Divorce

Published on: October 20, 2024

Equitable distribution requires full financial disclosure by both parities. C.M.S. v. W.T.S., 37 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: October 20, 2024

Court finds that wasteful dissipation of assets by wife would impact equitable distribution. Singh v. Singh, 36 Misc. 3d 1218 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

Singh v. Singh, 36 Misc. 3d 1218 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012) involved a divorce action in Queens, New York. The Plaintiff, the wife, initiated the case in 2009, seeking an absolute divorce and additional relief related to financial support, property division, and child custody. One issue that was raised was asset dissipation. Asset dissipation occurs when one spouse improperly uses or transfers marital assets in a way that depletes their value, often in anticipation of divorce or without the consent of the other spouse. This can include excessive spending, selling assets below market value, or mismanaging joint finances. In divorce cases, courts may consider evidence of dissipation when determining the equitable distribution of marital property.

Background Facts

The Plaintiff and Defendant married in 1997 and had two children. During their marriage, they lived together in a house jointly purchased by the Defendant and his father. The Defendant used both his separate savings and marital assets to contribute toward the mortgage on the marital home. Over time, the couple’s financial situation became more complicated as the Defendant and his extended family engaged in additional real estate and business investments. Both parties contributed to the household and its upkeep until they separated in 2006.

Published on: October 17, 2024

New York court modified maintenance and equitable distribution from a foreign divorce judgment. Sufia v. Khalique, 189 A.D.3d 1499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a divorce occurs in another country, New York courts can address unresolved issues such as property division, child support, and spousal maintenance. Foreign divorce judgments are generally recognized under New York law if they comply with due process and do not violate public policy. However, New York courts can independently adjudicate ancillary matters not addressed in the foreign judgment. Parties may file actions in New York to resolve these issues, following domestic legal standards such as equitable distribution and child support guidelines.

Sufia v. Khalique, 189 A.D.3d 1499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involved a matrimonial action concerning the equitable distribution of marital property, child support, and maintenance following a divorce granted in Bangladesh. The judgment, rendered by the Supreme Court, Queens County, addressed these issues after a nonjury trial. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging its provisions.

Background Facts

Published on: October 15, 2024

Court adjusted asset distribution by rejecting a $550,000 dissipation claim for a car wash purchase. Kirshner v. Kirshner, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

Dissipation of marital assets refers to the wasteful, reckless, or intentional use of marital funds for purposes unrelated to the marriage, often occurring during or shortly before divorce proceedings. Examples include excessive spending, gambling, or transferring assets to conceal them. In New York, the spouse alleging dissipation must prove it by showing that the other spouse’s actions diminished marital property unjustifiably. Courts evaluate the intent and circumstances, distinguishing between poor financial outcomes and reckless behavior. Dissipation claims can significantly affect equitable distribution, as courts may compensate the wronged spouse by adjusting the division of remaining marital assets.

Background Facts

The couple, married in 2001, had three children and signed a prenuptial agreement before marriage. During the marriage, the defendant used marital funds to purchase a car wash. The plaintiff later argued that this investment was a wasteful dissipation of marital assets, claiming it was a poor financial decision and made without proper justification. The defendant contended the car wash was intended to generate income for the family and provide a workplace for the plaintiff after his release from prison.

Published on: October 10, 2024

Court finds that cohabitation is enough to terminate spousal maintenance payments. Sanseri v. Sanseri, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25128 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Sanseri v. Sanseri, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25128 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), the Supreme Court, Monroe County, addressed the termination of spousal maintenance payments, specifically revisiting the standards for terminating maintenance in the absence of remarriage. The issue arose under Section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law (DRL), a provision that outlines when maintenance payments can be modified or terminated. The court had to determine whether a former spouse cohabitating with another person, but not remarried, could be grounds for terminating maintenance.

Background Facts

In this case, the husband and wife were in the process of a divorce, with maintenance payments ordered at the outset due to a significant disparity in their incomes. While the divorce proceedings continued, the husband filed a motion to terminate the maintenance payments. He argued that his wife, though not remarried, had entered into a relationship with another man and had engaged in behaviors that were akin to a marriage.

Published on: October 5, 2024

While wife may not have car, court found no evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment in marriage. D.A. v. B.E., 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

by Stephen Bilkis

In D.A. v. B.E., 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005), the D.A. sought a divorce from his wife, B.E.A., under Domestic Relations Law Section 170(1) based on claims of cruel and inhuman treatment. The couple had been married since 2001, and D.A. argued that his wife’s lack of care for his deteriorating health endangered his well-being. The court had to decide whether the evidence provided was enough to grant the divorce on these grounds.

Background Facts

D.A. and B.E.A. were married on June 21, 2001, though they had lived together for several years prior to that date. At the time of the marriage, D.A. was already suffering from asbestosis. Over time, his health worsened. By 2003, he had been diagnosed with emphysema, and later that year, he underwent surgery for lung cancer, which required the removal of one of his lungs. His medical condition left him in chronic pain, requiring continuous pain management, including Percocet and, eventually, morphine.

Published on: October 4, 2024

Separation agreement is enforceable only if it involved full financial disclosure. S.M.S. Kabir v. Kabir, 85 A.D.3d 1127 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, separation are agreements are enforceable, but only if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that both parties must make full financial disclosures, including all of their assets. The case of S.M.S. Kabir v. Kabir, 85 A.D.3d 1127 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) involves a dispute over the validity of a separation agreement between a husband and wife. The wife sought to set aside the agreement, claiming that it was not fairly negotiated and that key financial information had been withheld by the husband.

Background Facts

The parties were married and later entered into a separation agreement on July 11, 2007. The wife later claimed that the agreement was unfair because the husband had allegedly concealed several assets during the negotiation. She stated that she did not discover these concealed assets until 2009, two years after the separation agreement had been signed.

Published on: September 15, 2024

Court addressed maintenance, child support, and reimbursement disputes in a high-income divorce case. Tuchman v. Tuchman, 201 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a divorce and related financial matters, including maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, addressed disputes over payments, income allocation, and financial obligations between the parties. Both the plaintiff and the defendant challenged various aspects of the court’s rulings.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were married in January 1985 and had four children. At the time of the trial, two of their children were still unemancipated. In November 2012, the plaintiff filed for divorce, seeking ancillary relief. Over the course of the proceedings, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in June 2017, resolving issues related to equitable distribution, property, and legal fees. However, other matters, including maintenance and child support, proceeded to trial.

Published on: August 15, 2024

Court addressed wasteful dissipation, granting husband $150,000 credit against wife’s marital property share. D’Ambra v. D’Ambra, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

In divorce cases, the division of marital property can raise disputes about fairness and accountability. In a recent case, the court addressed claims of wasteful dissipation of marital assets, which impacted the equitable distribution of property between the spouses.

Background Facts

The parties were married in January 2007 and shared a marital residence in Queens, New York, as well as a rental property in Florida. The plaintiff paid all marital expenses while the defendant did not earn an income during the marriage. The couple had no children together, but the defendant’s adult son from a previous relationship lived with them starting in 2011.

Published on: August 14, 2024

Petition to terminate spousal maintenance. Makris v. Makris 179 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Makris v. Makris, 179 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) is about divorce and maintenance obligations. Spousal maintenance in New York can be terminated under specific conditions defined by state law. One such circumstance is if the recipient spouse remarries, as the obligation to pay maintenance typically ceases upon remarriage. Similarly, the death of either the paying or receiving spouse automatically terminates the maintenance obligation.

Another scenario for termination is if it can be demonstrated that the recipient spouse is self-sufficient or no longer requires financial support. This could result from a significant increase in the recipient spouse’s income or assets, rendering them financially independent. Conversely, if the paying spouse experiences a substantial decrease in income or faces financial hardship, they may petition the court to terminate or modify the maintenance obligation.

Additionally, if there is a significant change in circumstances since the maintenance order was issued, such as a disability affecting either spouse’s ability to work, the court may consider terminating or modifying the maintenance arrangement. Cohabitation by the recipient spouse with a new partner in a relationship similar to marriage may also prompt termination of maintenance, as it suggests the recipient no longer requires financial support.