Divorce Lawyers New York - Recent Family Law Decisons (9)
RECENT FAMILY LAW DECISIONS (9)
Specific Value Not Required
This Act does not require the court to place a specific value on each item of property in considering the value of the property to be set aside to each item of property in considering the value of the property to be set aside to each spouse; it requires only that there be sufficient evidence of value in the record to permit review of the court’s distribution.
There is no requirement that the court place a specific value on each item of property in dividing it between married parties, but only that there be competent evidence of value and that the court’s division of property be supported by the evidence.
Although more evidence of the value of husband’s interest in his business could have been received, appellate court declined to reverse and remand for a new hearing when to do so would have, in effect, allowed wife to benefit from her failure to introduce at trial evidence which she apparently had available to her, and where it was clear the court equated the value of husband’s interest in the business with its income potential to him, and considered that value in apportioning the parties, assets, and in determining maintenance and child support.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in failing to make a specific finding of fact as to the fair market value of the marital residence.
Stamp Collection
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the value of petitioner’s stamp collection was $150,000 where both parties testified that petitioner spent in excess of that amount on the collection; the trial court was entitled to utilize purchase price as a valuation tool and to disregard the testimony of the expert, particularly in view of the fact that the trial court specifically noted that it did not believe the expert had seen the entire collection amassed during the marriage.
Standard of Review
The valuation of the marital property of the parties, which is to be valued as of the date of the judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties and on the basis of what a willing purchaser will pay to a willing seller in a voluntary transaction, is a matter within the discretion of the trial court which will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion, that is, where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.
A trial court’s allocation of marital property, including making allowances for dissipation, will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion; such discretion will be considered abused only when no reasonable man would agree with the decision reached by the trial court.
Stipulation
The trial court properly divided a Keogh plan where it valued according to the parties’ stipulation.
Tax Consequences
A trial court, when valuing as asset, is not required to deduct from that value the amount of taxes which were paid on it; rather, it is to consider the tax consequences of the property division.
Trial court’s apparent failure to consider the tax consequences of the transfer of property was contrary to this section and therefore error.
