{"issue_text":"What proportion of the matrimonial home should each party receive","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Plaintiff funded extensions, defendant owned original property, defendant collected rentals for 16 years"}
{"issue_text":"How should movable property be distributed","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Plaintiff sold some property for maternity expenses, remaining property jointly acquired"}
{"issue_text":"What maintenance should be paid for minor child","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Defendant initially disputed paternity, child needs support"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The parties were married in 1980 and solemnized their marriage in 1989. They have three children, with only one minor child remaining. The marriage broke down in 1996 when the plaintiff left due to threats from the defendant. The main dispute concerns the distribution of matrimonial property, particularly the matrimonial home which was extended from 3 to 8 rooms using funds from the plaintiff's cross-border trading business.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases