A couple is divorcing in North Dakota, and he wants her boobs. Well, strictly speaking, he wants his half of the $5,500 the couple spent on beefing up her boobs while they were married.
In Isaacson v. Isaacson, Erik Isaacson is claiming that the value of Traci Isaacson's implants should be counted when the divorcing couple splits up its assets....
Judge Wefald reportedly found that the implant-related claim was "absolutely nonsense," stating that "I can't imagine people would actually waste time thinking that breast implants are marital assets. It just defies common sense. I don't know how you would expect me to award breast implants, if you want me to have them cut out and given to Mr. Isaacson."...
His attorney argued more broadly that medical expenses should be deemed marital assets when they are "clearly cosmetic, elective, (and) non-necessary."
Interesting relevant case law here at First Wives World:
If a husband spends marital assets or uses marital property with the other woman, a wife can request the court to order her husband to re-pay any losses, either liquid assets or marital property. Usually this is done during mediation or a divorce settlement negotiation. For example, if a husband lavishes $8,000 on breast implants for the other woman, or pays rent on her apartment, a judge will consider this a dissipation of marital assets and order it re-paid to the marital estate.
Previously, I wrote about a case that redefined the concept of messy divorce. Is a kidney an "asset brought into the marriage"?
Via Walter Olson's Twitter feed.