In a Divorce Case, What is NOT Considered Dissipation of the Marital Estate?

Last week, we discussed what constitutes dissipation of marital assets and/or the marital estate.

We discussed that expenditures held to constitute dissipation are extraordinary expenses that clearly do not further common marital interests.

So what is NOT dissipation?

The following are considered NOT to be dissipation of the martial estate

  • Gift BoxGifts: No dissipation where a pattern of making gifts has been established, particularly where the complaining spouse has previously acquiesced in the gifts. In re Marriage of Hagshenas, 234 Ill. App. 3d 178, 195, 600 N.E.2d 437, 449 (2d Dist. 1992) (“The issue is not whether the spending is consistent with that engaged in prior to the breakdown but, rather, whether such spending was for the sole benefit of one of the spouses for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.”)
  • Change in characteristic of asset: Dissipation should be confined to the situation where value is lost to the marital or non-marital estate resulting in the sole benefit to one spouse (or, in to the benefit of neither spouse, but without the knowledge or consent of one spouse). “Merely changing the species of the assets from stocks to cash or retiring debt is not dissipation.” In re Marriage of Hahin, 266 Ill. App. 3d 168, 172, 644 N.E.2d 4, 8 (2d Dist. 1994).
  • Transfers: A fraudulent transfer is not dissipation if the fraudulently transferred asset can be recovered for the marital or non-marital estate. If the asset cannot be recovered, and there is loss to the marital or non-marital estate, there is dissipation.
  • The following is not dissipation: sale of all stock and payment of tax to preserve the value of the marital estate; ceasing to practice medicine to care for children and devote time to day stock trading; maintenance of marital assets; transfer of one marital asset from another by purchasing marital assets and valuing them at cost; and usual and necessary living expenses for the family.  To constitute dissipation there must be waste. In re Marriage of Miller, 342 Ill. App. 3d 988, 796 N.E.2d 135 (5th Dist. 2003).

You May Also Like

  • Download our Divorce Planning Guide today!
  • Download our Divorce Planning Guide today!

    Get the information you need to prepare for divorce with our free resource Guide to Planning for Your Divorce.

    click to download now!

What Our clients are saying

Excellent - I highly recommend Kimberly Anderson. She is knowledgeable, assertive, and experienced. What impressed me most about Kim is her dedication. I was able to reach her whenever there was a problem. She always responded immediately, proposed a solution, and put me at ease. The entire legal team at Anderson & Boback is superb.

Lisa March 29, 2018

  • Why Choose Anderson & Boback ?

  • ASLA Badge - Kimberly Anderson 2018
    BBB A+ Badge
    lawyers of distinction badge
    AVVO 10 Rating badge - generic
    Super Lawyers Generic badge

Schedule a Discreet Consultation Today!



  • firm overview Anderson & Boback

  • Anderson & Boback is a highly-respected, experienced Chicago family law firm, skilled in negotiation and litigation. When divorce and other family law issues make your life chaotic and uncertain, you want your case resolved as quickly and fairly as possible. Call Now 312-715-0870