An unpublished case that sounds a note of caution for lawyers taking clients into equitable distribution is Harrison v. Allegretto, 21 VLW 1070 (1/30/07), from Chesapeake. The husband claimed he should get credit for having paid off, after separation, $21,439 in marital debt, but the circuit court refused because he had “failed to establish the source of the debts,” and the Court of Appeals affirmed. When the trial court divided marital debt, in other words, it gave husband no special consideration for this payment. What did the husband get into evidence as backup? Cancelled checks paying the bills, and cover letters to the creditors. He should also have shown, the Court of Appeals says, statements of account (presumably bills) from the creditors, andreceipts for purchases. Nor had there been any testimony at trial about the purposes of the charges on the charge accounts, and this left the Commissioner in Chancery unable to identify the source or the nature of the debts so as to see if they were indeed marital. Apparently the issue was not that they were non-existent fabricated debts, but that they could have been for his separate enjoyment after (or before) separation.