Divorce Lawyers New York - Recent Family Law Decisons (3)
Recent Family Law Decisons (3)
Failure of Proof
Once the court made a specific finding that the only witness to offer evidence on the valuation issue was not credible, there was a necessary failure of the proof, and any valuation made by the court without a financial analysis of the health of the corporation was necessarily arbitrary.
Evidence of Value
It is the parties’ obligation to provide the trial court with sufficient evidence of the value of the property, including pension rights, and the trial court will base its division of property upon the evidence presented.
It is the obligation of the parties in a dissolution proceeding to present the court with sufficient evidence of the value of the property.
This section requires division of marital property in just proportions considering all relevant factors and does not require that the court place a specific value on each item of property, but does require that there be competent evidence of value, that the court’s property division be supported by the evidence, and that the record provide a basis upon which a reviewing court can determine the propriety of the property award.
Although there is no requirement that the court place a specific value on each item of property, there must be competent evidence of value to support the court’s division of property.
Where a party in a marriage dissolution action did not offer evidence of an asset’s value, the party could not complain as to disposition of that asset by the court because parties are not allowed to benefit on review from their failure to introduce evidence at trial.
There is no requirement that a court place a specific value on each item of property, but only that there be competent evidence of value and that the trial court’s division of property be supported by the evidence.
There must be competent evidence of value of both non-marital and marital assets in the record.
Where the parties have stipulated to the admission of evidence of valuation, providing some evidence to review the trial court’s exercise of discretion, further proceedings on remand are unnecessary.
Although the trial court did conduct hearings and made findings that should have been conclusive, the absence of sufficient credible evidence to establish the valuation of several major assets mandated reversal of the cause since without such evidence, there was no support for the court’s finding that the parties’ debts and obligations far exceeded their assets.
This Act only requires that there be competent evidence of value of property and that the court’s division of the property be supported by the evidence.
Unequal Distribution of Future Income
Adding a sum to the value of the professional corporation awarded to the husband based upon a stream of future income was error because it resulted in a “double count” of potential future income by considering such income in both the valuation of the asset and considering it in apportioning the total marital assets and awarding maintenance.
