NY Case Law on equitable Distribution
We are being asked in this matrimonial case to determine whether Supreme Court erred by declining to adjust defendant's child support obligation to account for the distributive award payments he was obligated to pay plaintiff for her share of the future enhanced earnings attributable to his medical license.
The matrimonial court in the exercise of the discretion vested in it by part B of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law may order distribution to one spouse of an equitable portion of that part of the present value of the other spouse's pension rights earned during marriage, or may provide that upon maturity of the pension rights the recipient pay a portion of each payment received to his or her former spouse or may, if it determines that valuation or other problems make equitable distribution impractical or burdensome, order a distributive award in lieu of equitable distribution.
where separate property of one spouse has appreciated during the marriage and before execution of a separation agreement or commencement of a matrimonial proceeding and where such appreciation was "due in part" to the contributions or efforts of the nontitled spouse as parent and homemaker, the amount of that appreciation should be added to the sum of marital property for equitable distribution (§ 236 [B] [5]).
A spouse's ownership interest in a business that is separate property may become marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
Requiring a non-titled spouse to produce a substantial, almost quantifiable, connection between the titled spouse's efforts and the appreciated value of the asset would be (1) contrary to the letter and spirit of the relevant statutes (see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 236[B])and (2) inconsistent with legislative intent; and (3) at odds with the purport of this Court's precedents construing the Legislature's directives (Price v Price).
![]()
Top of Page
Divorce home page
Prenuptial Agreements
Matrimonial court proceedings
Divorces complicated by bankruptcy
A medical license is marital property subject to equitable distribution.
The Equitable Distribution Law contemplates only two classes of property: marital property and separate property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [c], [d]). * * *
Having classified the "property" subject to distribution, the Legislature did not attempt to go further and define it but left it to the courts to determine what interests come within the terms of section 236 (B) (1) (c). * * *
In this case, no distributive award representing the value of defendant's law license was made because of the Appellate Division's prior ruling that the license had merged with defendant's legal career. This ruling was error, since the license had a residual economic value independent of defendant's career.
In Grunfeld v Grunfeld 94 NY2d 696 [2000]) and McSparron v McSparron 87 NY2d 275 [1995]), we made clear that in divorce actions a court should not twice count the income associated with a professional license, an intangible asset, when making distributive and maintenance awards. We are now called upon to determine whether this principle extends to the distribution of a tangible, income-producing asset and the subsequent award of maintenance from income deriving from that asset. It does not.