Posts Tagged ‘marital property’

Newer Entries »

Economic Contribution of Parties to Marriage and Equitable Distribution

Saturday, February 28th, 2009

Most to the time, when the courts engage in equitable distribution, the marital property is likely to be distributed equally. However, that is not the only option available to the court. Since New York is not a community property state, and equitable does not mean equal, the court may distribute the marital property on the basis of their economic contribution to the marriage.

In a recent case, Booth v. Booth, 24 A.D.3d 1238 (4th Dept. 2005), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant 70% and plaintiff 30% of marital assets where defendant contributed most of the family’s support and was the children’s primary caretaker. In this case, the parties’ history of earnings demonstrates that plaintiff was the primary wage earner and contributor to the parties’ finances during the marriage.

In Niland v. Niland, 291 A.D.2d 876 (4th Dept. 2002), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, considered the issues of equitable distribution in context of dissimilar earnings of the parties. The Appellate Division upheld the lower court’s findings that plaintiff-wife was entitled to 60% of the marital assets, where, based on its determination of credibility, the lower court found that plaintiff made “significantly greater financial contributions” to the marriage as well as “significant contributions to the development of [defendant's] business.”

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

Divorce and Appreciation of Separate Property

Monday, November 24th, 2008

In a divorce, appreciation of separate property is considered to be separate property, except to the extent that such appreciation is due in part to the contributions or efforts of the non-titled spouse, in which case the appreciation may be considered marital property. The leading cases addressing these issues are Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8 (1986) , and Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36 (1995). Services of a non-titled spouse as homemaker, spouse, parent and wage-earner are entitled to consideration. Where the efforts of the titled spouse were aided, whether directly or indirectly, by the non-titled spouse, the appreciation is the product of the marital economic relationship and is subject to equitable distribution. To analyze each situation that may arise in a divorce case, the Court of Appeals devised a three-prong test which asks the following questions:
(1) Did the separate property appreciate in value?
(2) Was the appreciation due, in part, to the efforts of the titled
spouse? (i.e., causation)
(3) Were the efforts of the titled spouse aided, directly or indirectly, by
the non-titled spouse?

The burden is on the non-titled spouse to prove the extent of the appreciation. The causation issue has proven to be controversial. The Price Court adopted the use of an active/passive test for determining whether the appreciation was caused or aided by the efforts of the titled spouse. In that case it is clear that the question of whether the non-titled spouse’s role contribution to the appreciation depends primarily upon the nature of the asset and whether its appreciation was due in some measure to the time and efforts of the titled spouse. Court of Appeals’ decision in Hartog holds that while the non-titled spouse does not need to prove a direct causal link between the activities of the spouses and the increase in separate property, appreciation is marital property only in the same proportion that the active efforts of the spouses bear to the active efforts of others and any additional active or passive factors. Thus, the Price Court focused on requiring the non-titled spouse to prove that the efforts of the titled spouse caused or contributed to the appreciation, but the non-title spouse should also be eligible for an award upon a showing that the appreciation was due to the efforts of the non-titled spouse, rather than the titled spouse.

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

Basics of Identifying Separate Property in Divorce

Monday, November 17th, 2008

New York State Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(1)(d)(1) provides a list of specific types of property that may not be considered marital property and must be considered the separate property of the title-holding spouse. This property is exempt from equitable distribution. The statute addresses the following categories of property:

(1) Pre-marriage property;
(2) Gifted or inherited property;
(3) Compensation for personal injuries;
(4) Property acquired with separate property;
(5) Property identified as separate property by written agreement.

The property falling within the categories above is considered “separate property” under the Equitable Distribution Law. There may also be other types of property, in addition to the statutory list, which may not be considered “marital property”, such as property acquired after commencement of the marital action.

There is a presumption that property acquired during the marriage and prior to execution of a separation agreement or commencement of a matrimonial action is marital property. Therefore, the party who claims that the property acquired within those time frames is separate property has the burden of proof. Even though separate property is not subject to equitable distribution, it may be considered in making such distribution.

PREMARITAL PROPERTY

Property acquired before the marriage is separate property because the economic partnership created by marriage is not established until the marriage has taken place. This means that even if the parties cohabitated before marriage, the property acquired before marriage and the appreciation to that property to date of marriage, is not marital property.

Wedding gifts are considered to be marital property, unless the gift was something that could be used only by one spouse, or was specifically earmarked as exclusively intended for one spouse. Gifts given by one prospective spouse to the other prior to marriage are the separate property of the recipient spouse. As discussed in a previous post, engagement rings are the separate property of the recipient spouse.

GIFTED OR INHERITED PROPERTY

Property acquired by gift or inheritance by a party from an inheritance, is separate property. Where the gift or inheritance, however, is to both spouses jointly, the property should be viewed as marital. However, interspousal gifts are marital property. With respect to any gift claimed as separate property, the party making such claim will have to show that the property was intended for that spouse alone. Income from separate property is considered to be separate property.

PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION

Personal injury includes compensation for personal injury, libel, slander, and malicious prosecution; also assault, battery, false imprisonment or other actionable injury to the person.

PROPERTY ACQUIRED WITH SEPARATE PROPERTY

Property acquired in exchange for separate property is separate property, so long as it has not been commingled with marital property or an interest gifted to the other spouse.

PROPERTY BY AGREEMENT

The parties’ may by a written and acknowledged agreement define property to be separate, no matter what a court might determine.

COMMINGLED PROPERTY

Separate property co-mingled with marital property remains separate if it can be traced to its source and there has been no valid gift or agreement to the contrary. However, separate property that is commingled with marital assets, or placed in the spouses’ joint names, can become marital property. For example, if a spouse places his or her separate property into joint names, such as a house or a bank account, a presumption of a gift arises which, unless rebutted, results in the conclusion that the property is to be treated as marital property. This presumption, if not rebutted, is that the entire amount of the asset will be treated as separate property.

It should be noted that the spouse who contributed separate property may receive a credit for the amount of property contributed to the creation of the marital asset. Recent decisions have extended this concept to include the appreciation of the separate property as a credit to the spouse who contributed it. Similarly to a situation where marital property is used to pay a separate debt, where a spouse uses separate property to pay a loan on marital property, that spouse is entitled to a credit for such payment when the marital property is distributed.

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

Basics of Distributing Retirement Assets

Monday, November 17th, 2008

In 1984, the New York Court of Appeals decided Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481 (1984). This is the case that decided that the portion of the spouse’s pension, earned during the marriage, is marital property subject to equitable distribution. To the extent that a pension was earned during the marriage, it is, for purposes of New York law, considered marital property. The Majauskas decision sets forth the formula that normally is to be followed in dividing a pension plan. Along with pension plans, other types of retirement assets are divided in a typical divorce case. Retirement assets are usually divided by a QDRO.

A QDRO stands for a “Qualified Domestic Relations Order”. It is an order required by the 1974 federal statute known as ERISA (Employees Retirement Income Security Act), and applies to certain pension vehicles. QDRO may transfer retirement benefits from an employee-spouse to a spouse, former spouse or child of the employee. It must comply with the requirements of state law, as well as ERISA and other federal laws. The state domestic relations law aspects of a QDRO must be approved by the domestic relations judge, while the federal law aspects must be approved by the plan administrator from which the benefits are to be paid.

QDRO’s deal with participants and alternate payees. A “participant” is an employee who participates in either an employer sponsored or a union-sponsored qualified employee benefit plan. An “alternate payee” is a person to whom benefits are transferred in a QDRO and that person must be a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of the participant.

Qualified plans are divided under the Internal Revenue Code into two categories:

(1) Defined contribution plans;
(2) Defined benefit plans.

A defined contribution plan is a plan that requires the establishment of an individual account for each participating employee and provides benefits only from the amount contributed to the employee’s account, together with any income, expenses, gains or losses that are attributable to the account. Under a defined benefit plan the controlling factor is the benefit that will be provided to the employee upon his/her retirement and the amount contributed each year is actuarially computed to produce the desired benefit at the time of an employee’s retirement.

It is necessary to ascertain the type of plan to which the QDRO is directed and to understand the significance of a particular plan in the context of a QDRO. The most commonly used types of qualified employee benefit plans include:

(1) Traditional pension plans (defined benefit plan);
(2) Annuity plans (defined benefit plan);
(3) Profit-sharing plans (defined contribution plan);
(4) Money purchase pension plans (defined contribution plan);
(5) Target benefit plans (defined contribution plan);
(6) Employee stock ownership plans (defined contribution plan);
(7) 401(K) plans (defined contribution plans);
(8) Savings (or Thrift) plans (defined contribution plan);
(9) Simplified employee pension plans (i.e., SEP) (defined contribution plan);
(10) Cash balance pension plans (defined benefit plan);
(11) Hybrid plans (features of both defined benefit and defined contribution) – used by many public employee and teacher retirement programs.

Where both spouses have a pension, each may get a portion of each other’s pension, or create some other arrangement that benefits both parties. It is also possible to trade off pensions for other property in the marriage, or a spouse may waive his/her right to receive the pension.

Division of a pension is not automatic. The court has discretion to award the entire pension to the earner where, for example, there is a significant disparity in income.

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

Basics of Equitable Distribution

Monday, October 27th, 2008

The equitable distribution statute became law in July of 1980 and has evolved extensively since that time. Essentially, all “marital” property is subject to distribution except for “separate property.” Domestic Relations Law 236[B][1][c] defines “marital property” as:

All 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, except as otherwise provided in agreement pursuant to subdivision three of this part. Marital property shall not include separate property as hereinafter defined.

Separate property is generally defined as inheritances, property owned prior to the marriage, gifts from non-spouses and income received in compensation for a personal injury. While appreciation of separate property is considered to be separate property, extensive case law has abrogated this concept significantly. In many cases, the courts have held that the appreciation of separate property may be subject to distribution. Domestic Relations Law §236 (B)(1)(d)(3) excludes from the definition of “marital property” … “property acquired in exchange for or the increase in value of separate property, except to the extent that such appreciation is due in part to the contributions or efforts of the other spouse.” The courts have interpreted this language rather expansively, and efforts of a spouse may include such contributions as raising children, taking care of a household, and generally supporting the other spouse’s efforts at earning a living.

Marital property can be distributed even if it is held solely in the name of one of the parties. It is important to note that in terms of splitting martial assets, equitable does not mean equal. Assets do not have to be distributed equally to each party.

A significant portion of divorce litigation involves evaluating the assets and determining what percentage each party should receive of that asset. Property can include almost everything, including the marital home, vacation homes, automobiles, household furnishings, bank accounts, stock portfolios, pensions and retirement plans, interests in businesses and professional degrees. In New York, a party’s “enhanced earning capacity” which includes the value of any degree, license or certification obtained during the marriage can be distributed as well.

The court decisions addressing equitable distribution have held that there cannot be a distribution of property without a divorce or pursuant to a valid separation agreement. As a result, one of the common strategies utilized in divorce cases by the parties who do not wish to have property distributed, involves challenging the grounds for divorce.

Litigation support experts are commonly used in cases involving valuation of significant assets, including forensic and tax accountants, business evaluators, real estate appraisers and other similar experts. The use of these experts can make an equitable distribution case rather expensive to litigate.

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

Newer Entries »