Joseph Angello v. Lilia Angelo

Albany, New York family law lawyers represented the parties in a dissolution of marriage (divorce) action.



Plaintiff (hereinafter the husband) and defendant (hereinafter the wife) were married in 1989 and have one adult child. The husband commenced this divorce action in 2016 upon the ground of irretrievable breakdown in the marriage, prompting the wife to answer and counterclaim for divorce on several other grounds. By the time that the nonjury trial began in 2019, grounds were not contested and the focus was upon issues of equitable distribution and maintenance. The marital property at issue included a local, organic grocery distribution business primarily operated by the husband, which had incurred significant debt and had ceased operations by the time of trial, a warehouse associated with that business, and the marital residence. At the conclusion of the trial, the parties each moved for an award of counsel fees.



Supreme Court thereafter issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it found that the wife had wastefully dissipated marital assets by refusing to agree to a 2018 arrangement in which one of the marital business' competitors would have acquired the business and its customer list, assumed responsibility for $900,000 in business debt and hired its staff. Supreme Court valued the business as of the date of trial and directed that the wife be responsible for half of its $995,000 in debt, further directing that the warehouse be sold and that the sale proceeds be applied first to the debts secured by liens on the warehouse and then to the remaining business debt. Supreme Court also directed that the marital residence be sold and that the net proceeds be equally divided between the parties after adjustment to reflect temporary maintenance and counsel fee arrearages owed by the husband. The court calculated the presumptive amount of maintenance to which the wife was entitled as $914 a month, but determined that a downward deviation was warranted and directed that the husband pay $305 a month for a period of five years. The court further directed the wife to pay the husband $20,000 in counsel fees out of her share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence, finding that, while the husband was the more monied spouse, he had already incurred significant legal fees on the wife's behalf and she, in turn, had "refus[ed] to settle the matter on any terms" and behaved in a manner that severely impacted the parties' assets.



* * *



Legal issue Did the Supreme Court abuse its discretion in the equitable distribution of marital debts and assets, and in awarding counsel fees and maintenance, particularly concerning the wife's alleged dissipation of assets?

Headnote



FAMILY LAW. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION. The case involves the equitable distribution of marital assets during divorce proceedings, focusing on the valuation of marital business assets and allocation of business debt, wherein the court determined the wife had wastefully dissipated assets by rejecting a sale offer.



FAMILY LAW. SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE. The court addressed the issue of spousal maintenance, considering both parties' incomes, the husband's reduced earning potential due to business debts, and the wife's employable skills, resulting in an adjustment of the maintenance award.



FAMILY LAW. COUNSEL FEES. The ruling examined the appropriateness of an award of counsel fees, emphasizing the economic disparity between the parties, ultimately reversing the award of counsel fees to the husband, given his superior financial position.



Key Phrases Equitable distribution. Marital business valuation. Wastefully dissipated marital assets. Downward deviation. Counsel fees denial.

Modified and reversed.