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.
Marsha D. Morton, respondent, v Richard A. Morton, appellant.
Argued-December 3, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered October 27, 2008, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was to set the date of trial as the valuation date for certain marital assets, and set the valuation date for those assets as the date the action was commenced.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to set the date of trial as the valuation date for certain marital assets is granted.
At issue on this appeal is the proper valuation date for marital assets consisting of multiple business entities which own commercial real estate properties and act as the landlord for industrial and manufacturing tenants, many of which are located in the Detroit, Michigan, area. The defendant proffered evidence that a decrease in the value of these assets since the date of commencement of this action was attributable to market forces and, thus, was passive in nature. There was no evidence that a decline in the value of these assets during this period of time was due to dissipation or wasteful conduct on the part of the defendant. Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in valuing these assets as of the date of commencement of the action rather than as of the date of trial (see McSparron v. McSparron, 87 N.Y.2d 275, 287-288; Scharfman v. Scharfman, 19 AD3d 474, 475; Breese v. Breese, 256 A.D.2d 433, 433-434; Sagarin v. Sagarin, 251 A.D.2d 396, 396; Smerling v. Smerling, 177 A.D.2d 429, 430).
This determination does not preclude either party from presenting evidence at trial for the purposes of equitable distribution of any efforts which he or she alleges affected the value of the subject assets (see Breese v. Breese, 256 A.D.2d at 434).
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-11588 (Index No. 3605 /07)
Decided: January 12, 2010
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)