In light of parties’ long marriage, the disparity in their incomes, the fact that husband would reap the benefit of the home’s appreciated value accrued during wife’s possession, and the tax benefit to the husband for the payment of unallocated maintenance and support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding 70% of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home to the wife.  In re Kennedy
 Where respondent wife earned $1,500 prior to the judgment of dissolution and submitted no argument as to why the money should not be considered marital property or that it was improperly divided, there was no abuse of discretion to award appellant husband $750.  In re Cesaretti
 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding 60% of the marital property to the husband while awarding 40% to the wife; and equitable award does not require that the marital estate be divided equally.  In re Harding
 If an examination of the record reveals that the trial court was aware of the requirements of subsection (d) of this section, and its disposition of marital property was consistent with subsection (d) of this section, then an abuse of discretion has not occurred.  In re Wolf
 The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it divided marital property in approximately equal shares even though parties stood in unequal positions in terms of health, income, and the opportunity for future acquisition of assets and income.  In re Swigers
 Where one spouse had earned $34,000 annually for the last 10 years with some exceptions and had saved and invested enough to own a large percentage of a limited partnership and to have half ownership of his own company, but the other’s income was only $260 per month and she had no savings or business investments, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s maintenance or property award.  In re Reimann
 The trial court did not erroneously consider the interests and motives of wife’s father in awarding wife the entire marital interest in apartment complex; there was no evidence that the court placed any undue or even primary emphasis upon this factor, which was reasonably one of the concerns the court had to address in reaching its decision.  In re Agazim
 The trial court correctly found that husband had a greater ability to acquire assets from greater income-producing ability and a skill or talent to borrow money; because of this disparity in employment capacities, the court could reasonably fashion a disposition that awarded, a majority of marital assets to wife.  In re Agazim
 Entering her early fifties with no job experience over two decades past, it was highly unlikely that petitioner’s earning capacity would ever approach that of respondent’s; therefore, respondent had a much greater opportunity for future acquisition of income and assets than petitioner, and the trial court properly relied on his disparity in earning capacity in dividing the marital property.  In re Hanson
 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in apportioning the marital property on an approximately 50/50 basis where the wife contributed over 22 years as a homemaker, husband’s income was much greater than the wife’s and the husband’s contention that he might have to liquidate assets to meet expenses was purely speculative.  In re Heller

Car
 The award of a car was justified since the evidence was clear that the car was purchased for petitioner wife and she had driven it since that time.  In re Zummo
Corporate stock
 Awarding corporate stock to respondent husband subject to an obligation to pay petitioner wife an appropriate sum constituted an equitable division, as unlike petitioner, respondent was directly involved in closely held corporations; this method of dividing the marital property served to disengage the parties’ financial affairs as well as reduce the likelihood of interference with one another or with the operations of the companies.  In re Hellwig
Home Furnishings
 Where respondent husband submitted a list of household property where he indicated what he believed was marital and on-marital property and who should receive specific pieces, and petitioner wife marked the list with yellow or red and gave her opinion concerning disposition, and where the court passed on the credibility of the parties and found petitioner’s testimony more credible and awarded the property in conformity with her testimony, there was no abuse of discretion.  In re Zummo
Life Insurance Policy
 A parent may be required to provide or maintain life insurance with his child as irrevocable beneficiary.  In re Dulyn
Ranch
 Where wife spent seven years working on and preserving the parties’ only asset, an Arizona ranch, while husband had squandered millions of dollars on drugs, alcohol, women and poor business decisions, husband was the beneficiary of trust funds which paid him in excess of $200,000 per year and an additional $500,000 every five years, wife was 40 years old at the time of trial and her only marketable skill was working as a ranch hand, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding petitioner the Arizona ranch.  In re Morris