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.
Thomas P. COLLINS, appellant, v. Tracey DONNELLY-COLLINS, respondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered September 17, 2002, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), dated April 21, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to fix the valuation date of the former marital residence as the date of the equitable distribution trial.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The selection of the appropriate valuation dates for various assets is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, upon consideration of all of the relevant facts and circumstances in the case (see McSparron v. McSparron, 87 N.Y.2d 275, 639 N.Y.S.2d 265, 662 N.E.2d 745; Tuccillo v. Tuccillo, 8 A.D.3d 660, 778 N.Y.S.2d 898; Sagarin v. Sagarin, 251 A.D.2d 396, 674 N.Y.S.2d 127; Purpura v. Purpura, 193 A.D.2d 793, 598 N.Y.S.2d 538). Moreover, a marital residence is generally valued as of the date of the trial (see Moody v. Moody, 172 A.D.2d 730, 569 N.Y.S.2d 116; Lestrange v. Lestrange, 148 A.D.2d 587, 539 N.Y.S.2d 53; Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517) in order “to avoid the injustice to one spouse which could result from either appreciation or depreciation in the value of the residence between the date of commencement of the action and the date of trial” (Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 232, 509 N.Y.S.2d 342).
Given the dramatic increase in the value of the former marital residence since the commencement of this divorce action in April 2002, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in selecting the equitable distribution trial date as the appropriate date for valuing the former marital residence (see e.g. Wittig v. Wittig, 258 A.D.2d 883, 685 N.Y.S.2d 342; Patelunas v. Patelunas, 139 A.D.2d 883, 527 N.Y.S.2d 325; Sorrentino v. Sorrentino, 116 A.D.2d 564, 497 N.Y.S.2d 420). In this regard, the plaintiff may seek a credit or a greater equitable share of the residence to reflect any of his individual efforts which are proven to have contributed substantially to this increase in value.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: June 06, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)