G.M. v. M.M.
23 N.Y.S.3d 859, 50 Misc. 3d 956 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In New York, a court exercising its discretion in equitable distribution may award a disproportionate share of marital assets to one spouse when the other spouse has engaged in wasteful dissipation of marital property and economic misconduct by supporting an extramarital relationship and a second family with marital funds.
Facts:
- G.M. and M.M. were married in a religious ceremony on May 26, 1989.
- Since 2003, M.M. maintained a meretricious relationship with A.S., with whom he had two minor children, born in 2004 and 2007.
- In July 2012, G.M. discovered M.M.'s extramarital relationship and the existence of his two children with A.S.
- Immediately after G.M.'s discovery, M.M. vacated the marital residence and claimed to reside with his parents, though he maintained constant contact with A.S. and their children.
- M.M. admittedly diverted marital income and funds from joint savings accounts to pay for A.S.'s household expenses, including rent and cable television bills, for many years.
- When M.M. took early retirement in 2007, he elected a pension option that paid out only during his lifetime, with no amount allocated for G.M. as his surviving spouse.
- M.M. also earned additional income as an independent contractor, reflected on the parties' joint tax returns, which was subsequently diverted.
Procedural Posture:
- G.M. filed a summons for divorce on July 30, 2012, in the Supreme Court, Westchester County (a trial court).
- M.M. subsequently appeared in the divorce action through his attorney.
- On October 2, 2012, A.S. filed a petition for child support against M.M. in ABC County Family Court.
- On November 1, 2012, the Family Court ordered M.M. to pay $350 per week for child support for A.S.'s children and to maintain their health insurance.
- A contested matrimonial action trial without a jury was held over three days in November 2015, where both G.M. (pro se) and M.M. (represented by counsel) testified regarding spousal maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York court have the authority to award a disproportionate share of marital assets to a spouse in a divorce proceeding when the other spouse has engaged in wasteful dissipation of marital property by using marital funds to support an extramarital relationship and children from that relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Lawrence H. Ecker, J.
Yes, a New York court can award a disproportionate share of marital assets when one spouse wastefully dissipates marital property through financial misconduct. The court granted G.M. a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The court declined to award G.M. spousal maintenance because her income ($130,755 in 2014) made her the 'monied spouse' capable of self-support, especially compared to M.M.'s claimed earnings ($107,268 in 2014). The court also found the parties' 19-year-old child, R.M., to be self-supporting due to full-time employment, thus M.M. had no child support obligation for him. The core of the decision centered on equitable distribution. The court recognized that marriage is an economic partnership and that equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution, with trial courts vested with broad discretion. Applying Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) factors, particularly 'wasteful dissipation of assets' (factor 12) and the 'wild card' factor ('any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper,' factor 14), the court determined that M.M.'s conduct constituted financial misconduct. G.M. met her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that M.M. had wastefully dissipated marital assets by financially supporting A.S. and their two children from 2003 until the divorce action commenced, using marital funds from their joint checking account for rent, cable, and other expenses. This conduct, coupled with M.M.'s unilateral election of a lifetime-only municipal pension option without provision for G.M., justified a disproportionate distribution. Therefore, the court awarded G.M. sole and exclusive title and 100% of the equity in the marital residence and 65% of M.M.'s tax-deferred annuity. M.M.'s municipal pension, accrued during the marriage (90% marital), was to be divided such that G.M. received 45% based on the Majauskas formula. The court denied M.M.'s requests for equal distribution of the marital residence equity, distribution of second mortgage proceeds, contribution to IRS deficiencies, and counsel fees.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that economic fault, specifically the wasteful dissipation of marital assets through supporting an extramarital relationship, is a relevant and powerful factor in New York's equitable distribution scheme. It demonstrates that courts will use their broad discretion to make disproportionate awards to remedy such misconduct, even when traditional maintenance or child support may not be applicable. Future cases involving marital infidelity or other financial impropriety that deplete marital resources are likely to cite this decision, emphasizing the importance of transparency and marital financial fidelity in the context of divorce and equitable distribution.
