Posts Tagged ‘equitable distribution’

« Older Entries

Prenuptial Agreements and Waiver of Retirement Rights

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

One issue that consistently comes up dealing with prenuptial agreements is whether or not rights to future retirement benefits can be waived prior to the marriage despite the fact that any such future rights will not come into existence until after the marriage.  Prior case law wasn’t particularly clear in dealing with this issue since by necessity any such prenuptial agreement implicated Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).  The prior case law held that under ERISA, only a spouse can waive spousal rights to employee plan benefits, that a fiancee is not a spouse, and that such rights, therefore, cannot be effectively waived in a prenuptial agreement.

In Strong v. Dubin, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 04121 (1st Dept. 2010), the Appellate Division, First Department, overturned the prior case law, including its own decisions, and held that a waiver of retirement rights included in a prenuptial agreement is valid and does not violate ERISA.

The court’s reasoning in reaching this conclusion was as follows. Initially, the parties’ prenuptial agreement, read as a whole and giving effect to all provisions, expressed an intent to opt out of the statutory scheme governing equitable distribution, which encompassed plaintiff’s retirement funds.  The prenuptial agreement provided that “[t]he parties desire, in advance of their marriage, to settle their financial, property, and all other rights, privileges, obligations and matters with respect to each other arising out of the marital relationship and otherwise, as more particularly hereinafter provided”.  Article I of the prenuptial agreement provided: ”it is the intention [of the parties] . . . that the property owned by each of them shall remain completely and wholly vested in each such person in whose ownership it presently exists.”

Article I of the Agreement expressly referenced Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(3), which provides that a prenuptial agreement may include, among other things a “provision for the ownership, division or distribution of separate and marital property,” and reflects an intent to opt out of equitable distribution “with respect to the division of all marital and separate property either now in existence or which is hereafter acquired” (emphasis added), which encompasses the retirement funds at issue.   According to the Appellate Division, if this clause is disregarded, that would render the reference to property that is “hereafter acquired” meaningless, leaving that provision without force or effect.  According to the prenuptial agreement, the only assets specifically designated to be “marital property” are the prospective joint banking, savings or investment accounts or assets purchased from the proceeds of those joint accounts set forth in Article I, paragraph 5. The retirement assets in question were not held in joint names or funded with money from an account in the joint names of the parties and are not marital property within the meaning of the agreement.  The agreement also included a waiver which provided that

Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each party hereby releases . . . the other, of and from all causes of action, claims, rights, or demands, whatsoever, in law or in equity (including, but not limited to claims for equitable distribution, distributive award or claims against the separate property of the other spouse) which either of the parties hereto ever had, or now has, against the other, except (a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prevent either party from enforcing the terms of this Agreement or from asserting such claims as are reserved by this Agreement to each party against the estate of the other; provided, however, that the claims so asserted arise out of a breach of this Agreement; and (b) nothing herein contained shall impair or waive or release any and all cause [sic] of action for divorce, annulment or separation, or any defenses which either may have to any divorce, annulment or separation action which may hereafter be brought by the other.

According to the Appellate Division, the contention that this waiver clause encompasses only property which either of the parties held at the time the prenuptial agreement was executed, to the exclusion of after acquired property, was unsupportable.  While the waiver clause stated that it is a release of all causes of action, claims, rights or demands whatsoever in law and in equity “which either of the parties hereto ever had, or now has against the other.” However, the illustrative claims listed include, but are not “limited to claims for equitable distribution, distributive award or claims against the separate property of the other spouse.” At the time the prenuptial agreement was signed, neither party had any of these delineated claims, all of which would accrue in the future, once the parties were married. Similarly the exceptions for breach of the antenuptial agreement and divorce demonstrate that the waiver clause was intended to apply to future causes of actions that would accrue after the marriage. In light of this language, to limit the claims to property that either party had at the time of the marriage would render the waiver clause meaningless in that property owned by either party at the time the prenuptial agreement was entered into would already be separate property as to which there is no right to equitable distribution or a distributive award.

The court further stated that for purposes of equitable distribution, a waiver of any interest in a pension as marital property by an otherwise valid prenuptial agreement is not prohibited by ERISA.  In New York, vested or matured rights in a pension plan are considered marital property subject to distribution in a divorce action to the extent that the benefits result from employment by the participant after the marriage and before the commencement of the divorce action.  There is nothing in the matrimonial law of New York prohibiting a spouse from waiving his or her interest in such marital property by agreement made before or during the marriage in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(3).

This is an important decision since it resolved some to the uncertainty associated with waivers of future retirement rights included in prenuptial agreements.  In the future, divorce lawyers can be more comfortable in including such waivers for their clients.  In appropriate situations, value of such waiver can amount to a substantial amount of money and may become subject of litigation in divorce.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, divorce, drafting, pre-nuptial agreement | No Comments »

For Unmarried Couples, Promise to Support Your Significant Other Is Not Binding

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

Marriage of the parties creates binding legal obligations and rights between spouses, including an obligation to support your spouse financially, as well as the right to division of jointly acquired assets in the event of divorce.  Once in a while, I am asked about a situation where the parties have been in a relationship for a long time and have treated their relationship as a marriage, but did not actually get married.  In this situation, my usual answer is that neither party has acquired a right to support from the other party, and any assets that one of the parties accumulated will remain assets of that party, unless titled in both parties’ names.

A good illustration of the above took place in a recent case of M. v. F., 27 Misc.3d 1205(A) (Sup.Ct. New York Co. 2010).  In M. v. F., the parties resided together for approximately 13 years between 1994 and 2007, and have a child together.  They have never been married to each other.  The girlfriend argued that the boyfriend told her that he would always take care of her, that they would combine their efforts and earnings, and what was his was hers.  Once the parties split up, the girlfriend asked for a portion of the boyfriend’s assets, a portion of the profits from his business, and other financial support.

After the girlfriend commenced an action to obtain financial relief under various causes of action, the trial court held that the boyfriend’s promise to support his girlfriend if they ever broke up are unenforceable.  The girlfriend is not entitled to “equitable distribution” of the assets acquired during the relationship.  The court held that such statements as “I will always take care of you” and “everything that we put in, we will enjoy together” do not constitute legally binding promises.

Specifically, the court stated that even “an explicit promise that, upon separation, [the plaintiff] would be entitled to ‘equitable distribution’ of their assets, it would be unenforceable, as it would be contrary to the long-standing law and policy in New York that unmarried partners are not entitled to the same property and financial rights upon termination of the relationship as married people.”   According to the court, the absence of a marriage is the determinative factor of her property rights.  The court stated that “Unless and until the law imposes equitable distribution on unmarried couples, in New York, as least, the legal status of marriage remains vitally important to establishing the economic rights of members of a couple.”

This case illustrates the fact that marriage is the critical legal event that creates financial rights and obligations between the parties that can be enforced by the courts.  For those couples who choose to cohabit, without getting married, each party should be able to rely on their own ability to earn and not to expect any financial assistance from the other party in the event of breakup.  With respect to M. v. F., the answer would likely be different if there was a written agreement to provide support.  Any such agreement, assuming properly created and executed, would probably enforceable as any other contract.

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

Dividing Photographs and Other Mementos in Divorce

Sunday, April 18th, 2010

While the parties are married, they tend to accumulate personal mementos such as photographs, videos, recording, pictures, drawing and other items that represent their memories of people and places.  For many people, those photographs and videos of their children are precious and irreplaceable.  For that very reason, the courts are forced to get involved in dividing such items since parties tend to have a difficult time dividing them.

In a recent case, M.R. v. E.R., 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50575(U) (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 2010), the court demonstrated how these issues should be approached and resolved.  In M.R., the parties resolved all of the issues in their divorce by stipulation, with the sole issue left unresolved that of the right to numerous photo albums, which contain more than 7000 photos of the parties and their children which were taken during the course of their marriage.  The husband moved for an order directing that he be awarded the photo albums and the wife cross-moved for the same relief.

In a decision and order dated November 13, 2010, the court set the motion and cross motion down for a hearing after noting that the issues raised in the papers concerned equitable distribution which were not resolvable on paper submissions.  At the time that the hearing was conducted on April 6, 2010, neither party was represented by counsel.  After hearing, the court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the limited issues addressed therein. The court noted that the parties rejected all settlement attempts, and at the hearing, maintained their intractable and opposite positions, to wit, to each keep all photo albums.  The court also noted that the parties did previously attempt to settle the issue, and seemingly agreed that the husband would retain all photo albums and share equally in paying the cost of reproducing the photographs contained therein. The wife testified that the agreement was based on the parties’ understanding that the quality of reproduction would be satisfactory.  The parties paid more than $2,100 to scan the photographs onto disc(s), which were admitted into evidence.  As noted, other than what is described above, there was no signed or notarized agreement regarding the distribution of the photo albums.

The court found that the husband was intricately involved with taking, compiling and cataloging the thousands of photos at issue.  In this regard, the husband testified in great detail about his meticulous cataloging of photographs, love of photography; he equated his collecting of photographs of family with the hobby of collecting rare books.  The husband described the Wife’s involvement with this process as limited, and often, antagonistic.  He believed that his wife had manufactured a dispute over the photographs, not out of any real desire to obtain them for sentimental or other qualitative value, but out of some vindictive desire.

The wife gave somewhat conflicting testimony and the court found that the wife had some involvement with the compilation of photos, but that such involvement was far more limited than what she testified to at the hearing.  She testified to her dissatisfaction with the reproductions, and several photographs (printed from disc) containing imperfections/problems were admitted into evidence in support of her contentions.

The court has reviewed the photographs admitted into evidence both on disc and in photo albums.  The disc appears to contain the contents of 75 photo albums, most of which have approximately 100 photographs. The quality of photos contained on the disc is, to the court’s view, satisfactory for the most part, although it does appear that the photographs on disc are not exactly equivalent in quality to the “hard” photographs in the albums admitted into evidence.  The vast majority of photos are of the children alone, or (apparently) with relatives or friends.  Many photographs depict vacation places or sites visited by the parties themselves or with their children. On disc, and in the albums admitted into evidence, the husband is pictured in numerous photos; the wife is pictured in far less photographs. The court accepted as credible the husband’s testimony regarding the wife’s general apathy with respect to the photographic process throughout the marriage and to his greater interest in retaining the photos, and rejected the wife’s contention that the reason she does not appear in many photographs is because she was either holding the camera or did not otherwise wish to be photographed. However, the court did not conclude that the wife desired the albums, which contain many photographs of the parties’ children, for completely vindictive reasons.

Taking into account the previous agreement of the parties, and other facts, which the court considered to fall within the “catch all” factor required to be considered in making an equitable distribution award, the court hereby awards the wife 25% of the original photos; the husband is awarded 75% of the photos.  The percentages are approximate because the court held that the selection of the photos will take place in accordance with the following method, or if parties can agree any other method.  Starting with the first album, the wife shall, counting from the first page thereof, be entitled to receive every fourth original photograph in that album until reaching the end of the album.  Selection shall continue in like manner with respect to each successive album.

In my opinion, it is impressive that the court took the time to address this issue.  In general, courts’ time is limited, and most lawyers do not want to get involved with the issues dividing such personal property. Here in Rochester, a common practice is to refer the parties to the Center for Dispute Settlement to resolve any issues involving personal property and possessions.  The problem with this approach is that the Center does mediation, and, if the parties cannot agree, they are forced to come back to the court.  I generally counsel my clients that they should make every effort to resolve those disputes since it is expensive to litigate them.

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

Are Lifetime Medical Insurance Benefits Subject to Equitable Distribution?

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

Once in a while I see a divorce action where one of the parties to the action is entitled to lifetime medical insurance benefits as a result of his/her employment.  For obvious reasons, such benefits may be of great value to one or both parties.  What happens if one of the parties makes an argument that such benefits are subject to equitable distribution?

In Henig v. Henig, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50546(U) (Sup. Ct. Nassay Co. 2010), the husband was a former New York City Police Officer who retired in 2007. Since his retirement on December 31, 2007, he has been entitled to and does receive lifetime medical, dental and vision benefits for himself, wife, and the parties’ children.  Wife argued that the medical insurance is a marital asset and subject to Equitable Distribution, and/or equals a benefit to be included in determining husband’s income.

Wife argued that the Domestic Relations Law contemplates an expansive view of marital property and analogized the lifetime health benefits to a pension insofar as such benefits are an asset, received only upon retirement.   She claimed that husband’s rights to the coverage matured as of his retirement, and Wife has rights independent of the husband, i.e., if there were no divorce and husband were to die, Wife and children would still receive benefits.

While wife made that argument, however, her lawyer had not submitted any documentary evidence, specific to the plan, to substantiate these claims.   Wife’s attorney also argued that lifetime benefits, like a pension, are contractual rights, which have some value because they are received in lieu of higher compensation, which husband would have earned otherwise, however, wife’s counsel again provided no proof to substantiate this claim.

Husband argued that since enactment of DRL §236 B, neither the Court of Appeals nor the four appellate divisions have held that employee-subsidized health insurance benefits are marital property subject to Equitable Distribution.  In fact, in contemplation of the loss of such health benefits, DRL§255(a) directly addresses the issue stating that ” once a judgment is signed a party there to may or may not be eligible to be covered under the other party’s health insurance plan.” Husband’s lawyer also argued that amendments to DRL§236(B) provide that loss of health insurance benefits upon dissolution of marriage are factors that a court must consider for the purposes of determining maintenance and Equitable Distribution, but that such benefits are not itself an asset, and if the Legislature intended that such benefits be included in the definition of marital asset, it would have done so as it has amended and modified other provisions concerning health insurance.

Husband further argued that wife may elect continuation of coverage under a COBRA option, or she could obtain her own health insurance benefits through full-time employment, the cost of which is a consideration in her support award, if any.  Wife’s available remedy through the election of COBRA coverage would ensure the avoidance of any possible double-dipping by ordering the husband, to pay for her health insurance.  Husband’s counsel, however, has not submitted any proof of the availability of a COBRA option to wife upon dissolution of the marriage, nor was there any proof presented with as to wife’s ability to obtain benefits through employment.

As far as the health insurance benefits themselves, the husband currently pays $15.32 per month for such benefits and an annual deductible $300.00.  The continuation of the benefits is at a continued cost to husband, and his failure to make such payments will result in the cessation of such benefits.  In further support of the proposition that lifetime health benefits are not defined like a pension, husband’s lawyer asserted that wife has already received her marital portion of the insurance having enjoyed its benefits during the marriage, and even the period after husband’s retirement and until such time that the Judgment of Divorce is entered.  Furthermore, he argued that upon divorce Husband will pay the monthly premium from his separate property, and continuation of the health insurance policy is conditioned upon payments made from separate property and therefore any marital right to the insurance terminates upon divorce.

Wife’s divorce attorney cited Walek v. Walek, 193 Misc 2d 241 (Sup. Ct. Erie Co. 2002), where the trial court held that health insurance benefits were a marital asset and subject to Equitable Distribution. The court in Henig found that case distinguishable since in Walek, the husband used a portion of his sick time, which could have been paid to him directly, to fund the 10% required premium payment necessary to receive those post-retirement, lifetime benefits.  The sick time had a value, which was arguably marital property, which marital property was then used to directly fund those lifetime benefits.

Section 255 of the Domestic Relations Law states in pertinent part that:

A court, prior to signing a judgment of divorce or separation, or a judgment annulling a marriage or declaring the nullity of a void marriage, shall ensure that:

1. Both parties have been notified, at such time and by such means as the court shall determine, 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.
2. If the parties have entered into a stipulation of settlement/agreement on or after the effective date of this section resolving all of the issues between the parties, such settlement/agreement entered into between the parties shall contain a provision relating to the health care coverage of each party; and that such provision shall 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.
***

Section 236 B(6) of the Domestic Relations Law states in pertinent part that:

In determining the amount and duration of maintenance the court shall consider:

(11) the loss of health insurance benefits upon dissolution of the marriage; and
***

The trial court held that the threshold question was whether the lifetime health benefits constituted property and the wife has failed to submit proof establishing this.  Even if it were to be deemed property, wife has failed to provide the court with a sufficient showing to justify classifying such benefits are “marital property” or that  the post-retirement lifetime benefits involved a reduction in husband’s earned wages in order to obtain such benefits or that these lifetime benefits are provided through the employer utilizing funds set aside from a portion of the husband’s income earned through his employment.  She did not allege that husband had an opportunity to “opt out” of such benefits in exchange for higher wages.

Additionally, the argument with respect to the de minimus amount husband is required to pay for the continued health insurance and that husband’s cost for such comparable medical benefits pales in comparison to that which it would cost wife was not persuasive.  Even if this argument were accepted, the loss of benefits for one spouse has been contemplated by the Legislature in its amendment to the Domestic Relations Law to include the loss of health insurance benefits in the determination of maintenance.  Although wife’s attorney argued that such savings for Husband constitutes an asset to which Wife contributed, this argument did not persuade the court.

What is the final lesson of Henig?  I agree with the court that the health benefits are not marital property as contemplated by the Domestic Relations Law.  Furthermore, it was the intent of the Legislature to exclude such benefits from the totality of marital assets, as evidenced by the amendments to the Domestic Relations Law that specifically ensure that such loss of benefits by a spouse post-judgment is a consideration in the determination of maintenance, as well the recent language adopted to ensure that all parties are aware of the possibility of loss of such health benefits.  Wife was not left without a remedy, since the future cost of health benefits is a consideration for any award of maintenance and Equitable Distribution.

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

Divorce and Reformation of Settlement Agreement

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

I have previously written about vacating settlement agreements on the grounds of mutual mistake.  Here is a case where the court actually reformed the parties’ settlement agreement on the grounds of mutual mistake.

In Banker v. Banker, 53 A.D.3d 1105 (3rd Dept. 2008),  the parties’ oral stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their 2005 judgment of divorce, provided that the parties would subdivide a parcel of property located in Delaware County.  However, despite that provision, after the judgment of divorce was entered, the defendant refused to do so.  In response to a motion by plaintiff to enforce the stipulation, Supreme Court, in February 2006, ordered defendant to obtain subdivision approval from the Town.  The Planning Board denied defendant’s subsequent subdivision application after discovering that the property was encumbered by a restrictive covenant against further subdivision.  In March 2006, defendant moved to reargue and/or renew February 2006 order, and requested a hearing to determine equitable distribution.

Supreme Court reserved decision on all pending matters pertaining to the parties until an appraisal of the property was completed.  Because the parties could not agree on an appraiser, the court appointed one and directed the parties, once the appraisal was complete, to settle the matter in a private auction or buyout.  The appraiser completed the appraisal in June 2006.  By letter dated October 4, 2006, defendant requested the opportunity to offer further proof of value.  Plaintiff made a similar request and explained that the parties had not been able to settle the matter or agree on a private auction.

Plaintiff responded with a motion seeking that the parties’ interests in the property be declared in conformance with the terms set forth in the stipulation and the values established in the appraisal, as well as an order allowing her to buy out defendant’s share of the property.  Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the appraisal should not be adopted without an opportunity by the parties to cross-examine the appraiser and submit other evidence of valuation.  Supreme Court ordered a hearing to permit the parties to cross-examine the appraiser, but made it clear that no other testimony or evidence of valuation would be permitted.

Following the hearing, at which Supreme Court again denied defendant’s request to submit further evidence, the court determined the interests of the parties in the property to be 83% for plaintiff and 17% for defendant.  The court, fixed the parties’ interests as indicated above, appointed a receiver, and ordered the   public sale of the property.  Defendant appealed.  The Appellate Division rejected defendant’s argument that Supreme Court exceeded its authority by reforming the parties’ stipulation of settlement.  Where, as here, a mutual mistake rendered a portion of the parties’ settlement agreement impossible or impracticable, “the relevant settlement provision was properly set aside”.  No dispute existed that the parties’ agreement to physically divide the property could not occur given the restrictive covenant; and even defendant was not attempting to have the parties’ stipulation enforced.  Thus, after giving the parties ample opportunity to reach a new agreement,  the trial court was correct to move forward by appointing an appraiser so that an equitable distribution of the property, in as close accordance as possible with the intent of the parties as expressed in their settlement, could be achieved.

The Appellate Division noted that to achieve reformation or recission of the stipulation of settlement, one of the parties should have commenced a plenary action, rather than proceeding by motion but, in the context of this matter, concluded the defect to be nonfatal.  However, the lower court erred in resolving this matter without a full hearing permitting the parties to offer proof of valuation.  The court is authorized to appoint an independent appraiser in a matrimonial action but, unless the parties have stipulated otherwise, the court must afford the parties the opportunity to review the appraisal, cross-examine the appraiser and offer additional evidence on valuation.  Although the record contained evidence that the parties consented to Supreme Court’s appointment of the appraiser, it did not suggest that the parties agreed to be bound by the resulting appraisal.

This is an example of a situation where the mutual mistake allowed the court to reform the parties’ settlement agreement.  While those circumstances tend to be limited, the lawyers in Banker recognized that since the property could not be subdivided, it had to be sold or one of the parties would buy out the other party’s interest.  The question of valuation was secondary to the remedy chosen by the court as a result of reformation of the agreement.  At the same time, it is rather surprising that neither divorce attorney was aware of the covenant, since both parties, presumably, had access to the real property records and the property’s abstract of title.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, Settlement Agreements, Stipulations, Supreme Court, divorce, equitable distribution, modification, procedure | No Comments »

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 »

« Older Entries