Roffman v. Roffman
| Decision Date | 09 December 1983 |
| Parties | Marianne ROFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. Edward A. ROFFMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
This divorce proceeding involves the termination of a thirty-two year marriage. The issues include the valuation of the stock in a closely held corporation, whether the stock constitutes separate or marital property, and the equitable distribution of the marital property.
II. VALUATION OF PROPERTY:
The parties stipulated at trial that the fair market value of the cooperative apartment owned by Mr. Roffman was $305,000, as of the commencement of the action, and $350,000 at the time of trial. * They also stipulated that the present cash value of Mr. Roffman's interest in a profit sharing trust was $136,570.
With the exception of the sum of $13,000 inherited by Mrs. Roffman and Mr. Roffman's stock in a closely held furniture business, there is no real dispute that all other assets of the parties constitute marital property accumulated during marriage pursuant to D.R.L. § 236 B, subd. (1), par. (c).
One of the major disputes at trial concerned the value of Mr. Roffman's interest in this closely held corporation, Edward Axel Roffman Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "E.A.R., Inc."). Mr. Roffman started a furniture design business in 1949, three years prior to his marriage. The business was incorporated in 1955 and the company began manufacturing furniture in the early sixties. He owned all of the common shares (the only issue of stock) until 1973, when he gave 5% to a trusted and valued employee.
III. CORPORATE STOCK AS A MARITAL ASSET:
D.R.L. § 236 B, subd. (1), par. (d), defines "separate property" to include "property acquired before marriage". The issue before this Court is whether Mr. Roffman's E.A.R., Inc. stock is separate property and not subject to equitable distribution by virtue of the fact that the business existed, albeit on a much smaller scale, prior to the marriage of the parties. It is Mr. Roffman's position that his present holdings represent merely an appreciation in value of the furniture business he began prior to marriage.
The equitable distribution law recognizes the principle that marriage is a joint enterprise and that the efforts of a homemaker should be recognized:
The concept of equitable distribution is a corollary of the principle that marriage is a joint enterprise whose vitality, success and endurance is dependent upon the conjunction of multiple components, only one of which is financial. The nonremunerated efforts of raising children, making a home, performing a myriad of personal services and providing physical and emotional support are, among other noneconomic ingredients of the marital relationship, at least as essential to its nature and maintenance as are the economic factors, and their worth is consequently entitled to substantial recognition.
.
The statute specifically provides that contributions and services of a "spouse, parent, wage earner and homemaker" shall be considered in the distribution of marital property (D.R.L. § 236 B, subd. par. ). On the other hand, property acquired prior to marriage is "not produced by partnership effort" and therefore not subject to distribution (2, Foster & Freed, Law and the Family, 1983 Supp., p. 814).
There is some dispute whether the contributions of a homemaker should be considered in the distribution of the increase in value of separate property. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Price
...Unity and related companies constituted "separate property" (see, Wegman v. Wegman, (N.Y.Sup.), 494 N.Y.S.2d 933; cf. Roffman v. Roffman, 124 Misc.2d 636, 476 N.Y.S.2d 713), we disagree with the court's conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled to share to some extent in the appreciation of......
-
Wegman v. Wegman
...divorce action which was subsequently withdrawn. Many courts have valued assets at the time of trial (see, e.g., Roffman v. Roffman, 124 Misc.2d 636, 476 N.Y.S.2d 713 Stein v. Stein, N.Y.L.J., Aug. 19, 1982, p. 12, col. 3 Martinez v. Martinez, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 13, 1981, p. 17, col. 5 In other......
-
McLeod v. McLeod, s. 8412DC647
...equitable distribution when the marriage breaks down. See Hall v. Hall, 462 A.2d 1179, 1181-82 (Me.1983). See also Roffman v. Roffman, 124 Misc.2d 636, 476 N.Y.S.2d 713 (1983) (term "separate property" not applicable to growth of a business that was the primary economic foundation of a leng......
-
Nardini v. Nardini
...v. Kelly, 86 Nev. 301, 468 P.2d 359 (1970) (increase in value due to efforts of others was separate property); Roffman v. Roffman, 124 Misc.2d 636, 476 N.Y.S.2d 713 (1983) (term "increase in value of separate property" not applicable to growth of a business that was the primary economic fou......
-
§ 10.02 The Separate Property Business
...See Segal, "An Oklahoma Oilman's Billion-Dollar Divorce," The New York Times, at B1 (Nov. 11, 2014).[142] Roffman v. Roffman, 124 Misc.2d 636, 476 N.Y.S.2d 713 (1983).[143] Id., 476 N.Y.S.2d at 715-716. See also, Phillips v. Phillips, 73 N.C. App. 68, 326 S.E.2d 57 (1985).[144] See, e.g., W......
-
§ 6.04 Appreciation of Separate Property During Marriage
...615 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). Tennessee: Wade v. Wade, 897 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn. App. 1994). [142] See, e.g.: Roffman v. Roffman, 124 Misc.2d 636, 476 N.Y.S.2d 713 (N.Y. Sup. 1983); Jolis v. Jolis, 111 Misc.2d 965, 446 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. Sup. 1981), aff'd 98 A.D.2d 692, 470 N.Y.S.2d 5......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...McNaughton v. McNaughton, supra. See Scavone v. Scavone, 243 N.J. Super. 134, 578 A.2d 1230 (1990). [477] See, e.g., Roffman v. Roffman, 476 N.Y.S.2d 713, 124 Misc.2d 636 (1983). See also, Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 509 N.Y.S.2d 342 (1986). See N. 60 supra.[478] See Curylo v. Curylo,......