Rigas v. Rigas, 2024
The judgment of the Supreme Court was appealed on this New York divorce case to the New York Court of Appeals. The appeals court affirmed the award of 20% of the during-marriage appreciation of the husband’s business, ARC Electrical & Mechanical Contractors Inc., to the wife and also awarded maintenance to the wife that was not awarded by the Supreme Court.
“A trial court considering the factors set forth in the Domestic Relations Law has broad discretion in deciding what is equitable under all of the circumstances[,] and unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised that discretion, its determination should not be disturbed.” Separate property, which ARC was in this case, was excluded from the marital estate except as to any appreciation that is due to the contributions or efforts of the nontitled spouse, and valuation was within the fact-finding power of the Supreme Court by expert testimony. On appeal, the Supreme Court determination of the value of a business will be given deference on appeal if based on the evidence of credible expert witnesses and their valuation techniques. (Lieberman-Massoni v. Massoni)
Here, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion in crediting the court-appointed appraiser of ARC instead of the appraiser the wife engaged in awarding 20% of the appreciation of ARC during the marriage to the wife. Also, the Supreme Court determination that the husband did not dissipate marital assets was supported by the record. The allowance of 20% to the wife was a “provident exercise of discretion” given the wife’s contributions as a stay-at-home mother and homemaker.
Also, the Supreme Court did not err in computing the parties’ combined parental income, with a gross income of $371,000, much less than the amount the wife proposed. “The court appropriately considered the financial resources of the custodial and noncustodial parent and the standard of living the children would have enjoyed if the parties had remained together when using the plaintiff’s entire income, which was well in excess of the applicable statutory cap, to calculate the plaintiff’s child support obligation” Thus, the child support award by the Supreme Court was affirmed.
As noted in the opinion, the appeals court determined that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in not awarding the wife post-judgment maintenance. (Kaufman v. Kaufman) “The defendant had no work experience, as she and the plaintiff jointly decided that she would not work but would instead be a stay-at-home mother and homemaker. The defendant, however, has a college degree.” Taking into consideration the facts of the parties’ standard of living and related information, the Supreme Court should have awarded the wife maintenance. “Accordingly, we modify the judgment of divorce by awarding the defendant maintenance in the sum of $8,000 per month for a period of 24 months from the date of the judgment of divorce, or, if earlier, until her remarriage or the death of either party.”