Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mary Ann GURBACKI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert GURBACKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Plaintiff commenced this divorce action in December 1994. Supreme Court did not err in determining that the 1994 contribution of defendant to his Keogh plan was subject to equitable distribution. Although the contribution was not made until April 1995, after the commencement of the divorce action, the court properly determined that it came from 1994 earnings.
The parties entered into a written property settlement agreement and a custody agreement that were incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. The court properly determined that, pursuant to the property settlement agreement, plaintiff is entitled to one half of defendant's Keogh plan and that defendant is entitled to one half of plaintiff's 401K, IRA and pension plans. The court erred, however, in directing that the parties are entitled to one half of the average appreciation of those plans from 1994 to the present. The property settlement agreement is an independent contract that is subject to the principles of contract interpretation (see, Rainbow v. Swisher, 72 N.Y.2d 106, 109, 531 N.Y.S.2d 775, 527 N.E.2d 258; Keith v. Keith, 241 A.D.2d 820, 822, 661 N.Y.S.2d 74; De Gaust v. De Gaust, 237 A.D.2d 862, 655 N.Y.S.2d 670), and it provided that the date of valuation of the retirement plans was the date of the commencement of the action. Because the value of defendant's retirement plan exceeds that of plaintiff's, defendant must pay plaintiff the difference. Considering the delay in the final resolution of this matter, we exercise our discretion to award plaintiff interest on that amount at the statutory rate (see, CPLR 5004) from the date of commencement of the action (see, Selinger v. Selinger, 232 A.D.2d 471, 473, 648 N.Y.S.2d 470, lv. dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 981, 656 N.Y.S.2d 739, 678 N.E.2d 1355, 90 N.Y.2d 842, 660 N.Y.S.2d 709, 683 N.E.2d 331, rearg. denied 90 N.Y.2d 937, 664 N.Y.S.2d 275, 686 N.E.2d 1370; Trivedi v. Trivedi, 222 A.D.2d 499, 635 N.Y.S.2d 78). We thus modify the order accordingly.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 29, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)