Trial court properly found that special circumstances warranted valuing pension at date husband began receiving payments, rather than date of divorce, when husband retired and stopped paying wife contrary to court order.
Trial court affirmed for valuing checking account on date of separation even without finding of waste. Trial court applied “special circumstances” exception to valuation date rule due to husband’s spending during the divorce.
Trial court erred in using appraised valuation of cattle herd, where value had diminished since date of appraisal and date of trial due to death and sale of cattle.
Special circumstances warranted deviation from date of trial valuation rule due to five-month delay between trial dates and additional delay before judgment was entered.
Special circumstances allowed deviation from usual rule that estate is valued as of date of divorce where husband prepared for trial which was adjourned due to wife’s desire to reconcile.
Four and one-half year period between date of divorce and court’s final decision does not constitute the special circumstances warranting deviation from usual rule that assets are valued as of date of divorce. The “special circumstances” rule applies to conditions over which the parties have little or no control. Here a party’s own conduct contributed to the delay.
Assets are valued at time of divorce – not at time of separation, including all assets acquired during the 11 years which the divorce was pending.
Special circumstances can warrant deviation from the general rule that the assets of a marriage are to be valued and divided as of the date of the divorce.
Absent special circumstances, the date of the granting of the divorce is the proper time for the determination of the value of the estate. A final division of the estate does not have to occur on the date of the judgment.
Assets are valued as of the date the divorce is granted orally by the court.
Arbitration may constitute, but does not as a matter of law constitute, a special exception requiring property to be valued as of the date of the closing of the arbitration record instead of the date of divorce.
Increase in value of assets of nearly $7 million during seven year separation is divided 50/50, as wife made significant post-separation contributions as primary caretaker of the parties’ child.
Where a NYSE seat appreciated considerably in value during the pendency of a divorce case, the court did not abuse its discretion in using the higher value as of the date of the hearing. The increase was due to “passive” factors, rather than to the efforts of either party.
Valuation as of DOD rather than date of separation – 17 years earlier – affirmed where husband paid monthly support to wife throughout the separation.