The appellant cited Harrower v. Harrower, supra, and Jackson v. Jackson, supra, to support his argument. The principle enunciated in these cases, according to the appellant, is that where exempt funds are co‑mingled with joint monies, it is implied that the spouse who caused the co‑mingling gifted one half of their exemption to the other spouse, and neither case cited makes reference to the ease of separating funds or the timing of withdrawals.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.