Update of Recent Cases Involving Enhanced Earnings

I have recently written about a trend in court decisions involving enhanced earnings toward reducing non-titled spouse’s interest to less than a 50% share.  A recent decision, Haspel v. Haspel, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 08530 (2nd Dept. 2010) illustrates this issue very well.

In Haspel, the trial court granted to the wife 50% of the husband’s enhanced earnings which resulted from his acquisition of several professional licenses, including, several securities dealer’s licenses and a real estate broker’s license.  The trial court’s decision was appealed, and the Appellate Division modified the trial court’s decision.

Specifically, the Appellate Division held that the wife was entitled to 25% of husband’s enhanced earnings.  While the court did not provide specific reasons for this reduction, the parties were married for nearly 23 years before the divorce action was commenced, they had two children, and at the time of trial, the plaintiff was 52 years old and the defendant was 49 years old.  The wife was also going to receive spousal maintenance, however, this issue was remanded to the trial court for recalculation since the lower court’s decision improperly engaged in double counting of the same income for enhanced earnings calculations and maintenance calculations.

As I have written previously, the trend toward unequal division of enhanced earnings is continuing.  Divorce lawyers and their clients would be well advised to review evidence related to non-titled spouse’s contribution carefully, if an argument is being made that the non-titled spouse should receive more than 25% of such enhanced earnings.

Equitable Distribution of Businesses and Enhanced Earning Capacity Does Not Always Mean Equal Distribution

I have previously written about equitable distribution issues here and here.  One of the most important issues that divorce attorneys have to address in dealing with equitable distribution is division of businesses or enhanced earning capacity arising as a result of acquisition of a professional degree or a license by one of the spouses.

In distributing marital property of almost every variety, the courts have focused on the relative significance of the non-titled spouse’s contribution toward the marriage, which would almost always result in equal or almost equal distribution.  However, with respect to distribution of business interests and enhanced earning capacity, as of late, the courts have focused on the degree to which the non-titled spouse’s efforts contributed toward the acquisition of each specific asset.

In the past, the non-titled spouse’s contributions to the other party’s business, career or degree, usually resulted in equal distribution of those assets.  However, the recent trend in court decisions has been to grant the non-titled spouse less than one half of the asset.

The courts have described their reasoning as follows: “[a]lthough in a marriage of long duration, where both parties have made significant contributions to the marriage, a division of marital assets should be made as equal as possible. . . there is no requirement that the distribution of each item of marital property be made on an equal basis.”  Kaplan v. Kaplan, 51 A.D.3d 635, 637 (2d Dept. 2008). In equitably distributing a spouse’s business interest, the court must consider the direct contributions the non-titled spouse made to the business as well as the indirect contributions to the ma-rital partnership, including homemaking, parenting, and providing the necessary emotional and moral support to sustain the titled spouse in carrying on the business.  Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 15 (1986).
Unlike other marital assets, in valuing a non-titled spouse’s share in a spouse’s business interest, the trend has been toward awards between 25% and 35% to the non-titled spouse. Chalif v. Chalif, 298 A.D.2d 348, 349, (2d Dept. 2002)(25% award to wife of husband’s medical practice and enhanced earning capacity); Granade-Bastuck v. Granade-Bastuck, 249 A.D.2d 444, 445 (2d Dept. 1998)(25% award to plaintiff of defendant’s law practice); Giokas v. Giokas, 73 A.D.3d 688 (2d Dept. 2010)(10% award to wife of husband’s business); Kerrigan v. Kerrigan, 71 A.D.3d 737 (2d Dept. 2010)(35% award to wife of the husband’s business); Ciampa v. Ciampa, 47 A.D.3d 745, 747 (2d Dept. 2008)(35% award to wife of husband’s business); Kaplan v. Kaplan, 51 A.D.3d 635, 637 (2d Dept. 2008)(30% award to wife of the husband’s dental practice).

This has been a trend state-wide and has been followed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which is located here in Rochester, New York, and to which decisions from Allegany, Cattaraugus, Cayuga, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Orleans, Oswego, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Wyoming and Yates Counties are appealed to.

As a result, the non-titled spouses and their divorce lawyers have an uphill fight if they try to obtain a substantial share of such assets as a spouse’s business, educational degrees or professional licenses.

Non-Titled Spouse, Enhanced Earnings and Substantial Contribution

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.

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

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.

Equitable Distribution of Professional Licenses, Enhanced Earnings and Maintenance

One of the critical categories of assets to be divided in the course of a divorce are professional degrees acquired during the marriage. Typical issues involving distribution of such licenses involve distribution of the license itself and also an evaluation how that asset impacts the title spouse’s income for computation of a potential maintenance award

In O’Brien v. O’Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576 (1985), the Court of Appeals stated that the Domestic Relations Law should be given a liberal interpretation and held that a professional degree or license was “marital property,” subject to equitable distribution.

In McSparron v. McSparron, 87 N.Y.2d 275 (1995), Court of Appeals held that, even after a professional degree or license has been used by the licensee to establish and maintain a career, it does not “merge” with the career or ever lose its character as a separate, distributable asset. In eliminating the concept of “merger,” the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a professional license has an intrinsic value that it brings to the party who hold it and addressed the issue of valuing such asset in a way that avoids duplicative awards. The Court was concerned with making sure that the monetary value assigned to the license does not overlap with the value assigned to other marital assets derived from the license, such as the licensed spouse’s professional practice. It stated that “courts must be meticulous in guarding against duplication in the form of maintenance awards that are premised on earnings derived from professional licenses.”

In Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 94 N.Y.2d 696 (2000), the Court of Appeals, while upholding the valuation concepts set forth in McSparron, reversed the Appellate Division’s decision. The reason for the reversal was based on the lower court’s full distribution of the value of the law license as a marital asset, without a corresponding adjustment in the maintenance award. On its face, the lower court engaged in double counting inconsistent with McSparron and was therefore incorrect. The Supreme Court did not, however, explain how it considered defendant’s income from outside sources in determining the amount that the license distribution award should be reduced. For this reason, the case was remitted for further proceedings.

The above cases are critical in establishing values of professional licenses, enhanced earnings and potential maintenance awards. The post-Grunfeld cases are deeply concerned with the issues of valuation and need to be carefully reviewed each time a professional license is to be valued and distributed in a divorce action.