Archive for the ‘equitable distribution’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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 court orders, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court | 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, drafting, equitable distribution, Family Law, New York Law, Settlement Agreements, Stipulations | 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 divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court | 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 divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court | 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 divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, New York Law, Supreme Court | 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 divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, New York Law, Supreme Court | 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 divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, Family Law, New York Law, procedure, Supreme Court | 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 court orders, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, Family Law, New York Law, procedure, Supreme Court, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Equitable Distribution, Maintenance and Health Insurance – Upcoming Changes in the Domestic Relations Law

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

I am asked frequently what happens to health insurance as a result of divorce.  My usual response is that once the judgment of divorce is entered, if you were receiving health insurance benefits through your spouse, you will lose your right to receiving this coverage in the future, unless you elect to receive COBRA coverage.

In fact, the disclosure of the above facts has been formalized in Domestic Relations Law §177 which provides that prior to accepting and entering as a judgement any stipulated agreement between the parties in an action for divorce, the judge shall ensure that there is a  provision  in  such agreement  relating to the health care coverage of each individual. Such statement shall either (a) provide for the future coverage of the individual; or (b) state that the individual is aware that he or she will no longer be covered by his or her spouse’s health  insurance plan and that the individual will be responsible for his or her own health insurance coverage. Every agreement accepted by the court  must  contain a specific statement, signed by each party, to ensure that the provisions of this subdivision are adhered to.

At the same time, since in most situations the health insurance is tied to one or both spouses’ employment, the Domestic Relations Law did not provide any formal way to include the loss of health insurance coverage into either maintenance or equitable distribution calculations.  This is about to change.  Effective September 21, 2009, an additional subsection of Domestic Relations Law §236 will be going into effect and will require the trial court to consider the loss of health insurance coverage as a factor in fashioning equitable distribution and maintenance awards.  Specifically, the new statute will provide as follows:

AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation  to  maintenance

and equitable distribution of marital property

THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-

BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1    Section 1.  Subparagraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and  13  of  para-

2  graph  d  of  subdivision  5  of  part  B of section 236 of the domestic

3  relations law, subparagraph 13 as renumbered by chapter 884 of the  laws

4  of 1986, are renumbered subparagraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14,

5  and a new subparagraph 5 is added to read as follows:

6    (5)  THE  LOSS  OF  HEALTH  INSURANCE BENEFITS UPON DISSOLUTION OF THE

7  MARRIAGE;

8    S 2. Subparagraph 10 of paragraph a of subdivision  6  of  part  B  of

9  section  236 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 884 of

10  the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:

11    (10) any transfer or encumbrance made in contemplation of a matrimoni-

12  al action without fair consideration; [and]

13    S 3. Subparagraph 11 of paragraph a of subdivision  6  of  part  B  of

14  section  236 of the domestic relations law is renumbered subparagraph 12

15  and a new subparagraph 11 is added to read as follows:

16    (11) THE LOSS OF HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS  UPON  DISSOLUTION  OF  THE

17  MARRIAGE; AND

18    S  4.  This  act  shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall

19  have become a law and shall apply to any action or proceeding  commenced

20  on or after such effective date.

EXPLANATION–Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

[ ] is old law to be omitted.

The bill memo provided the following justification for the bill:

The Equitable Distribution and Maintenance factors have not been updated much since their introduction close to 30 years ago.  While loss of health insurance was not one of the factors added at the time, in light of the health care crisis and rising costs of access to health insurance, loss of health insurance is a critical factor that should be considered by courts in making determinations relating to equitable  distribution and maintenance. The impact of a divorce can be challenging for families and the added loss of health insurance can be financially devastating. The proposal in this bill, to add loss of health insurance as a factor to be considered for equitable distribution and maintenance determinations, is essential to address the realities of our current times. This legislation is intended to promote the health, safety and financial stability of the parties post divorce.

I believe that the above will be a helpful addition to the Domestic Relations Law since, as a divorce lawyer, I have dealt frequently with situations where the parties who wanted to be divorced could not do so, solely due to the fact that the loss of health insurance coverage would be devastating to one of the parties. In those situations, I have counseled clients to enter into separation agreements and the parties would live pursuant to such agreements without getting divorced for very significant periods of time.  This allowed for retention of employer provided health care coverage.  While I am happy to see the changes to the Domestic Relations Law §236, at the same time, this provision may be a paper tiger primarily due to the cost of obtaining health insurance coverage on the open market.

As a result of the new provisions, divorce attorneys will have to carefully review the issues related to their clients’ health insurance coverage, the availability of replacement coverage and its costs, and the likely impact of those issues on maintenance and equitable distribution.

I should note one more thing related to the issues discussed above.  Effective on October 11, 2009, Domestic Relations Law § 177 has been repealed, and replaced by Domestic Relations Law §255. The new statute, while mostly similar, adds additional procedural requirements that need to be complied with, sometimes as early as the time of service. Domestic Relations Law §255, subdivision 1 provides that prior to signing a judgment of divorce or separation, or a judgment annulling a marriage or declaring the nullity of a void marriage, the court must ensure that both parties have been notified, at such time and by such means as the court determines, that once the judgment is signed, a party thereto may or may not be eligible to be covered under the other party’s health insurance plan, depending on the terms of the plan. In the case of a defaulting defendant, service upon the defendant, simultaneous with the service of the summons, of a notice indicating that once the judgment is signed, a party thereto may or may not be eligible to be covered under the other party’s health insurance plan, depending on the terms of the plan, shall be deemed sufficient notice to a defaulting defendant.

Domestic Relations Law §255, subdivision 2 provides that if the parties have entered into a stipulation of settlement or agreement, on or after its effective date, resolving all of the issues between the parties, the stipulation of settlement or agreement must contain a provision relating to the health care coverage of each party. The provision must either: (a) provide for the future coverage of each party, or (b) state that each party is aware that he or she will no longer be covered by the other party’s health insurance plan and that each party shall be responsible for his or her own health insurance coverage, and may be entitled to purchase health insurance on his or her own through a COBRA option, if available. The requirements subdivision 2 may not be waived by either party or counsel. In the event that it is not complied with, the court must require compliance and may grant a thirty day continuance to afford the parties an opportunity to procure their own health insurance coverage.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in court orders, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, drafting, equitable distribution, Family Law, maintenance, New York Law, procedure, Settlement Agreements, Stipulations, Supreme Court | No Comments »

Equitable Distribution and Degrees, Licences and Enhanced Earnings Capacity Acquired During the Marriage

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

In a divorce action, the court can distribute not only tangible assets, such as homes, pensions and investment accounts, but also the value of educational degrees, professional licenses and enhanced earnings obtained during the marriage.  An academic degree may constitute a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, even though the degree may not necessarily confer the legal right to engage in a particular profession. The fact that a degree is an asset to be equitably distributed should not be in dispute. Generally, the value of the degree, license or enhanced earning capacity is open for debate and is determined through the use of expert testimony. I have previously written about some of these issues, but I decided to revisit them in this post.

A recent case of Purygin v Purygina, 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op. 51408(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2009), provides a good illustration of the issues involved and the typical approach utilized by the courts in addressing them. In Purygin, between September 1997 and December 2000, the husband attended Long Island University as a full time student so that he could become proficient in English and apply to medical school; during this time, he continued to work part time in odd jobs. He did not receive any degree from LIU. From January 10, 2001 through April 2002, he attended a medical school in the Carribean; during this time, the wife remained in Brooklyn with the parties’ son. Subsequently, he completed another portion of his education in Miami. On December 20, 2002, he passed the first step of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Between December 2002 and November 2004, the husband continued his education at Kings County Hospital and Brookdale Hospital, where he did his clinical rotations. On May 28, 2004, plaintiff passed the second USMLE. He completed Medical School and graduated on April 1, 2005. The husband left the marital residence in December 2005. On November 26, 2007, plaintiff took and passed the third USMLE. This action was commenced on April 24, 2008. Presently, the husband is in his third year of residency.

During the time that the husband attended LIU, the wife continued to work full time at the hair salon. Beginning in September 2001 through October 2004, she attended night school at Touro College and continued to work full-time in the hair salon during the day. She became licensed as an assistant physical therapist in August 2006.

The court appointed a neutral appraiser to value husband’s enhanced earning capacity. By report dated October 31, 2008, the appraiser concluded that the husband’s enhanced earning capacity resulting from the education that he received during the marriage was $1,584,000, taking into account an appropriate reduction for plaintiff’s student loans and the remaining 11% of the training required for him to become a board certified anesthesiologist.

The husband argued that the wife should not be entitled to share in the enhanced earning capacity that she resulted from the 98 courses that he took at LIU between September 1997 and December 2000, because the courses did not result in his obtaining any degree or certification and were only “a stepping-stone to a license to practice medicine,” which he has not yet obtained. He further argues that the wife should not be entitled to share in the enhanced earning capacity resulting from the courses that he took at the medical school, because his medical degree has no value without a medical license, which requires a minimum of three years of residency and passing three examinations. He also contended that the wife should not be entitled to share in the enhanced earning capacity resulting from the one year residency that he completed prior to the commencement of the action on the grounds that he still had two years of residency to complete at that time.

The husband also argued that the wife did not make a significant contribution to his enhanced earning capacity, since she did not sacrifice her career or change her lifestyle for his education.  The husband also emphasized the fact that the parties separated in December 2005, so that wife did not make any contributions towards his education after this date.

The wife argued that the husband’s education and training is marital property subject to equitable distribution and that she substantially contributed to his enhanced earning capacity by providing the family with the bulk of their economic support, arranging and paying for child care, cleaning, cooking, paying the bills and attending to all household chores.

Pursuant to DRL § 236(B)(1)(c), marital property is broadly defined as “property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement of a matrimonial action, regardless of the form in which title is held.” In O’Brien v. O’Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576 (1985), the Court of Appeals held that a professional license could constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution to the extent that it is acquired during the marriage. In further explaining this decision, the Court of Appeals later stated that “[t]he statute is sweeping and recognizes that spouses have an equitable claim to things of value arising out of the marital relationship”.

The court held that applying the above principles of law to the facts of this case, plaintiff’s education at LIU, which was a necessary prerequisite to his acceptance at the medical school, is a marital asset, as was his medical degree and the two years and nine months of his residency, since this education and training are held to have contributed to his enhanced earning capacity as an anesthesiologist. As a result, these marital assets were found to be subject to equitable distribution. The court relied on the holding in Vainchenker v. Vainchenker, 242 A.D.2d 620 (2d Dept. 1997), where the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that:

Although the husband was a practicing physician in Russia prior to the parties’ marriage, his earning capacity in the United States was enhanced due to the medical training he received in this country during the marriage. The Supreme Court therefore properly determined that the husband’s New York medical license was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.

(Vainchenker, 242 A.D.2d at 621 (2d Dept. 1997) (citations omitted).

Here, husband’s education was completed as of the date of the commencement of the action, as were two years and nine months of his residency. Further, courts routinely apportion the value of the enhanced earning capacity resulting from courses of study both before and during the marriage. While the instant case is different in that plaintiff was not eligible to receive his medical license for three months after the commencement of the action, it is not disputed that from January 10, 2000 through the date of commencement, plaintiff was working towards acquiring this license. The court stated that if a spouse is permitted to avoid equitable distribution of enhanced earning capacity by commencing an action after the necessary education has been acquired, but before the sought after license is obtained, the rationale behind O’Brien would be abrogated. Under the facts of this case, where husband completed the training necessary to obtain a medical license within three months of the commencement of the action, there is no speculation with regard to whether the necessary studies will be completed.

The court found that the wife made a contribution to husband’s enhanced earning capacity, with the amount of such contribution to be determined at trial and in determining the share of the enhanced earning capacity to which she is entitled, the court can entertain the argument that the parties separated in December 2005.

Accordingly, whenever reviewing assets available for distribution in a divorce action, a family law attorney will typically address issues related to distribution of any degrees, license, or enhanced earning capacity obtained during the marriage.  The non-titled spouse’s contribution to the parties’ household, while the other spouse was obtaining such degree, license or enhanced earning capacity, is very important and should be discussed with the lawyer representing no-titled spouse in the divorce action.

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »