Dissipation of Assets in a Maine Divorce

Dissipation occurs when one spouse deliberately wastes, hides, or destroys marital assets during the marriage breakdown — especially once divorce becomes likely. Maine courts take this seriously under the economic abuse provisions of 19-A M.R.S. § 953(1)(D), and a proven dissipation claim can shift the property division significantly in favor of the non-offending spouse.

What Qualifies as Dissipation

Dissipation is not normal spending during a marriage. It is the intentional destruction or waste of marital assets for a purpose unrelated to the marriage, typically occurring when the relationship is irretrievably breaking down.

Common examples include:

• Gambling away marital funds — casino losses, sports betting, online gambling
• Spending on an extramarital relationship — hotel rooms, gifts, travel, or financial support for a paramour
• Deliberately running up debt — opening new credit cards and maximizing them, taking out loans against marital property
• Hiding or transferring assets — moving money to undisclosed accounts, transferring property to family members or friends for below-market value
• Destroying property — intentionally damaging the family home, vehicles, or valuable personal property
• Business manipulation — artificially reducing business income, deferring revenue, accelerating expenses, or paying inflated salaries to family members

The key distinction is purpose. A spouse who spent $5,000 on a family vacation six months before separation did not dissipate assets — the spending served a family purpose. A spouse who lost $20,000 at a casino while the couple was discussing divorce almost certainly did.

How Maine Courts Handle Dissipation

When a court finds that dissipation occurred, it can "add back" the wasted amount to the marital estate and charge it against the offending spouse's share. This is how it works in practice:

Suppose the marital estate is worth $400,000 and one spouse spent $40,000 on gambling during the final year of the marriage. The court can treat the estate as if it were $440,000, then divide it equitably — with the $40,000 charged entirely against the gambling spouse's share.

If the court orders a 50/50 split of the adjusted $440,000 estate, each spouse would get $220,000. But the gambling spouse already "received" $40,000 through their wasteful spending, so they only get $180,000 from the remaining $400,000, while the other spouse gets $220,000.

Economic Abuse Under § 953(1)(D)

Maine's property division statute explicitly requires courts to consider "economic abuse" as a factor in dividing property. Economic abuse is defined by cross-reference to 19-A M.R.S. § 4102(5) and includes behavior that is coercive, deceptive, or unreasonably controlling regarding financial resources:

• Restricting access to joint bank accounts
• Hiding the existence of financial accounts or assets
• Controlling all household spending and denying the other spouse independent access to money
• Forging the other spouse's signature on financial documents
• Deliberately destroying the other spouse's credit rating

If economic abuse is proven, the court can order a significantly unequal property division — well beyond what the standard equitable distribution factors would produce — to compensate the victimized spouse.

Building a Dissipation Claim

The burden of proof falls on the spouse alleging dissipation. You need to show:

1. When the spending occurred — dissipation claims are strongest when the spending happened after the marriage began to break down
2. The amount — specific dollar figures tied to specific transactions
3. The purpose — that the spending served no legitimate family purpose
4. The source — that the funds came from marital assets, not the spending spouse's separate property

Evidence to gather:

• Bank statements showing withdrawals, transfers, or payments to unfamiliar parties
• Credit card statements showing unusual charges
• Tax returns that may reveal undisclosed income or deductions
• Business financial records showing irregular compensation or expense patterns
• Screenshots or records of gambling accounts

Present this evidence in a clear, chronological format. A disorganized pile of bank statements is much less persuasive than a timestamped ledger showing each suspicious transaction, the amount, and why it was not a family expense.

The Preliminary Injunction Protection

Maine provides a built-in safeguard: the automatic preliminary injunction that takes effect when the divorce summons (Form FM-038) is served. This injunction prohibits both spouses from transferring, hiding, or destroying marital property; changing insurance beneficiaries; or removing a spouse from insurance coverage. Violating this injunction can result in contempt of court and additional sanctions.

If you suspect dissipation is happening before you file, document everything you can before the injunction takes effect. The Maine Divorce Financial Split Guide includes a financial misconduct and waste tracker designed to organize this evidence in the format Maine courts expect to see.

See more Maine guides →