Monied Spouse

Subscribe to Monied Spouse via RSS

In its April 10th decision in Angello v. Angello, the Third Department upheld the trial determination that a wife’s refusal to approve a mid-action sale of the husband’s insolvent business constituted a wasteful dissipation of the largest marital asset. Such warranted saddling the wife with half of the business’s debts. It also, in part, justified a downward deviation from the maintenance guidelines but did not warrant an award of counsel fees to the financially-superior husband.

The parties were married in 1989 and had one adult child. The husband commenced this divorce action in 2016, and the trial began in 2019. The marital property at issue included a local, organic grocery distribution business primarily operated by the husband, which had incurred significant debt and had ceased operations by the time of trial. Marital property also included a warehouse associated with the business, as well as the marital residence. At the conclusion of the trial, the parties each moved for an award of counsel fees.

Columbia County Supreme Court Justice Margaret Walsh found that the wife had wastefully dissipated marital assets by refusing to agree to the 2018 sale of the business to one of the marital business’ competitors in exchange for the buyer assuming responsibility for $900,000 in business debt. The trial court valued the business as of the date of trial and directed that the wife be responsible for half of its $995,000 in debt. Justice Walsh also directed that the warehouse be sold and that the sales proceeds net of liens be applied against the remaining business debt. Justice Walsh also directed that the marital residence be sold with the net proceeds equally divided between the parties.

The presumptive amount of maintenance to which the wife was entitled was $914 a month, but Justice Walsh determined that a downward deviation was warranted, directing the husband to pay $305 a month for five years.Continue Reading Wife’s Refusal to Consent to Mid-Action Sale of Husband’s Business is Wastefull Dissipation

Mid-trial in a “high-end” matrimonial, it was held that the “monied” husband would not be required to continue to pay his wife’s continuing fees. Rather, in his October 10, 2013 decision in Sykes v. Sykes, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper held that such fees would be paid from $2 million in marital assets; each side to use half of the sum to pay his or her own outstanding and prospective counsel and expert fees, subject to reallocation after trial.

From the divorce action’s commencement in December, 2010, until February, 2013, just before the trial, Mr. Sykes had paid close to $1 million in counsel fees for himself and, voluntarily, for his wife. Then, in March 2013, the wife’s attorneys billed the husband $238,196 for their services rendered that month. He paid that bill in full. In April 2013, during which the first eight days of trial took place, the wife’s attorneys billed the husband $355,329 for their services. In addition, the husband was billed $74,853 for the wife’s experts’ services. Mr. Sykes, then decided he could no longer foot the litigation costs for both sides. He declined to pay the April 2013 bills or any subsequent bills incurred by the wife for her attorneys’ or experts’ services absent further order of the court.

Instead, Mr. Sykes, moved for an order authorizing him to release $2 million from marital funds and evenly share that amount with his wife so that each party could pay his or her own interim litigation expenses. He argued that not only had his income and personal funds significantly declined over the last two years, but that permitting the wife to proceed without “skin in the game” (a phrase attributed to Warren Buffett), enabled her to push forward with the litigation without any concern for its cost or any eye towards settlement.

Ms. Sykes opposed the release of the money for the payment of counsel and expert fees. She maintained that she had “skin in the game” by virtue of having to travel from France to make periodic court appearances; she was every bit as motivated as the husband to reach a fair resolution of the case. Moreover, Ms. Sykes argued that because she had no income other than the husband’s $75,000 monthly interim maintenance and child support support payments, she must be considered the nonmonied spouse. Thus, she was entitled under statutory and case law to have her husband pay her interim legal fees. Moreover, she claimed the law was clear: interim counsel fees must come from her husband’s income and separate funds rather than marital funds so as not to deplete her assets.Continue Reading Wife Given “Skin In The Game” By Having To Pay Her Own Interim Counsel Fees Using Marital Assets

House of money.jpgThe May, 2011 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Many v. Many, seems, at first blush, to be a rather routine matter. While their divorce action is pending, the interests of the parties are balanced. However, below the surface lurk issues which highlight the frustration and anxiety which spouses must feel as their case is squired through the judicial process.

By Order to Show Cause issued June 13, 2009, two years before this decision, the wife sought interim support.  She also sought a restraint against her husband refinancing the marital residence. One may surmise that Mr. Many was sole owner of the home; it was his “separate property,” subject to his wife’s claim to an equitable share.

Ms. Many received her award of temporary maintenance. However, by his Order of April, 2010, Supreme Court, Westchester County, Justice Edgar G. Walker, denied that branch of Ms. Many’s motion which was to restrain her husband from encumbering the marital residence.  In effect, Mr. Many was authorized to refinance the equity in the marital residence, but restricted from using the funds for any purpose other than paying his pendente lite maintenance obligation.Continue Reading When Mortgaging the Marital Residence Is Necessary to Pay Temporary Support

Man stealing data from a laptop iStock_000013972877XSmall.jpgIn her June 25, 2010 Shreiber (PDF) decision, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Delores Thomas denied a wife’s second motion for the wholesale inspection of her husband’s (previously-secured) computer hard disk drive. A prior motion had been denied as premature and because the activities of the appraiser court-appointed to evaluate the husband’s solo law practice might…

Blank Check iStock_000013161843XSmall.jpgWith the addition on August 13, 2010 of D.R.L. §170(7), making New York the 50th state to grant no-fault divorces, Governor Patterson also signed an amendment to D.R.L. §237. That amendment creates a rebuttable presumption that while a divorce action is pending, the “less monied” spouse shall be awarded counsel and expert fees and expenses…