Archive for the ‘equitable distribution’ Category

« Older Entries

Divorce, Monetary Obligations and Statute of Limitations

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

It is is not uncommon for a party to obtain a right to receive a sum of money in the judgment of divorce.  That right usually comes in situations where there are assets that are subject to equitable distribution.  It is also not uncommon for the parties to make their own agreements following the judgment of divorce as to how such sums of money will be paid.  One issue that would raise a concern for me would be a situation where the payment is extended over a long period of time.  It is a concern because a statute of limitations may come into play and, possibly, bar recovery.

In Woronoff v. Woronoff, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 01479 (2nd Dept. 2010), the Appellate Division held that where a monetary award in the judgment of divorce is not reduced to a monetary judgment, such award is subject to a six year statute of limitations.  In Woronoff, the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 21, 1988, which provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff would pay the defendant the sum of $87,500 for her share of his businesses.  In 1990, the parties entered into an agreement which modified this portion of the judgment so as to, among other things, set forth a different payment schedule for the distributive award.  This agreement was not reduced to a court order.  The defendant never entered her distributive award as a money judgment nor sought to enforce collection thereof until 2007, when she obtained a clerk’s judgment against the plaintiff.  Thereafter, however, the plaintiff successfully moved to vacate the clerk’s judgment.

The plaintiff then commenced an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful procurement of the clerk’s judgment including the counsel fees he expended in moving to vacate the clerk’s judgment.  The defendant’s first counterclaim asserted that the plaintiff had failed pay her the full amount of her distributive award for her share of his business, and alleged damages resulting therefrom in excess of $150,000.

The Appellate Division held that contrary to the defendant’s contention, the distributive award made to her in the divorce judgment for her share of the plaintiff’s business was not a “money judgment” subject to a 20-year statute of limitations.  Instead, her claim to enforce this award was governed by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(1) and (2).  Accordingly, since the defendant did not seek to enforce her distributive award nor reduce it to a money judgment until well beyond six years after the divorce judgment was entered, and even well beyond six years after the parties entered into their modification agreement, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this counterclaim as time-barred.

The lesson of the above case for divorce lawyers is that in the event there is a monetary award in the judgment of divorce, it is a good idea to reduce it to a monetary judgment.  Alternatively, if the parties agree to extend the payment of the amount due beyond six years, such agreement should be reduced to writing and should include a provision specifically waiting statute of limitations.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution, procedure | No Comments »

Appreciation of Separate Property and Equitable Distribution

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

One issue that periodically comes up in my divorce practice here in Rochester has to do with appreciation of separate property during the marriage.  I have previously written about this issue in the past.  A recent case decided by the Appellate Division, Third Department, Albanese v. Albanese, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 00036 (3rd Dept. 2009), has illustrated a related aspect of this issue.  In Albanese, the critical issue before the court was whether or not the wife’s lawyer was able to establish how much the husband’s law practice has appreciated during the marriage.  In this type of situation, the divorce attorney has to be concerned about two different valuations.  The first one is the valuation of the business at the time of the marriage, and the second one is the valuation of the business at the time of commencement of the divorce action.

However, during the trial, the wife’s divorce attorney appears to have not established what the value of the law practice was at the time of the marriage.  The Appellate Division stated,

Here, the only evidence in the record regarding the value of defendant’s law practice related to the purported value at the time the divorce action was commenced. Plaintiff, who was represented by seasoned counsel and retained an experienced expert, presented no proof of a baseline value at the time of the marriage or of an appreciation in the value of the practice during the marriage. While plaintiff’s role as homemaker and mother to the parties’ children established that she was entitled to a share of any appreciation, there was no evidence offered from which appreciation could be found. Under such circumstances, an award for the value of the law practice was inappropriate.  (Citations omitted).

In such situations, the non-titled spouse bears the burden of proof, and any appreciation in value of such separate property may be subject to distribution if there is a nexus between the titled spouse’s efforts and the increase in value and those efforts were aided or facilitated by the nontitled spouse.  However, without the starting point value, the non-titled spouse simply could not prove her case. As a result, the wife has received no portion of the law practice that has likely appreciated since the parties’ marriage in 1987.

The above illustrates that sometimes even the most obvious issues occasionally escape the attention of counsel.  Therefore, the Appellate Division’s reference to the plaintiff’s attorney as “seasoned counsel” and her expert as “experienced expert” indicates its likely surprise that this issue was overlooked during the trial.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution, evidence | No Comments »

Disability Payments, Divorce and Equitable Distribution

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

I have previously written about different classes of property that most of the time will be considered to be separate property of the party during the divorce.  Periodically, divorce lawyers have to deal with situations where one of the parties becomes disabled during the marriage and begins to receive disability payments, either social security disability or payments under a private disability insurance policy.

In a recent case, Masella v. Masella, 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op 08190 (2nd Dept. 2009), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the proceeds of the defendant’s disability insurance policies are his separate property. Similarly, the court held that the proceeds of the defendant’s Social Security disability benefits also are his separate property, and are not subject to equitable distribution.  The reason that Social Security benefits are not subject to equitable distribution, is because Social Security benefits are not a pension.  With respect to the disability insurance, any disability insurance payments constitute compensation for personal injury and would not be subject to equitable distribution.

In a situation where one of the parties is disabled and is receiving disability payments, the other party might not be able to obtain equitable distribution of such payment, regardless of the amount received.  While some may argue that this may not be fair to the other party, the above principles are uniformly applied in New York divorces and are unlikely to be overturned in the future.  When handling similar situations, divorce attorneys will need to investigate the source of payments, the reasons for them and try to figure out if the income can be reached in some other way, perhaps by a spousal maintenance claim.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, court orders, divorce, equitable distribution | No Comments »

Vacating Settlement Agreements on Grounds of Mutual Mistake

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

In is not unusual for a party to attempt to vacate a settlement agreement.  In order to do so, a party must meet a significant burden of proof that the agreement came as a result of a material, mutual mistake, fraud, or other relevant facts.  A interesting illustration of the above principles came in a recent decision, Simkin v. Blank, Sup. Co. New York County (December 22, 2009).

In 2006, Mr. Simkin, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and his wife negotiated a settlement agreement in their divorce action.  One of the marital assets was an account the parties opened during their marriage with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC which was worth $5.4 million.  As part of a 2006 equitable distribution agreement, Mr. Simkin  paid Ms. Blank $2.7 million, which represented what he thought was his ex-wife’s fair share of their Madoff investments.

After Mr. Madoff’s arrest, Mr. Simkin attempted to reform the agreement, claiming it was based on a “material, mutual mistake” and resulted in a “windfall” for Ms. Blank. He argued that the agreement did not accomplish the parties’ goal of ensuring that each would keep approximately half of the marital assets.  Ms. Blank responded that as long as Mr. Simkin could have redeemed the account for the value that the parties agreed to on the cut-off date, he received what he bargained for. Noting that Mr. Simkin had liquidated part of his investment to fund his ex-wife’s equitable entitlement, the court pointed out that in 2006 and “the several years after that plaintiff maintained this investment,” the account “could have been redeemed for cash, presumably significantly in excess of its 2004 value.”  While Mr. Simkin claimed the Madoff account held no assets, he did not allege it had no value, the judge wrote.  “An investor’s ability to redeem an account for value, was the assumption on which the parties relied in dividing their property and in doing so they made no mistake,” the court found.

Justice Evans agreed with Ms. Blank holding that while Mr. Simkin’s decision to retain the Madoff account may have been “improvident,” that did not give the court an equitable basis to set the agreement aside. In dismissing Mr. Simkin’s complaint, Justice Evans wrote, “There is no evidence that defendant was unjustly enriched. In 2006, at the time of their agreement, each of the parties received the benefit of his and her bargain.”

The lesson of the above case is that clients and their divorce attorneys should be careful in fashioning settlement agreements.  Even when significant mistakes are made at the time the agreements are entered into, it is very difficult to set them aside, even in such extreme circumstances as described above.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, Settlement Agreements, Stipulations, drafting, equitable distribution | No Comments »

Divorce, Equitable Distribution and Appreciation of Separate Property

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

One issue that comes up periodically in divorce cases has to do with appreciation of separate property brought into the marriage by one spouse.  If that separate property is a business that appreciated during the marriage, did that appreciation come as active spousal effort, which would render the appreciation marital property, or did the appreciation come as a result of passive, non-spousal effort, and therefore should be treated as separate property? In other words, what was the comparable economic contribution of each party to the appreciation of such asset?

While the courts do not utilize the terms active and passive appreciation as much as they did in the past, it is clear from the recent decisions that those concepts are still utilized.  In Smith v. Winters, 64 A.D.3d 1218 (4th Dept. 2009), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, recently answered the above question by evaluating how much the efforts of the titled spouse increased the value of the asset in dispute, by looking at what specific efforts of the titled spouse led to the appreciation.  In Smith, the plaintiff owned a business that later on purchased another company, PNA.  PNA has appreciated significantly during the course of the marriage.  After discussing the facts related to the plaintiff’s efforts and involvement in PNA, the court stated:

With respect to PNA, the court found that the value of PNA appreciated by $20 million during the course of the marriage but that the increase in value attributable to plaintiff was minimal when compared to the increase attributable to those hired by plaintiff to run the company. The court thus determined that only 10% of the appreciation in value of PNA was marital property subject to equitable distribution.

Subsequently, the court held that the non-titled spouse was entitled to 40% of the appreciated marital value based on her contributions as a homemaker.  Thus, the titled spouse, in this case the husband, was able to retain 96% of appreciation of PNA.

The above represents continuation of the trend toward reevaluating the status of marital property on the basis of various forms of contribution by the parties to the marriage, or, perhaps, third parties as well.  The courts have long held that “an increase in the value of separate property of one spouse, occurring during the marriage and prior to the commencement of matrimonial proceedings, which is due in part to the indirect contributions or efforts of the other spouse as homemaker . . . should be considered marital property”.  See Price v Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 11 (1986).  However, the latest decisions in this area are refocusing on requiring  ”some nexus between the titled spouse’s active efforts and the appreciation in the separate property”, when a nontitled spouse’s claim to appreciation and the other spouse’s separate property is predicated solely on the nontitled spouse’s indirect contributions.  See Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 46 (1995).   Therefore in Smith, the Appellate Division Fourth Department held that the trial court properly considered the “active efforts of others and any additional passive or active factors” in determining the percentage of total appreciation that constitutes marital property subject to distribution.

The above case opens various possibilities to lawyers and titled-spouses contesting an appreciation claim.  Situations similar to the one in Smith will require a divorce attorney to evaluate carefully how the asset appreciated and what role each spouse or third parties played in that appreciation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution | No Comments »

Non-Titled Spouse, Enhanced Earnings and Substantial Contribution

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

I have previously written about several issues related to distribution of enhanced earnings during the equitable distribution portion of the divorce action here, here, here and here.  One of the critical issues facing a divorce lawyer, seeking seeking equitable distribution of a portion of such earnings for his/her client, is the burden of proof with respect to the non-titled spouse’s contribution to enhanced earning capacity.  The non-titled spouse seeking a distributive share of enhanced earnings must demonstrate that he/she made a substantial contribution to the titled party’s acquisition of that marital asset.

In Kriftcher v. Kriftcher, 59 A.D.3d 392 (2nd Dept. 2009,) the trial court awarded the plaintiff-wife $828,699.20 as her 40% share of the husband’s enhanced earning capacity, an attorney’s fee of $30,000, declined to award her maintenance, awarded her $1,229.71 per week in child support, and failed to award her equitable distribution of the husband’s bonus for the calendar year 2005, which the husband received in 2006.  The Appellate Division found that trial court correctly concluded that the enhanced earnings resulting from the law degree and license obtained by the husband during the marriage were marital property subject to equitable distribution.  Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon the non-titled party seeking a distributive share of such assets to demonstrate that they made a substantial contribution to the titled party’s acquisition of that marital asset, and where only modest contributions are made by the non-titled spouse toward the other spouse’s attainment of a degree or professional license, and the attainment is more directly the result of the titled spouse’s own ability, tenacity, perseverance and hard work, it is appropriate for courts to limit the distributed amount of that enhanced earning capacity.  Here, the wife’s minimal contributions to the husband’s obtaining of his degree and license entitled her to a share of only 10% in the enhanced earnings that have resulted.

In determining the appropriate amount and duration of maintenance, the court is required to consider, among other factors, the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and the present and future earning capacity of both parties.  Although the wife earned a teaching license during the course of the marriage, she was, at present, primarily a homemaker, who worked only part-time as a substitute teacher earning approximately $10,000 per year.  In sharp contrast, the husband was an attorney making approximately $500,000 per year. It held that a maintenance award of $1,000 per week for 10 years was appropriate.

The above decision is a good illustration of the recent trend where the non-titled spouse has to present evidence of his/her contribution toward creation of the other spouse’s enhanced earning capacity.  When handling such situations, divorce attorney would do well to learn everything there is to know regarding non-titled spouse’s involvement in the titled spouse’s efforts to obtain a license or degree that ultimately resulted in enhanced earning capacity.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution | No Comments »

Divorce, Equitable Distribution and Wasteful Dissipation

Sunday, October 18th, 2009
“Wasteful dissipation”
(i.e., DRL 236 (B)(5)(d)(11), hereinafter referred to as “Factor
11”) is a term of art that has never been defined with any real
precision, however. It can apparently consist of gambling and
poor business judgment, as well as other forms of economic
misconduct. Given the absence of appellate leadership in
establishing a reliable equation to which we practitioners can
refer, what may or may not constitute marital waste remains as
much a mystery as how that waste will ultimately affect equitable
distribution.
Until an ambitious Appellate Court commits itself to developing
a more reliable methodology for sniffing out marital waste, the
lower courts can be assured that the litigious will continue to
make a stink. Conclusion: Attorneys seeking to avoid being a
waste of marital funds themselves tend to mine any negative
impact on the marital estate that can be traced to the dubious
conduct of the other spouse. Hopeful that an adjustment to a
client’s equitable entitlement might be sparked by blaming the
other spouse for a decline in the overall value of the marital
estate, an unpredictable Factor 11 claim all too frequently becomes
an opportunity to leverage an outcome on a whim or whiff.Wife’s Inability to Testify with Specificity as to How She Spent the Proceeds of Loan Suggested She Dissipated Marital Assets in Contemplation of Divorce.
In Abrams v Abrams, — N.Y.S.2d —-, 2008 WL 5376644 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) the Appellate Division pointed out that “The overriding purpose of a maintenance award is to give the spouse economic independence, and it should be awarded for a duration that would provide the recipient with enough time to become self-supporting”. It held that the trial court properly awarded the former wife maintenance, but it improvidently exercised its discretion in extending the duration of the maintenance award beyond five years, and concluded that an award of $2,500 per month for five years was appropriate. It also found that the former husband correctly contended that he was entitled to a portion of the proceeds of a home equity loan that the wife obtained with respect to certain investment residential property, especially in light of the wife’s inability to testify with specificity as to how she spent the proceeds of that loan. This suggested that the wife dissipated these marital assets in contemplation of divorce. The judgment was modified to award the husband a credit which represented his share of the proceeds of that loan, after accounting for the taxes paid by the wife on both the marital residence and the investment residential property. It noted that a parent has no legal obligation to provide for or contribute to the support of a child over the age of 21 Therefore, the court erred

One issue that tends to come up in divorce case is wasteful dissipation.  While I mentioned it in the past, this post will address it in greater detail.

Wasteful dissipation is one of the statutory factors that must be considered by a trial court upon rendering a determination of the equitable distribution of marital assets as set forth in Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(5)(d):

(1) the income and property of each party at the time of marriage, and at the time of the commencement of the action; (2) the duration of the marriage and the age and health of both parties; (3) the need of a custodial parent to occupy or own the marital residence and to use or own its household effects; (4) the loss of inheritance and pension rights upon dissolution of the marriage as of the date of issolutio;(5) any award of maintenance under subdivision six of this part; (6) any equitable claim to, interest in, or direct or indirect contribution made to the acquisition of such marital property by the party not having title, including joint efforts or expenditures and contributions and services as a spouse, parent, wage earner and homemaker, and to the career or career potential of the other party; (7) the liquid or non-liquid character of all marital property; (8) the probable future financial circumstances of each party; (9) the impossibility or difficulty of evaluating any component asset or any interest in a business, corporation or profession, and the economic desirability of retaining such asset or interest intact and free from any claim or interference by the other party; (10) the tax consequences to each party; (11) the wasteful dissipation of assets by either spouse; (12) any transfer or encumbrance made in contemplation of a matrimonial action without fair consideration; (13) any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper.

“Wasteful dissipation” is a term commonly used to describe a spouse’s unnecessary or unjustified use of marital money to justify a disproportionate equitable distribution. What makes wasteful dissipation problematic from a lawyer’s point of view is that its definition is vague and imprecise.  It can consist of gambling and poor business judgment, as well as other forms of financial or economic misconduct.  While the appellate courts have not given a precise definition of what actions by a spouse fall within the scope of wasteful dissipation, the trial courts and divorce attorneys deal with this issue frequently.  This also provides a significant opportunity for prolonging divorce litigation.  At times, a party will look for situations where any negative impact on the marital estate can be traced to the imperfect conduct of the other spouse.  Divorce lawyers may seek to improve their clients’ equitable distribution award may blame the other spouse for a decline in the overall value of the marital estate.

With respect to a business, wasteful dissipation may occur if a party fails to recoup a value from an unsuccessful business or “it necessarily is a wasteful dissipation of assets to fail to recoup the value of a profitable business, such as plaintiff’s masonry business. “ Scala v. Scala, 59 A.D.3d 1042 (4th Dept. 2009).  Failure to take care or repair a marital property also may amount to a wasteful dissipation.

In a recent decision, Abrams v. Abrams, 57 A.D.3d 809 (2nd Dept. 2008), the Appellate Division held that the wife’s inability to testify with specificity as to how she spent the proceeds of loan suggested she dissipated marital assets in contemplation of divorce. The Appellate Division pointed out that “the former husband correctly contended that he was entitled to a portion of the proceeds of a home equity loan that the wife obtained with respect to certain investment residential property, especially in light of the wife’s inability to testify with specificity as to how she spent the proceeds of that loan. This suggested that the wife dissipated these marital assets in contemplation of divorce. The judgment was modified to award the husband a credit which represented his share of the proceeds of that loan, after accounting for the taxes paid by the wife on both the marital residence and the investment residential property.”

A party’s use of marital assets to pay for “basic living expenses” does not constitute wasteful dissipation.  Damas v. Damas, 51 A.D.3d 709 (2nd Dept. 2008).

If a party makes financial decisions and acts in such way that the marital estate is diminished, that party should be ready to provide a legitimate explanation for his or her actions. The client is well advised to make a full disclosure of all such activities to the divorce lawyer and to provide a detailed explanation for the course of action taken.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution | No Comments »

Division of Pension, Personal Injury Compensation and Separate Property

Sunday, October 11th, 2009
The court effectively delegates to a pension plan administrator the obligation to apportion a disability pension plan between the separate property component of compensation for injury and the marital property portion related to deferred compensation for past services.
2. The court holds that the economic loss component (compensation for lost wages) of an award from the 9-11 Victim Compensation Fund is separate property just as is the non-economic loss component for pain and suffering.

A recent decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, Howe v. Howe, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 06804 (2nd Dept. 2009), addressed some of the issues dealing with equitable distribution of personal injury compensation.  Mr. Howe was a New York City firefighter who was injured as a result of the events of 9/11 and subsequently retired on a disability pension.  As a result of his injuries, he also received September 11th Victim Compensation Award.

The trial court found the entire pension to be a part of the marital estate and awarded the wife “her Majauskas” share. On appeal, the husband argued that the lack of expert testimony or evidence in the record by which the nondisability portion of the pension can be distinguished from the disability portion is not fatal to his separate property claim, since that distinction can be made by the pension administrator in the same manner as it makes the familiar calculation of the marital pension share under Majauskas.

The manner in which disability pensions are treated for equitable distribution purposes is well established. “[P]ension benefits or vested rights to those benefits, except to the extent that they are earned or acquired before marriage or after [the] commencement of a matrimonial action, constitute marital property”. Dolan v. Dolan, 78 NY2d 463, 466 (1991). However, “[t]o the extent that a disability pension constitutes compensation for personal injuries, that compensation is separate property’ which is not subject to equitable distribution”. Mylett v. Mylett, 163 A.D.2d 463, 464-465  (3rd Dept. 1990). According to the Second Department, the division, into two separate post-marital accounts, of what was the nondisability pension of one spouse during the marriage, is accomplished by the plan administrator, without the intervention of the court, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, consistent with Majauskas, which the administrator either prepares or, more frequently, approves. For that order to satisfy the relevant requirement of the Internal Revenue Code, it need only specify “the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined” (26 U.S.C. § 414[p][2][B] [emphasis supplied]).

In addition to his disability pension, the plaintiff received an award from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund as a result of injuries he suffered. The administrator of that fund specifically designated a portion of that award, in the amount of $127,571, as compensation for economic loss. The Supreme Court held that the economic component of the award constitutes “compensation for personal injuries” within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(1)(d)(2) and, on that basis, treated the award as the separate property of the plaintiff.

According to the Second Department, the phrase “compensation for personal injuries,” however, is not without ambiguity. It can be read equally clearly as encompassing the entire award in a personal injury action or as limiting the marital share of that award to the portion constituting compensation for the actual injuries, i.e., the pain and suffering component. While a definition of the term separate property as “any recovery in a personal injury action” would be clear, that is not the phrase the Legislature used and viewing the phrase “compensation for personal injuries” as including the economic component of a personal injury award and, therefore, the separate property of the injured spouse is, according to the court, was clearly inconsistent with the logic of the Equitable Distribution Law. While the logic of the Equitable Distribution Law thus suggests the conclusion that the economic portion of a personal injury award should be marital property, however, according to the Second Department, the legislative history compels the contrary result.

This particular finding that the compensation for economic loss is separate property of the party is very significant.  It is also likely to create a new set of issues that lawyers in the Fourth, Third, and First Appellate Divisions will have to address since the existing precedent in those departments runs contrary to this decision.  Because of the apparent conflict between the departments, this issue is also likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution | No Comments »

Joint Bank Accounts and Creation of Marital Property

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

One issue that often comes up in divorce cases has to do with transformation of separate property into marital property.  This situation was dealt with by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Bailey v. Bailey, 48 AD3d 1123 (4th Dept. 2008).  In Bailey, the Appellate Division held that although the court properly determined that plaintiff was entitled to retain the amount of $43,000 she had removed from the parties’ joint HSBC checking accounts containing $66,000, the court erred in allocating the entire amount as separate property.  ”The creation of a joint account vests in each tenant a present unconditional property interest in an undivided one half of the money deposited, regardless of who puts the funds on deposit.  The creation of a joint account vests in each tenant a present unconditional property interest in an undivided one half of the money deposited, regardless of who puts the funds on deposit” (Parry v. Parry, 93 A.D.2d 989, 990; see Nasca v. Nasca, 302 A.D.2d 906).  Therefore, each party was entitled to a distributive award of $33,000 from that account.

The issue of transmutation, as the process of changing the status of property from separate to marital is commonly referred to, may appear in many cases and under many different circumstances.  It is not uncommon for such separate property as gifts, inheritances, and personal injury award to lose their status as separate property.  Therefore, if a party has even a suspicion that there may be a divorce in foreseeable future, that party would do well to discuss these issues with a divorce lawyer and to keep that property in an account titled solely in that party’s name.  The alternative is if that property is placed in a joint account for reasons other that convenience, as defined by the courts, that party will likely be making a gift of one half of the property if divorce is commenced.  Any such issues should be discussed with an experienced family law lawyer.  Once transmutation takes place, it is highly unlikely that you would be able to change the property’s status back to separate property, even with a lawyer’s assistance.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution, procedure | No Comments »

Divorce Actions and New Automatic Stay Orders

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

Since the enactment of Domestic Relations Law §236(B), often referred to as  the “Equitable Distribution Law,” divorce lawyers have had to deal with transfers of, or encumbrances on, marital property which might frustrate the eventual disposition of a divorce case.

Immediately after the enactment of the Equitable Distribution Law, attorneys attempted to prevent transfers and encumbrances of marital property by various means, such as seeking injunctive relief to prevent or undo any transfers, filing notices of pendency with regard to real property which would form part of equitable distribution, and seeking other forms of relief from the courts.  Eventually, the case law made clear that a notice of pendency cannot be filed in a divorce case since an equitable distribution action did not directly affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment, of real property. This left injunctive relief as the only means to restraining transfers during the pendency of an action.  Since the burden of obtaining an injunction was considerable, the moving party had to make a requisite showing that the party to be restrained was threatening to dispose, or was already disposing, of marital assets so as to adversely affect the movant’s ultimate rights to equitable distribution.  Typically, the burden of making the application, and the expenses of doing so, fell on the non-titled spouse.

The different courts in New York State took different approaches to address this issue.  Here in Rochester, the supreme court justices handling matrimonial cases would issue, if requested, standing orders which restrained the parties from substantially altering their financial positions. However, the standing orders would be issued in most cases after a motion was brought or after a preliminary conference was held.

Now, effective Sept. 1, 2009, there is a statute which provides for an automatic stay in all matrimonial actions. The present DRL §236(B)(2) has been redesignated as DRL §236(B)(2)(a) and subparagraph (b) has been added, which reads:

b. With respect to matrimonial actions which commence on or after the effective date of this paragraph, the plaintiff shall cause to be served upon the defendant, simultaneous with the service of the summons, a copy of the automatic orders set forth in this paragraph. The automatic orders shall be binding upon the plaintiff in a matrimonial action immediately upon the filing of the summons, or summons and complaint, and upon the defendant immediately upon the service of the automatic orders with the summons. The automatic orders shall remain in full force and effect during the pendency of the action, unless terminated, modified or amended by further order of the court upon motion of either of the parties or upon written agreement between the parties duly executed and acknowledged. The automatic orders are a follows:

(1) Neither party shall sell, transfer, encumber, conceal, assign, remove or in any way dispose of, without the consent of the other party in writing, or by order of the court, any property (including, but not limited to, real estate, personal property, cash accounts, stocks, mutual funds, bank accounts, cars and boats) individually or jointly held by the parties, except in the usual course of business, for customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with this action.

(2) Neither party shall transfer, encumber, assign, remove, withdraw or in any way dispose of any tax deferred funds, stocks or other assets held in any individual retirement accounts, 401K accounts, profit sharing plans, Keogh accounts, or any other pension or retirement account, and the parties shall further refrain from applying for or requesting the payment of retirement benefits or annuity payments of any kind, without the consent of the other party in writing, or upon further order of the court.

(3) Neither party shall incur unreasonable debts hereafter, including, but not limited to further borrowing against any credit line secured by the family residence, further encumbrancing any assets, or unreasonably using credit cards or cash advances against credit cards, except in the usual course of business or for customary or usual household expenses, or for reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with this action.

(4) Neither party shall cause the other party or the children of the marriage to be removed from any existing medical, hospital and dental insurance coverage, and each party shall maintain the existing medical, hospital and dental insurance coverage in full force and effect.

(5) Neither party shall change the beneficiaries of any existing life insurance policies, and each party shall maintain the existing life insurance, automobile insurance, homeowners and renters insurance policies in full force and effect.

The Office of Court Administration has  promulgated a Rule already and is in the process of issuing an Official Form incorporating the Notice required under the Statute.  Until the official form is issued, a divorce attorney should attach a notice to the summons stating that, upon service, an order is in effect and then reciting, word-for-word, the five elements listed above.  In my experience, the Monroe County Clerk’s Office will provide a form at the time the summons is filed, unless the requisite notice is already attached to the summons.

This legislation basically preserves the status quo during the pendency of a matrimonial action by shifting the burden of seeking relief from a spouse asking for the imposition of an injunction to a spouse moving to vacate or modify that restraint.  What is unclear at this time, is how this automatic order will be enforced, and what are the remedies for its violation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, Uncategorized, court orders, divorce, equitable distribution, procedure | No Comments »

« Older Entries