CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLuca v. DeLuca

The case addresses whether payments from the New York City Police Department Police Superior Officers’ Variable Supplements Fund (VSF) are marital assets subject to equitable distribution in a divorce action. The plaintiff husband, a retired NYPD detective, was entitled to VSF benefits. The Supreme Court initially deemed these benefits, along with pension benefits and an annuity, as marital assets subject to 50% distribution to the defendant wife. The Appellate Division disagreed, concluding that VSF benefits are not marital assets. The court reasoned that VSF payments, explicitly declared by the Legislature as not constituting a pension or retirement fund, do not accrue incrementally and are not deferred compensation, thus abrogating legislative intent. The judgment was modified, awarding the plaintiff his VSF benefits as separate property and adjusting the distribution of other marital assets.

Equitable DistributionMarital AssetsPolice PensionVariable Supplements FundNYPD BenefitsDivorce LawStatutory InterpretationDeferred CompensationAppellate ReviewSpousal Rights
References
13
Case No. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. W2012-02279-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2014

William Paul Luttrell v. Beverly Parker Luttrell

This case involves a divorce action between William Paul Luttrell (Husband) and Beverly Parker Luttrell (Wife). Husband appealed the trial court's judgment which awarded Wife an an absolute divorce, classified and distributed marital property, and ordered Husband to pay child support. Key issues on appeal included the classification and valuation of assets, particularly Wife's substantial separate trust assets, equitable distribution of marital property, child support calculations, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the classification of Wife's trust assets as separate property, the equitable division of marital assets which favored Husband due to Wife's significant separate wealth, and the imputation of income to Husband for child support purposes due to willful underemployment. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of attorney's fees to both parties.

DivorceMarital PropertySeparate PropertyChild SupportEquitable DistributionUnderemploymentAlimony in SolidoAttorney's FeesTrust AssetsProperty Valuation
References
21
Case No. E2001-02849-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2002

Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins

This case involves an appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County concerning a divorce decree. James Franklin Hopkins challenged the Trial Court's award of alimony to Sherry Mae Hopkins and the order for marital debts to be paid from the sale of the marital residence. He also asserted Ms. Hopkins unlawfully disposed of marital assets. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and modified in part, reversing the alimony in futuro award and granting rehabilitative alimony for four years. The appellate court upheld the division of marital debt but found Ms. Hopkins violated a statutory injunction by selling a marital asset without consent, granting Mr. Hopkins a credit.

DivorceAlimonyMarital PropertyDebt DivisionSpousal SupportRehabilitative AlimonyMarital AssetsAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageFamily Law
References
6
Case No. W2003-01836-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2005

Rhonda Leigh Jones Robinson v. Russell Raynor Robinson

This is a divorce case concerning the dissipation of marital assets and child custody. The wife, Rhonda Leigh Jones Robinson, filed for divorce, alleging the husband, Russell Raynor Robinson, intentionally dissipated marital assets, primarily several automobile businesses, and sought custody of their four children. The trial court found that the husband intentionally dissipated assets and designated the wife as the primary residential parent. The husband appealed these findings, arguing errors in asset division, child support calculation, attorney's fees, and contempt charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding ample evidence supported the findings of asset dissipation and the designation of the wife as the primary residential parent, and remanded for a determination of attorney's fees for the appeal.

DivorceMarital AssetsChild CustodyDissipation of AssetsAlimonyChild SupportAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentBusiness ValuationParenting Plan
References
24
Case No. E2001-00605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Curtis Daniels v. Mary Daniels

This appellate case, Curtis Michael Daniels v. Mary Freels Daniels, concerns the division of marital property and alimony in a divorce. Mary Freels Daniels appealed the trial court's decision regarding her share of Mr. Daniels' retirement benefits, the overall marital estate division, and her eligibility for rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's division of marital assets and the denial of rehabilitative alimony. However, it reversed and remanded the decision concerning Mr. Daniels' unvested TVA pension, ruling it a marital asset subject to equitable division, and provided guidelines for its valuation.

Divorce LawMarital AssetsPension RightsUnvested BenefitsAlimonySpousal SupportProperty DivisionEquitable DistributionAppellate ProcedureRemand
References
20
Case No. W1999-00284-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Jennifer Thomas v. Stephen Thomas

This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Shelby County in a divorce case. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed issues regarding the division of marital property, alimony, child support, joinder of a third party, and attorney's fees. The court reversed the trial court's classification of several assets (LADS, OB Development, and Park Avenue property) as separate property, reclassifying them as marital, while affirming the Eaton Street property as marital. Consequently, the appellate court vacated and remanded the decisions on marital asset distribution, alimony, and attorney's fees for reconsideration based on the new property classifications. The trial court's dismissal of the wife's petition for civil contempt and the denial of joining the husband's father as a defendant were affirmed.

DivorceMarital PropertyAlimonyChild SupportAppellate ReviewTransmutationSeparate PropertyEquitable DistributionAttorney's FeesContempt
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. M2020-00703-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2021

Christina Lynn McCartney v. Lester Dale McCartney

This is an appeal in a divorce case. The Husband/Appellant appealed the trial court's pre-trial procedural rulings, the classification of certain assets as marital property, and the equitable division of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error. Key issues included the classification of Husband's retirement funds, the modular home, disability benefits, a John Deere tractor, and a StarCraft boat, as well as allegations of the Wife's dissipation of marital assets. The court upheld the trial court's application of statutory factors for property division.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAsset DivisionRetirement FundsDisability BenefitsProperty ClassificationAppellate ReviewTennesseeFamily Law
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 528 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational