Decisions of Interest

Suicide Before Final Order Will Not Deprive Wife of Assets

A husband who committed suicide prior to distribution of a couple's assets could not thereby remove them from the jurisdiction of Supreme Court. AC v. DR, xxxxxx, NYLJ 1202618541795, at *1 (Sup. NA, Decided Aug. 29, 2013)

On Sept. 11, 2012, the court granted the husband a Judgment of Divorce on the grounds of constructive abandonment, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law ' 170(2). Trial on economic issues ensued, with the final day being Feb. 11, 2013. On that date, the parties agreed to a date by which to submit post-trial memoranda concerning the economic issues and to enter into a stipulation concerning custody and visitation. Prior to these events, however, the husband committed suicide. The husband's mother, FC, was appointed as the Executrix of the husband's estate.

The wife sought to have FC substituted as a party to the divorce; FC moved for abatement of the matrimonial action. The predicate question thus became whether Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over the husband's assets that were to have been the subject of the marital property settlement, or whether they now had passed to his estate. The court noted that an action for divorce generally abates upon the death of party prior to the granting of a divorce (See Matter of Forgione, 237 AD2d 438, (2d Dept., 1997)), but courts have recognized an exception when a court has issued a written or oral decision granting a divorce. In such cases the formal execution and entry of a judgment may be performed even after a matrimonial litigant's death. Cornell v. Cornell, 7 NY2d 164 (1959); Brown v. Brown, 208 AD2d 485 (2d Dept., 1994).

The court observed that throughout the previous proceedings, the wife had been cooperative and truthful, while the husband had been combative and had done everything he could do to keep his substantial assets from his wife and child, including by refusing to abide by pendente lite orders. He also showed a very advanced knowledge of the divorce legal system. With this background, the court stated, “[T]he instant matter appears to involve an issue of first impression. Here, the husband did not die of natural causes, but rather by his own calculated act of suicide, and as such, this case is distinctly different from those cited by [the estate's] counsel. … This Court cannot ignore the husband's unfortunate actions and testimony which consistently demonstrated a clear and deliberate intent on his part to do anything in his power to try to deprive the wife from receiving any monetary benefit from him. The manner of the husband's death, is deserving of due consideration with regard to the issue of abatement.”

Looking at the husband's serial examples of “nefarious conduct,” along with his substantial knowledge of the law, the court made the inference that the husband's intent in committing suicide was to have his estate seek an abatement of the matrimonial action, in order to try to deprive his wife and children of marital assets. “As this is a court of equity, the conscious, deliberate and calculated actions of the husband, prior to his intentional death, are factors that cannot be ignored,” in determining the wife's and the estate's motions, the court stated.

“Suicide, like murder, is an intentional act, and the husband's estate should not be able to benefit from it by seeking an equitable remedy []. Husband's estate should not benefit from his intentional misconduct and abhorrent behavior,” concluded the court. It therefore sided with the wife and ordered the substitution of the Executrix for the husband in the matrimonial action while denying the motion for abatement.

Alternatively, because the Judgment of Divorce was granted during the husband's lifetime, and all testimony regarding the economic issues had been completed by the time of his death, the court found that, “in the interests of justice, equity and the efficiency of the Court system,” the wife's right to equitable distribution in the matrimonial action survived the husband's suicide.

'

'

Suicide Before Final Order Will Not Deprive Wife of Assets

A husband who committed suicide prior to distribution of a couple's assets could not thereby remove them from the jurisdiction of Supreme Court. AC v. DR, xxxxxx, NYLJ 1202618541795, at *1 (Sup. NA, Decided Aug. 29, 2013)

On Sept. 11, 2012, the court granted the husband a Judgment of Divorce on the grounds of constructive abandonment, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law ' 170(2). Trial on economic issues ensued, with the final day being Feb. 11, 2013. On that date, the parties agreed to a date by which to submit post-trial memoranda concerning the economic issues and to enter into a stipulation concerning custody and visitation. Prior to these events, however, the husband committed suicide. The husband's mother, FC, was appointed as the Executrix of the husband's estate.

The wife sought to have FC substituted as a party to the divorce; FC moved for abatement of the matrimonial action. The predicate question thus became whether Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over the husband's assets that were to have been the subject of the marital property settlement, or whether they now had passed to his estate. The court noted that an action for divorce generally abates upon the death of party prior to the granting of a divorce (See Matter of Forgione, 237 AD2d 438, (2d Dept., 1997)), but courts have recognized an exception when a court has issued a written or oral decision granting a divorce. In such cases the formal execution and entry of a judgment may be performed even after a matrimonial litigant's death. Cornell v. Cornell , 7 NY2d 164 (1959); Brown v. Brown , 208 AD2d 485 (2d Dept., 1994).

The court observed that throughout the previous proceedings, the wife had been cooperative and truthful, while the husband had been combative and had done everything he could do to keep his substantial assets from his wife and child, including by refusing to abide by pendente lite orders. He also showed a very advanced knowledge of the divorce legal system. With this background, the court stated, “[T]he instant matter appears to involve an issue of first impression. Here, the husband did not die of natural causes, but rather by his own calculated act of suicide, and as such, this case is distinctly different from those cited by [the estate's] counsel. … This Court cannot ignore the husband's unfortunate actions and testimony which consistently demonstrated a clear and deliberate intent on his part to do anything in his power to try to deprive the wife from receiving any monetary benefit from him. The manner of the husband's death, is deserving of due consideration with regard to the issue of abatement.”

Looking at the husband's serial examples of “nefarious conduct,” along with his substantial knowledge of the law, the court made the inference that the husband's intent in committing suicide was to have his estate seek an abatement of the matrimonial action, in order to try to deprive his wife and children of marital assets. “As this is a court of equity, the conscious, deliberate and calculated actions of the husband, prior to his intentional death, are factors that cannot be ignored,” in determining the wife's and the estate's motions, the court stated.

“Suicide, like murder, is an intentional act, and the husband's estate should not be able to benefit from it by seeking an equitable remedy []. Husband's estate should not benefit from his intentional misconduct and abhorrent behavior,” concluded the court. It therefore sided with the wife and ordered the substitution of the Executrix for the husband in the matrimonial action while denying the motion for abatement.

Alternatively, because the Judgment of Divorce was granted during the husband's lifetime, and all testimony regarding the economic issues had been completed by the time of his death, the court found that, “in the interests of justice, equity and the efficiency of the Court system,” the wife's right to equitable distribution in the matrimonial action survived the husband's suicide.

'

'