When property is determined to have been transmuted, the entire property, not just a portion of the property, is included in the parties» marital property which is thereafter apportioned by the family court using the criteria set forth in the equitable
apportionment statute.
(There's now contribution between wrongdoers at common law for those cases where
the apportionment statutes don't apply.
Putting aside that no case has ever claimed that contribution applies only to but - for causes — good thing because there's many a defendant held liable who received contribution where the conduct wasn't a but - for cause and there's no reason to read any of
the apportionment statutes that way — I suppose the conclusion that contribution is limited to but - for causation does follow if the Court believes that the only way there can ever be factual causation is under the but - for test.
Not exact matches
Topics will include recent decisions interpreting the impact of governmental settlements on
statute of limitation defenses, developments in the
apportionment of CERCLA liability and more.
But Apple's legal argument is that there is no room in the
statute for any kind of
apportionment, and on that basis, the cupholder example would apply.
No
apportionment was necessary because each of Plaintiffs» claims were within the ambit of one of the
statutes.
I agree with the Court that the language of this
statute (1) gives the Administrator only discretionary authority to make
apportionments; (2) does not, on its face, bar States from using veterans» benefits as the basis for child support orders where no such
apportionment has been made or denied; and (3) should not be construed to have that as its purpose, in light of the presumption against federal intrusion into the field of family law.