Family Law FAQs

In a divorce, the division of assets and debts is primarily determined by the principle of Equitable Distribution. This means that property is divided in a way the court deems "fair," which does not necessarily mean a 50/50 split.



The process involves two main steps: categorizing property and then applying specific legal factors to decide how it is distributed.
1. Categorizing Property and Debts
Before anything can be divided, the court distinguishes between Marital and Separate assets and liabilities.


Marital Property/Debt: Generally includes anything acquired by either spouse during the marriage, regardless of whose name is on the title or account. This often includes:


Homes, bank accounts, and investments.


Pensions and retirement accounts (valued based on contributions made during the marriage).


Marital Debt: Credit card balances, mortgages, and loans taken out for the family's benefit during the marriage.


Separate Property/Debt: Generally remains the property or responsibility of the individual spouse. This typically includes:


Property owned prior to the marriage.


Inheritances or gifts from third parties.


Compensation for personal injuries.


Separate Debt: Debts incurred before the marriage or debt incurred during the marriage for non-marital purposes (e.g., spending related to an extramarital affair).


Note on "Commingling": Separate property can become marital property if it is mixed with marital assets—for example, depositing an inheritance into a joint bank account used for household expenses.



2. Factors for Equitable Distribution
New York courts consider several statutory factors to determine what is "equitable." These include:


Duration of the Marriage: Longer marriages often lean closer to a 50/50 split.


Income and Earning Capacity: The court looks at each spouse's current income and their future potential. A lower-earning spouse may be awarded a larger share of assets to ensure post-divorce stability.



Health and Age: The physical and mental health of both parties can influence financial needs.


Child Custody: If there are children, the court may award the custodial parent the right to remain in the marital home.


Wasteful Dissipation: If one spouse intentionally wasted or hid marital assets (e.g., gambling or excessive spending in contemplation of divorce), the court may reduce their share.


3. Handling Debts
Debts are divided similarly to assets. The court considers:


Who benefited? If a debt was used for family needs (clothing for children, home repairs), it is usually shared.


Ability to pay: The court may assign more debt to the spouse with a higher income.
Joint vs. Individual: While the court can order one spouse to pay a joint debt, it is important to know that creditors are not bound by divorce decrees. If your name remains on a joint account, a creditor can still pursue you if your ex-spouse fails to pay.

In my practice, I view conflict resolution not as a choice between "being nice" or "being tough," but as a strategic exercise in protecting my clients' long-term stability—especially when complex international assets or professional reputations are on the line.

My approach is built on three core pillars:

1. The Strategy of Negotiation First
I am a firm believer in strategic, high-stakes negotiation. My primary goal is to minimize the emotional and financial toll of a divorce. Most of my clients are looking for a way to untangle their lives—and often their global assets—with precision and privacy.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): We often utilize Mediation and the Collaborative Process. These methods allow us to craft creative solutions—such as tax-efficient ways to divide a 401(k) or handling the valuation of a professional license—that a judge might not have the flexibility to implement in a rigid courtroom setting.
Stability over Chaos: Negotiation allows us to control the outcome rather than leaving it in the hands of a third party.

2. Preparation for Litigation
While I prioritize settlements, my philosophy is: "Prepare for trial, and you are more likely to settle." I do not approach negotiation from a place of weakness. Every case is built as if it might go to an inquest or a full trial. This thorough preparation—gathering forensic valuations, preparing discovery, and identifying legal leverage—often forces the opposing side to be more reasonable at the bargaining table.

3. When Trial is Necessary
There are circumstances where trial is the only path. If an opposing party is hiding assets, acting in bad faith, or if there is a fundamental disagreement over the best interests of a child, I provide tenacious advocacy. With decades of experience, I am fully prepared to litigate complex financial or matrimonial issues to ensure my clients receive their equitable share.

In short, I prefer to negotiate because it provides the most stability for families and protects wealth. However, I never shy away from the courtroom when a client’s rights or future are being threatened.