Legal Writing & Research Law Purview of Equitable Division of Marital Property

Question:-

Did the court misapprehend the language of the statutory amendment in failing to bring the spousal contribution to enhanced earning capacity under the purview of equitable division of marital property?

Answer:-

Before the amendment, there was a popular notion that equitable distribution has been based on the fact that a marriage is an economic partnership to which both parties contribute as financial or non-financial contributor (O’Brien v. O’Brien, 1985). Now as per amended provision of s. 236B(5d)(7) of N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law, the court shall consider any equitable claim for determining the equitable distribution of marital property where a spouse has directly or indirectly made contribution to the career or career potential or development during the marriage of the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse. But the court shall not consider a spouse’s enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree or career enhancement as a marital property. Such recognition can be granted as if such contributions are considered as investment (O’Brien v. O’Brien, 1985). Since there is involvement of economic partnership, investment and sacrifices, the professional license comes under the purview of marital property (O’Brien v. O’Brien, 1985). Even the statutory amendment has stated expressly to consider any direct or indirect contribution for calculation of equitable distribution. So, the lower court has failed to acknowledge the language of statutory amendment regarding spousal contribution to enhanced earning capacity.

2) Now it is required to be seen that to what extent the spousal contribution during the marriage comes under the purview of equitable distribution. A degree or license will be deemed as marital property only to the extent that it is attributable to the work done during the marriage (McGowan v. McGowan, 1988). This common law principle sets an important tone since the economic aspect of the marital relationship has been addressed here. In the statutory amendment, it is noted that the degree or license may not come under the purview of equitable distribution but the contribution has to be acknowledged. Though Mrs. James almost completed her course of law degree before her marriage, her continuity and completion of the course is supported by Mr. James. Mr. James can claim for the financial loss the family faced during the period when Mr. James was the sole contributor and Mrs. James was continuing with her accomplishment of degree. So, the court has erred in concluding that none of Defendant’s contributions alleged in his counterclaim were marital.

3) Since Mr. James played a contributory role for which license of Mrs. James must be considered as marital asset subject to equitable division, the evaluation of the license of Mrs. James is necessary. Mr. James had the burden of proving the asset’s value so that the court can have sufficient ground to allow a distributive award (Iwahara v, Iwahara, 1996). The court erred in denying an award of expert fees for evaluation of the license.

Since, Mr. James has stated a counterclaim for consideration of his spousal contributions during the marriage to Mrs. James enhanced earning capacity, the court should have considered the contribution of Mr. James for equitable division of marital property and allow award of expert fees for evaluation of license of Mrs. James. The merit of the appeal lies in the fact that lower court has erred in not considering the contributions of Mr. James for equitable division of marital property.

It seems Mrs. James’s attorney sent the notice for settlement considering the contributory factor. Since, professional license not comes under the marital property for equitable division under the amended statute; the only option left for Mr. James is to take the ground of his contribution for the period Mrs. James continued her degree after marriage. Even in the appeal, Mr. James has to depend upon expert’s opinion for valuation of license of Mrs. James. So to that extent, it is preferable for Mr. James to agree for negotiation in the settlement with Mrs. James.