What was this defendant thinking? In Jackson v Jackson the Court of Appeals affirmed a property division that awarded 97% to the husband and 3% to the wife, after the wife tried to murder her husband with rat poison. She was also having an affair with another man and had conversations with him about what assets she would receive in the event of her husband's death. The trial court held that defendant was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, her conduct was shocking and egregious, and she should not be allowed to benefit from her wrongdoing.
While the Court of Appeals recognized that fault should not constitute a punitive basis for an inequitable property division, defendant’s conduct was so egregious that it was “appropriate
to weigh fault very heavily in deciding an equitable distribution of the marital estate.” The Court concluded that the wife's argument that the property division was "unfair and inequitable" was meritless.