Divorce Lawyers Philadelphia

 The court found that a 55%-45% division of marital property in favor of petitioner wife was an abuse of discretion when respondent husband had the ability to generate significant future income from the value of property set apart to him and, in contrast, petitioner’s total disability as the result of illness precluded her from returning to her former occupation as a court reporter, the thereby limiting her employability and sources of income and, consequently, directed that petitioner’s share be increased from 55% to 75% and respondent’s share be decreased from 45% to 25%.  In re Madoch
 The division of property in the light of the statutory factors in subsection (d) of this section was an abuse of discretion where the property allocated to the wife provided little income for her, where she was not capable, due to her vocational skills, of securing more than a minimum wage job, and where her health and child care responsibilities further limited her ability to acquire “capital assets and income” in the future.  In re Emery
 The trial court clearly abused its discretion in distributing the marital property and debts between parties where the trial court awarded petitioner wife assets worth $168,900, including marital home, while awarding respondent husband only $37,390 of assets and requiring him to assume virtually all of marital debts totaling nearly $63,000; respondent was required to pay under the dissolution order $57,500 in attorney fees, $832 per month maintenance, and college expenses for four years for the parties’ two children; and, viewing these debts and expenses in light of respondent’s current financial condition, respondent could not possibly meet his own personal obligations.  In re Calisoff
 Where both husband and wife enjoyed a high standard of living, where the wife was well educated, earned a substantial salary when employed, worked during much of the marriage and contributed her earnings to it, but where she would be unable to work full time and might require a period of training to reenter the job market and where the husband had substantially greater earning power, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding 20% of the marital assets to the wife.  In re Rapacz