In a May 8, 2013 decision in Mejia v. Mejia, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified a divorce judgment’s provisions concerning the cap on combined parental income, the disposition of the marital residence, college expenses for three children ages 14, 10 and 6, and judgment inconsistencies with the underlying decision and judgment formalities. After the … Continue Reading
What does a court do with a wife who claims not to have discovered that she was a million-dollar winner of a May 19, 2011 lottery drawing until only days before the ticket would have expired a year later, and 11 months after she was awarded temporary support and counsel fees in her pending divorce action? … Continue Reading
In a January 15, 2013 decision in Alvarado v. Alvarado, Richmond County Supreme Court Justice Catherine M. DiDomenico, held that the husband’s veteran’s and Social Security disability benefits are separate property for purposes of equitable distribution. Moreover, the veteran’s disability benefits could not be considered on a maintenance award. The Social Security benefits could. As discussed in … Continue Reading
In order to prevent the foreclosure of the marital residence, a court in a divorce action, and prior to judgment, may order the spouses to cooperate with a refinance application. Moreover, if the property is not successfully refinanced, the court, before divorce judgment, may compel a spouse to satisfy (at least) one half of the … Continue Reading
In its December 13, 2012 decision in Murrary v. Murray, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the determination to deny a husband an equitable distribution credit for the value of a home which he owned before the marriage and which, after the marriage, he deeded to himself and his wife jointly. The parties were married in 1986 … Continue Reading
In its November 14, 2012 decision in Shah v. Shah, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Mark D. Cohen did not improperly “double count” the income generated by the husband’s business when he awarded the wife four years of maintenance. That business was started by the husband and a … Continue Reading
Distinguishing the 2009 Court of Appeals decision in Mahoney–Buntzman v. Buntzman, the Second Department, in its October 24, 2012 decision in Levenstein v. Levenstein, has held that if marital funds are used to pay pre-marital support arrears, the non-obligated spouse may be awarded a credit towards equitable distribution. In 1995, before the current marriage, Mr. … Continue Reading
A spouse contributing separate property (most commonly pre-marital, gifted, or inherited funds) to the purchase of the marital residence does not make a gift of (half of) that payment to the other spouse, even if the residence is held by the parties jointly. So was the holding of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in its September … Continue Reading
Almost all ERISA-Qualified Defined Benefit Plans (commonly known as “pensions”) are required to offer annuities (a stream of monthly payments). Where there is no divorce, the annuity must be paid as a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity unless the Participant’s spouse consents in writing at the time of retirement to a different form of payment. … Continue Reading
In a September 12, 2012 press release, MyDivorcePapers.com, a self-proclaimed “established leader in online divorce forms,” announced that it had recently released another video in their online divorce forms series, How to File New York Divorce Forms Online. The video “is an education and informational video aimed at giving summary overview of specific divorce laws along … Continue Reading
Dealing with the appreciation in value during the marriage of a marital home owned by one spouse before the marriage has been, perhaps, the most troublesome area of New York’s Equitable Distribution Law. Inconsistencies in decisions abound. The entire area may have been turned on its head in 2010 by the Court of Appeals in … Continue Reading
Continuing to demonstrate New York’s public policy enforcing settlement agreements and the finality they bring to bear on divorce litigation, the Court of Appeals on April 3, 2012 held that the post-agreement discovery that the fact that a marital account had been invested with Bernard Madoff and retained by the husband upon the divorce was not … Continue Reading
Queen County Supreme Court Justice Pam Jackman-Brown did not say that Claudette Medley’s marriage to Maurice Medley was a fraudulent attempt to take advantage of immigration rules. However, in her November, 2011 decision in Medley v. Medley, Justice Jackman-Brown made it clear that this was not a marriage made in heaven. Ms. Medley migrated to the … Continue Reading
Last week, the Appellate Division, Third Department, exercised its equitable muscle to filling in the gaps while the marriage and divorce laws of the different states catch up with each other. On July 21, 2011, in Dickerson v. Thompson, the court granted a dissolution of a Vermont civil union. Under Vermont law, the civil union … Continue Reading
After 36 years of family law practice, I pride myself on having a good idea of what I don’t know. The good news is that I can reach out for the help needed to make sure the bases are covered when drafting a divorce settlement agreement. Matrimonial litigation has spawned a host of forensic specialities eager to … Continue Reading
The way you phrase the credit is just as important as the amount. Let’s assume that when the divorce action was filed, the parties’ marital residence was encumbered by a mortgage with a principal balance of $250,000. Let’s further assume that while the divorce action is pending, the wife, only, makes all the mortgage payments. … Continue Reading
When Sally Field won her second Oscar in 1984, her acceptance speech included the line often now misquoted as “you like me, you really like me.” Nancy Alper might respond to the Second Department, “you hate me, you really hate me.” In its October 12, 2010 decision in Alper v. Alper, that court affirmed the … Continue Reading
It should have been a dead giveaway. Court of Appeals Judge Victoria Graffeo warned us that in Fields v Fields (PDF), New York’s highest court was about to apply public policy principles to “unique facts.” The result: a decision likely to keep Equitable Distribution litigators busy for years to come. 8 years into the Fields’ 35-year … Continue Reading
