Lynch v. Lynch

• Decision Date: 11 July 1986
• Parties: Mary L. LYNCH, Respondent, v. John T. LYNCH, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 741

505 N.Y.S.2d 741

122 A.D.2d 589

Mary L. LYNCH, Respondent, v. John T. LYNCH, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

July 11, 1986.

David R. Pfalzgraf by James P. Renda, Buffalo, for appellant.

Mattar, D'Agostino, Kogler & Runfola by James Kogler, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before DENMAN, J.P., and GREEN, PINE, BALIO and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In this action for divorce and equitable distribution, the court erred in treating the entire potential recovery from defendant's lawsuit against his former employer as marital property. Marital property is "all property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage and before * * * commencement of a matrimonial action" (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][c]; see, Rodgers v. Rodgers, 98 A.D.2d 386, 391-392, 470 N.Y.S.2d 401, appeal dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 646). Defendant's claim for breach of a long-term contract of employment relates almost entirely to employment in which defendant would have engaged subsequent to commencement of the matrimonial action. Defendant's claim for salary and benefits for periods of employment which would have taken place after commencement is conceptually indistinguishable from earnings and benefits paid to a party after commencement of the action and thus is not subject to equitable distribution (see, Wilson v. Wilson, 101 A.D.2d 536, 542, 544, 476 N.Y.S.2d 120, appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 768, 481 N.Y.S.2d 688, 471 N.E.2d 460, leave denied 64 N.Y.2d 607, 487 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 476 N.E.2d 1006; Rodgers v. Rodgers, supra ).

Additionally, the court erred in granting defendant the option to have the pension distributed in accordance with the Majauskas formula or paying plaintiff one-half of the present worth of the pension as valued at the conclusion of the litigation against defendant's former employer. While the first option is proper, the second ignores the fact that defendant's recovery of pension benefits may include amounts attributable to premarriage or postcommencement employment (see, Majauskas v. Majauskas, 94 A.D.2d 494, 497-498, 464 N.Y.S.2d 913, affd 61 N.Y.2d 481, 485-486, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 463 N.E.2d 15).

The court also erred in directing that the first $45,000 of any potential recovery from the lawsuit be placed in trust for the children's education. There is no authority for an equitable distribution or a distributive award in favor of the children of the marriage. Moreover, the court erroneously concluded that the parties had stipulated to such arrangement. The so-called stipulation, purportedly made in the course of a colloquy between the court and the defendant, failed to comply with the "opting out" provisions of the equitable...