A finding of dissipation is possible even though the dissipating party did not derive personal benefit from the dissipation of the asset.  In re Frey
 The dissipating party need not derive a personal benefit from the dissipation in order to be held accountable; for example, a spouse’s failure to make mortgage payments and prevent foreclosure on a family home, which results in a loss of equity therein, can constitute dissipation.  In re Jones
 A finding of dissipation is possible even though the dissipating party did not derive personal benefit from the dissipation of the asset.  In re Petrovich

See Also:  Divorce Lawyers New York

 The court erred in finding that the wife dissipated marital funds where the activity in question occurred well before the date the court believed the marriage suffered an irreconcilable breakdown.  In re Blunda
 While it was true that the value of wife’s firm probably dropped as a result of its debt equity ratio increasing due to the debt incurred in setting up the employee stock option plan, there was no error in the trial court’s conclusion that wife acted in good faith, that the transaction was not a dissipation of marital assets or in the valuation of the firm.  In re Isaacs
 Where wife was not in a financial position to prevent the foreclosure of marital home the trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she did not find that wife dissipated marital assets.  In re Parker
 Where wife, who placed approximately $13,000 into a personal account, claimed that much of the money was spent on support for the parties’ daughter, as she did not receive any child support for at least seven months after the separation and further claimed a portion was spent in securing housing for the daughter, herself, and her two sons from a previous marriage, while husband remained in the marital residence, the trial court’s failure to find dissipation was not an abuse of discretion.  In re Schmidt
 Where husband made his living by selling and reinvesting in real estate, and where his testimony sufficiently detailed the tracing of funds from the sale of investment properties, the trial court’s decision that husband did not dissipate assets was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.  In re Phillips
 At the point at which the marriage began undergoing irreconcilable breakdown, the court properly found no dissipation on the part of the respondent.  In re Hazel
 It was clear from the record that a husband’s trip to Aruba was a pleasure trip, and the trial court’s findings that his excursions to Brazil and Minnesota were not business oriented were not an abuse of discretion such that these trips constituted a dissipation of marital assets.  In re Osborn
 The $15,000 expenditure for attorney fees to defend husband on charge of attempted rape four years prior to dissolution of marriage did not constitute dissipation of marital assets, especially where wife did not claim that the expenditure occurred during the time that the marriage was undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.  In re O’Neill
 Trial court did not abuse its discretion in not rendering a finding that dissipation had occurred where evidence in the record showed small amount of funds were alleged to have been dissipated over a period of at least 16 months.  In re Adams
 Where there was no evidence which suggested that petitioner used the funds for an inappropriate purpose, trial court was erroneous in ruling that wife dissipated cash receipts from husband’s medical practice.  In re Harding
 Where the court found the virtually all of alleged acts of dissipation accurred prior to irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage, and further, that spouse had not used any marital funds for purposes unrelated to the marriage, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no dissipation.  In re Getautas