When Fair Does Not Mean Equal: Uneven Division of Marital Assets in New York Divorce

One of the biggest myths surrounding divorce is that marital property is always split 50/50. In New York, an equitable distribution state, that is simply not the case. The standard that is applied during divorce is that the outcome should be fair to both parties. Fair does not necessarily mean equal. In this article, we’ll review a case in which marital assets were not split 50/50 by the court. 

Background of the case

In the aforementioned case, the two parties disagreed on the division of their marital properties. The case involved various marital properties and varying claims of contribution to the marriage.

At the trial level, the court assessed the income, earning ability, and contributions of the parties in addition to the manner in which the property was acquired and preserved. On that basis, the trial court held that equal division of property would not be appropriate.

Consequently, the former wife was allotted a larger portion of the marital estate. This was based on a determination of equity rather than an automatic division of assets. The former husband, who received a smaller portion, was not satisfied with the judgment. Thus, he appealed.

The appeal

During the appeal, the former husband contested the trial court’s decision, claiming that it abused its discretion in unevenly dividing the couple’s marital property. This was based on the argument that there was no basis for the trial court to grant the wife an unequal share of the property.

The Appellate Division stated that the trial court is awarded broad discretion when dividing the marital estate. The appellate court doesn’t re-decide the case. Instead, it analyzes whether or not the trial court relied on proper legal findings to arrive at its decision.

In this case, the appeals court found that the trial court relied on appropriate equitable distribution guidelines and justified the disparate allocation, the appeals court agreed that was appropriate and based on good, established reasons that were articulated in the judgment and supported by the trial record. 

Key takeaways from the case

Equitable does not mean “equal”; it means “fair.” The trial court is required to make a fair distribution of marital property. This means one party may receive more than the other.

Further, substantial discretion is afforded to the trial court. This is because trial courts review financial and nonfinancial factors, such as earning capacity and marriage circumstances. All of these are fact-specific and depend on the quality of the presented case.

Another key point: appeals are not limitless. Challenging uneven distribution is not based merely on dissatisfaction with the result. The side appealing must prove the trial court abused the legal principles or the evidence in reaching a decision.

Lastly, preparation is a crucial element in these matters. Property distribution cases require accounts down to a penny and compelling justifications in these matters. A competent New York divorce lawyer can ensure that these matters are placed in a compelling perspective.

Talk to a Westchester County, NY, Divorce Lawyer Today

The Law Office of Robert S. Sunshine represents the interests of Westchester County residents during their divorce. Call our Westchester County family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

case-law.vlex.com/vid/achuthan-v-achuthan-201612655-884443658