State ex rel. As we read the Kansas statute, we believe the legislative intent is clear in that it allows a trial judge wide latitude to divide marital property and this latitude provides the judge with discretion to consider whether marital assets were lost as a result of the wrongful conduct of one of the parties to the marriage. The Kansas Legislature has provided no indication that dissipation should be interpreted following the Illinois rule or that the term should have any unique significance beyond its ordinary meaning. Therefore, any judicial evaluation that would change the language of the statute would be contrary to the established rules of statutory construction. Exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless clear abuse of discretion is shown.
Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.
Rather, Kansas law gives the court discretion to consider all of the property, regardless of when acquired, to arrive at a just and reasonable division. Property acquired during the marriage may continue to be identified as that of one party although the other party to the divorce will have the right to some offsetting value accomplished either within the property division or by the award of alimony. The purchase of the disputed home was made possible by petitioner's ownership of a home when the marriage occurred. The disputed home was still a marital asset because petitioner made all the payments after respondent was arrested in 1995. Without petitioner's payments, the home would have been lost or a forced sale would have occurred.