Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said this appeal concerns the equitable distribution of several corporate assets acquired by Plaintiff Husband (hereafter Plaintiff) prior to and during his marriage to Defendant Wife (hereafter Defendant). The Supreme Court’s order outlining the equitable distribution of these assets was under scrutiny in this appeal. The Plaintiff possessed an interest in several corporate entities. Such interests included 1/3 interest in a family-owned hardware store, a 1/3 interest in BSH Park Row, LLC and a 12.9% interest in HGH Family LLC.
A Nassau County Divorce Attorney said the Appellate Division addressed each asset separately. As to the 1/3 interest in the family-owned hardware store, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s finding that the asset was separate property of the Plaintiff and therefore not subject to equitable distribution. Although the interest in the hardware store was acquired during the marriage, the Appellate Division agreed the interest was a “gift from a party other than the spouse.” In this instance it was a gift given to the Plaintiff from his father and uncle. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s ruling by awarding Defendant a 25% share of the appreciation value of the Plaintiff’s interest. The Appellate Division stated that the 25% interest in the appreciation “will take into account the defendant’s limited involvement in the plaintiff’s business, while not ignoring the direct and indirect contributions she made as the primary caretaker of the parties’ children, as a homemaker, and as a social companion to the plaintiff, while foregoing her career.”
As to the Plaintiff’s 1/3 interest in BSH Park Row, LLC, a holding company whose sole asset is a building in which the hardware store is situated, the Appellate Division overturned the decision of the Supreme Court. The property was acquired during the marriage and the Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that he used separate funds for the purchase of his portion of the property’s acquisition costs. As a result, the Defendant was awarded a 25% share of the Plaintiff’s interest in BSH.
A Nassau County Corporate Divorce Attorney reversed the decision of the Supreme Court as to the Plaintiff’s 12.9% interest in HGH Family LLC, which operates an MRI facility. The interest was held in the Plaintiff’s name, however the two parties entered into an oral stipulation of settlement where the entire interested would be deemed marital property.
The distribution of assets during divorce proceedings can be complicated. Even more so when the assets include corporate entities. The experienced divorce lawyers at Simonetti & Associates can assist you in protecting your interests.
