New York Family Law Blog
In a matrimonial trial that spanned several years, a couple’s divorce action finally came to court after years of separation and failed settlement attempts. C.M.S. v. W.T.S., 37 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) involved significant issues, including determining how to distribute marital property.
Background Facts
The couple in this case had been separated since 2007, and their divorce action began in 2008. Throughout the divorce proceedings, both parties exhibited a lack of urgency in settling their financial matters, leading to numerous pretrial conferences without significant progress.
During the trial, the only document presented was the verified complaint, which had been admitted by stipulation. The couple each testified about their financial situations but failed to provide essential documentation, such as tax returns or statements of net worth, which would have clarified their asset values and distributions.
The husband mentioned that he worked as a contract engineer and had earned approximately $75,000 over an 18-month period, equating to a yearly income of about $50,000. However, he did not provide proof of this income, such as tax documents. The court determined that it could impute his income based on his past earnings and skills.
Both parties acknowledged the existence of retirement accounts but provided no evidence to support their claims regarding the value or the nature of these accounts. The husband disclosed he had a 403(b) account, an IRA, and a pension from a previous employer. However, he did not demonstrate that these accounts were acquired during the marriage, and without evidence of their value or any appreciation since the divorce action began, the court declined to treat them as marital assets subject to distribution.
The wife testified that she held a teaching position, which included a pension and other retirement accounts acquired during the marriage. Despite her acknowledgment of these assets, she did not provide documentation to establish their values or how they should be divided.
The couple also mentioned some jointly held assets, including funds in escrow from the sale of a resort property. The court decided to award each party 50% of these escrowed funds, as both agreed they were marital funds.
Question Before the Court
Whether the trial court could determine equitable distribution of the marital assets based solely on the documentation provided by the parties
Court’s Decision
Due to the lack of proof regarding the valuation and nature of marital assets, the court refrained from directing a specific distribution of the couple’s property.
Discussion
The court emphasized that equitable distribution requires a thorough understanding of the assets in question, including their fair market value and the contributions made by each party during the marriage. During the proceedings, the parties presented various documents intended to outline the marital assets. However, the court found these documents to be insufficient. For instance, the lack of independent appraisals or expert testimonies left the court with a vague picture of the assets’ actual values. Without reliable evidence, the court could not accurately assess the worth of properties, retirement accounts, and other financial interests involved in the marital estate.
The court noted that both parties had a responsibility to provide comprehensive disclosures about their assets and liabilities. When one or both parties fail to meet this obligation, it complicates the equitable distribution process. In essence, the court’s refusal to direct a specific distribution stemmed from the principle that equitable distribution must be based on solid evidence. In the absence of adequate proof, the court could not justify making a decision that could potentially lead to an unfair outcome. By prioritizing fairness and ensuring that all relevant information was considered, the court ultimately upheld the integrity of the equitable distribution process, reinforcing the necessity of complete transparency in marital asset valuation.
Conclusion
In C.M.S. v. W.T.S., 37 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012), the parties left court without the court ordering how to distribute this asset due to the a simple reason– the parties failed to provide documentation. The result is prolonging their divorce process. To help ensure that your divorce process is as efficient as possible given the specifics of your case, contact an experienced Queens equitable distribution lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates.