New York Divorce Lawyer Blog
In high-net-worth New York divorces, disputes over spousal maintenance, child support, and the division of valuable real estate often hinge on how courts weigh factors such as earning capacity, parenting roles, and lifestyle needs. Complications can arise, however, when one party challenges the fairness of a property award or seeks to impute income based on education and potential, even when the other parent has assumed the bulk of child-rearing responsibilities. A recent decision issued in a New York divorce action highlights how trial courts balance these factors to craft equitable outcomes. If you are involved in a divorce involving unequal incomes, substantial assets, or questions of income imputation, it is critical to speak with a knowledgeable New York divorce attorney about how the law may apply to your circumstances.
History of the Case
It is reported that the parties were married in 2010 and had three children over the course of the marriage. Allegedly, the wife filed for divorce in June 2021, seeking custody, spousal maintenance, child support, and other relief. The husband counterclaimed for divorce and requested similar remedies. The parties subsequently stipulated to joint legal and shared physical custody, agreed to valuations of their two real properties (a marital residence and a lake house), and stipulated to their 2021 incomes.
Allegedly, following a trial, the trial court issued an order in February 2024 granting the divorce and distributing the marital residence to the husband and the lake house to the wife. The court also awarded the wife $5,000 per month in spousal maintenance, $13,657 per month in child support, and $100,000 in counsel fees. Additionally, the court granted the wife’s motion to hold the husband in contempt for five violations of prior orders, imposing $250 fines per violation. The husband appealed both the order and the resulting April 2024 final judgment.
Equitable Distribution and Financial Credits
On appeal, the husband contested the trial court’s refusal to credit him for mortgage, tax, and insurance payments he made on both properties during the pendency of the action. The husband
further objected to the court’s refusal to impute full-time income to the wife. The court ultimately rejected the husband’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s decisions, emphasizing the broad discretion granted to courts under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B).
With respect to equitable distribution, the appellate court held that there is no requirement for a 50-50 split of each asset and found the trial court’s allocation reasonable given the income disparity, future earning potential, and the wife’s share in the husband’s medical practice. The court noted that deviations from equal distribution are appropriate when justified by statutory factors.
Regarding imputed income, the court reiterated that income imputation may be based on qualifications and earning capacity but is not required. The wife’s part-time status, her role as the children’s primary caregiver, and the lack of evidence she was underemployed for strategic reasons supported the trial court’s decision not to impute full-time income.
The court also upheld the trial court’s rejection of speculative investment income calculations based on hypothetical returns. Regarding maintenance, the court endorsed a $5,000 monthly award, which combined the statutory presumptive amount with additional support based on the wife’s needs and the marital standard of living. The duration of 40.5 months was deemed appropriate under the statutory guidelines.
Regarding child support, the court upheld the calculation based on a combined income of $635,000 and rejected the husband’s claim that the court had failed to consider tax implications, noting that not every factor must be explicitly addressed.
Finally, the court acknowledged the husband’s obligation to maintain life insurance coverage for his support obligations, clarified the permissible structure of that coverage, and upheld the contempt findings based on repeated disobedience of court orders.
Talk to a Skilled New York Divorce Attorney
Divorce actions involving complex financial and custodial considerations require a careful balancing of legal principles and equitable outcomes. If you are navigating a high-stakes divorce involving substantial assets, income disparities, or support claims, it is essential to consult a knowledgeable New York family law attorney. Attorney Ksenia Rudyuk of Rudyuk Law Firm has extensive experience handling sophisticated divorce matters and can help you understand your rights and obligations under New York law. You can contact us at (212) 706-2001 or complete our online form to schedule a consultation.