Decision After Trial (No. 2)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ---------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, Index No.: -against- DECISION AFTER TRIAL (# 2) Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------X , J.: The plaintiff commenced this action on . A divorce was granted afterinquest on the grounds of . A trial was held on the ancillary issuesincluding . BACKGROUND (Optional fact pattern for more complex matters). EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Marital Property and Separate Property (Where issues of classification of property arise). Marital property is defined in Domestic Relations Law Section 236 B(1)(c) as all property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage.... Separate property is: Property acquired before marriage or property acquired by bequest, devise, or descent, or gift from a party other than the spouse.... (Domestic Relations Law Section 236 B(1)(d)). Utilizing these definitions and the evidence adduced at trial the following identifies Decision After Trial (# 2) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2Index No.: page 2. and classifies the property of the husband and wife herein. The following assets are classified as marital property: 1. 2. The following assets are classified as separate property: 1. 2. Valuation Date Domestic Relations Law 236 B(4)(b) provides in pertinent part: ...The valuation date or dates may be anytime from the date of commencement of the action to the date of trial. As to the valuation of specific assets, the court in Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 234 [2nd Dept., 1986] found that [i]f an asset increases in value due to market forces or inflation, valuation as of the date of commencement of the action would result in a windfall to the titled spouse and injustice to the other. If the asset greatly decreased in value ... a court which values assets might make a distributive award that is beyond the owner spouses ability to pay (citations omitted). Thus, a passive asset is properly valued at te dath e of trial whereas an active asset may be more appropriately valued at an earlier time. The court noted [a]n asset such as, for example, a business, might suddenly appreciate in value due solely to the efforts of the owner spouse. If a considerable period of time has elapsed since the date of commencement or the date of separation, Decision After Trial (# 2) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3Index No.: page 3. the court might be justified in establishing a valuation date earlier than the date of trial. Wegman, supra. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the court will value the following as active assets and value them as of , or a date close thereto, the date of commencement of this action and the following as passive assets and value them as of , or a date close thereto, the date of commencement of the trial. Conclusions of Law The court is mandated pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236B(5)(d) to consider 13 factors in making its decision as to the equitable distribution of the marital property. 1) Income and Property - 2) Duration of the marriage and age and health of the parties - 3) Need of custodial parent to occupy or own the marital residence - 4) The loss of inheritance and pension rights - Decision After Trial (# 2) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4Index No.: page 4. 5) An award of maintenance - 6) Direct and indirect contributions - 7) Liquid or non-liquid character of the property - 8) Future financial circumstances of the parties - 9) The difficulty of valuing marital assets - 10) The tax consequences to each party - 11) The wasteful dissipation of assets - Decision After Trial (# 2) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5Index No.: page 5. 12) Transfer in contemplation of action - 13) Any other factors - The premise of the equitable distribution law as it has been written and interpreted b y the courts of this state is that the marriage is an economic partnership. (OBrien v. OBrien, 66 N.Y.2d 476 (1985)). The success of this partnership depends not only on the contributions of the wage earner spouse but on various contributions made by the non-titled spouse. In Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 813 (1986), the Court of Appeals recognized this concept stating: The Equitable Distribution Law reflects an awareness that the economic success of the partnership depends not only upon the respective financial contributions of the partners, but also on a wide range of non- remunerated services to the joint enterprise, such as homemaking, raising children, and providing emotional and moral support necessary to sustain the other spouse in coping with the vicissitudes of life outside the home. As this court wrote in Greenwald v. Greenwald, NYLJ, 6/6/90, p. 22, col. 5: Although it is true under New York Law at the present timquitable distribution is not necessarily synonyme e ouswith equal distribution. Nevertheless, the legislative history bespeaks an intent that the courts direct an equal distribution unless the circumstances of an individual case clearly require an unequal Decision After Trial (# 2) September 2004 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com<<<<<<<<<********>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6Index No.: page 6. distribution. More often than not, equal distribution should be and is the rule. The court in Conner v. Conner, 97 A.D.2d 88 [2nd Dept. 1983] voiced its opinion stating: According to the Assembly memorandum in support of the new law [llc Zett - Kaufman - Kraut, N.Y. div. Prac., Appendix B, p. 8]: The basic premise for the marital property and alimony (now maintenance) reforms of this legislation (236) is that modern marriage should be viewed as a partnership of co-equals. Upon the dissolution of a marriage, there should be an equitable distribution of all family assets accumulated during the marriage and maintenance should rest on the economic basis of reasonable needs and the ability to pay. From this point of view, the contributions of each partner to the marriage should ordinarily be regarded as equal and there should be an equal division of family assets, unless such a division would be inequitable under the circumstances of the particular case. (emphasis supplied) Id. 96. Accordingly, the judgment settled shall include a(n) distribution. Maintenanc