Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Litigation

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
June 28, 2007

Equitable Distribution

Although marital property should be distributed equitably, not necessarily equally, a spouse may be entitled to 50% of a state pension if there are few other assets available for distribution. Arnone v. Arnone, 500567, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, January 25, 2007.

The parties were married in 1980 and commenced an action for a divorce in 1997. After a trial on the financial issues in 2003, during which conflicting evidence was presented, it was determined that the marital property consisted of: the marital
residence and its contents, a 1982 Camaro, and the husband's state pension. The wife was awarded the marital residence valued at $172,000, its contents, and the Camaro. The husband was permitted to keep his pension, which paid $13,000 per year, and several bank accounts with holdings determined to be separate property. Temporary maintenance awarded to the wife was scheduled to terminate two years following the divorce. The wife appealed, and the appellate court modified the award. It held that the wife should have been awarded 50% of the husband's state pension. It considered that the parties were married the entire time the husband was employed by the state and that the husband was injured on that job. It further considered that this injury coupled with an injury he received while serving in the Marines in Vietnam left him totally disabled and receiving an annual income of approximately $58,000 per year from a combination of Veteran's Disability, Social Security Disability and Workers' Compensation, to which the wife made no claims. In addition, during the course of the marriage, the wife, as the primary caretaker of the children, had annual earnings that never exceeded $12,000, and she had no medical coverage.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?