Trial court did not err in its division of property favoring the husband where the evidence showed that wife was 61 years old, employed and earning slightly under $25,000 per year, husband was 68 years old and disabled, respondent’s only income was a $446 monthly social security benefit and there was no evidence in the record indicating that wife was not in good health.  In re Benefield
 Award of marital home to former wife in marriage dissolution action did not constitute a clear abuse of discretion because former wife had custody of three minor children.  In re Sheber
 Where the trial court found that respondent husband’s contribution to parties’ asset accumulation was negated by his dissipation of these same assets, this fact justified an award of a larger percentage of the assets to petitioner wife enven though courts have found it equitable to apportion property accumulated during longer marriages in equal proportions; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.  In re Smith
 While the trial court did not state relevant factors it considered in making division, after reviewing record and the factors found in subsection (c) of this section to be considered in the division of marital property, the apportionment of marital property did not constitute an abuse of discretion.  In re Shafer
 Where petitioner received approximately 75% of the marital property, including two homes owned by the parties, respondent retained possession of non-marital real property totaling 60 acres and containing tillable land, a lake, and two dwellings, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding petitioner a greater share of the marital assets; moreover, the distribution effectuated by the trial court was further justified by the vast difference in the future earning capacities of the parties because respondent needed only to compete a dissertation to obtain a doctorate in educational administration, while petitioner had only a high school education and thus, respondent had vastly greater opportunity for the future acquisition of assets and income, and the court properly relied on this fact in dividing the marital property.  In re Stephenson

See Also:  Divorce Lawyers Las Vegas