola, 2007 ME 147, ¶ 19 , 938 A.2d 786 ; Knowles v. Knowles, 588 A.2d 315, 317 (Me.1991) ("The source of funds rule ... states that the marital estate is entitled to that portion of the increase in value of separate property that is attributable to marital effort.”); Levy, Maine Family Law §§ 7.4 at 7-20, 7.5[3][c] at 7-30. . | 1 | 1 |
Coppola v. Coppolagreen2 sentences2012See Coppola v. Coppola, 2007 ME 147, ¶ 19 , 938 A.2d 786 ; Knowles v. Knowles, 588 A.2d 315, 317 (Me.1991) ("The source of funds rule ... states that the marital estate is entitled to that portion of the increase in value of separate property that is attributable to marital effort.”); Levy, Maine Family Law §§ 7.4 at 7-20, 7.5[3][c] at 7-30. . 2012See Coppola v. Coppola, 2007 ME 147, ¶ 19 , 938 A.2d 786 ; Knowles v. Knowles, 588 A.2d 315, 317 (Me.1991) ("The source of funds rule ... states that the marital estate is entitled to that portion of the increase in value of separate property that is attributable to marital effort.”); Levy, Maine Family Law §§ 7.4 at 7-20, 7.5[3][c] at 7-30. . | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Murphygreen2 sentences2004In Murphy, 2003 ME 17, ¶¶ 17, 25 , 816 A.2d at 819, 822 , and Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 2001 ME 167, ¶ 7 , 785 A.2d 1247, 1250 , we held that monies received from inheritances did not lose their character as nonmarital by being placed, for a brief period of time, in a joint account before being transferred to an account solely in the name of the spouse who had originally received the property. [¶ 21] Deborah argues that our decisions in Murphy and Chamberlin determined that the source of funds rule is applicable to assets held in a joint account. 2004In Murphy, 2003 ME 17, ¶¶ 17, 25 , 816 A.2d at 819, 822 , and Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 2001 ME 167, ¶ 7 , 785 A.2d 1247, 1250 , we held that monies received from inheritances did not lose their character as nonmarital by being placed, for a brief period of time, in a joint account before being transferred to an account solely in the name of the spouse who had originally received the property. [¶ 21] Deborah argues that our decisions in Murphy and Chamberlin determined that the source of funds rule is applicable to assets held in a joint account. | 1 | 1 |
MacDonald v. MacDonaldgreen2 sentences1991The source of funds rule, as we applied it in Macdonald v. Macdonald, 532 A.2d 1046 (Me.1987), states that the marital estate is entitled to that portion of the increase in value of separate property that is attributable to marital effort. 1991The source of funds rule, as we applied it in Macdonald v. Macdonald, 532 A.2d 1046 (Me.1987), states that the marital estate is entitled to that portion of the increase in value of separate property that is attributable to marital effort. | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Grabeelgreen1 sentence1979Carter v. Grabeel, 341 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1960); In re Dougherty’s Estate, 27 Wash.2d 11 , 176 P.2d 335, 339 (1947); Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372, 377 (S.D.Tex.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1979Carter v. Grabeel, 341 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1960); In re Dougherty’s Estate, 27 Wash.2d 11 , 176 P.2d 335, 339 (1947); Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372, 377 (S.D.Tex.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Dougherty v. Millergreen2 sentences1979Carter v. Grabeel, 341 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1960); In re Dougherty’s Estate, 27 Wash.2d 11 , 176 P.2d 335, 339 (1947); Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372, 377 (S.D.Tex.1974). 1979Carter v. Grabeel, 341 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1960); In re Dougherty’s Estate, 27 Wash.2d 11 , 176 P.2d 335, 339 (1947); Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372, 377 (S.D.Tex.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. Carter
green
2 sentences2004The source of funds rule traces the contribution of funds and sets apart, as nonmarital property, a portion of property in joint tenancy in proportion to the contribution of the nonmarital funds to the acquisition of the property. [¶ 14] In Carter v. Carter, 419 A.2d 1018 (Me.1980), we adopted the transmutation doctrine and said that when one spouse transferred title of real estate from sole ownership into joint ownership with the spouse, the transfer evidenced the spouse’s intent to gift the property to the marital estate. 2004Id. at 1022 . | 2 | 1990–2004 |
Tibbetts v. Tibbetts
green
2 sentences2004In Tibbetts v. Tibbetts, 406 A.2d 70 (Me.1979), we adopted the source of funds rule for real estate in joint tenancy acquired after marriage with funds that came, at least in part, from one spouse’s separate property. 1998Employing a source of funds rule, see Tibbetts v. Tibbetts, 406 A.2d 70 (Me.1979), the court concluded that “virtually all” of the equity in the marital home was Rachel’s nonmarital property, and set aside the equity to her in that category. | 2 | 1998–2004 |
Chamberlin v. Chamberlin
green
2 sentences2004In Murphy, 2003 ME 17, ¶¶ 17, 25 , 816 A.2d at 819, 822 , and Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 2001 ME 167, ¶ 7 , 785 A.2d 1247, 1250 , we held that monies received from inheritances did not lose their character as nonmarital by being placed, for a brief period of time, in a joint account before being transferred to an account solely in the name of the spouse who had originally received the property. [¶ 21] Deborah argues that our decisions in Murphy and Chamberlin determined that the source of funds rule is applicable to assets held in a joint account. 2004In Murphy, 2003 ME 17, ¶¶ 17, 25 , 816 A.2d at 819, 822 , and Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 2001 ME 167, ¶ 7 , 785 A.2d 1247, 1250 , we held that monies received from inheritances did not lose their character as nonmarital by being placed, for a brief period of time, in a joint account before being transferred to an account solely in the name of the spouse who had originally received the property. [¶ 21] Deborah argues that our decisions in Murphy and Chamberlin determined that the source of funds rule is applicable to assets held in a joint account. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.