Tag Archive for: equitable distribution

Appraisals for Divorce

An appraisal may be needed to ascertain an accurate value of an asset in a divorce or estate matter. Assets that may require an appraisal include real property, jewelry, vehicles, antiques, and even retirement plans. Parties may elect to use one appraiser or have their own independent appraisers. When choosing an appraiser, it is important to make sure the appraiser is licensed or certified. A licensed appraiser has met the minimum requirements for practice. A certified appraiser must complete additional classroom hours and practice in the field. A list of all licensed and certified appraisers is available online. You should also make sure the appraiser you select has prior experience with the exact type of appraisal sought. This would include experience in the geographic market, the type of property, and intended use of the property.

You should discuss with the appraiser if any information you supply to them is confidential and should not be included in their report. You should also make it clear who the appraiser is permitted to discuss the appraisal with and/or share the report with. For example, you may not want to share certain information with the opposing party. You should be clear about the valuation date for the appraisal. This may be the date of purchase, date of separation, date of death, or current value. Per the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, appraisers are not permitted to revise an appraisal to account for a different valuation date after completion. Instead, the standards require a completely new appraisal which is not cost-efficient. Finally, you should ascertain whether your appraiser would be available as witness if their testimony in a court hearing becomes necessary. This is generally an additional cost above the cost of the appraisal itself.

by

Market Experience on Accounts

Certain accounts that may be considered marital property and up for division in the context of a divorce can have fluctuating value based on the market. For example, mutual funds, stock benefits, 401ks, and annuities will reflect gains and losses that can change daily. Similar to other assets, the cut-off date for value purposes is technically the date of separation however gains and losses on that date of separation value through the date of distribution are also considered marital. This can result in a significant sum for an account with a large balance or in the instance of a lengthy separation period.

It is good practice to work with an experienced family law attorney and/or retirement division attorney or actuary to ensure you are getting an equitable distribution of these types of assets. To the extent a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is necessary, your attorney can draft/review an Order with the appropriate language to effectuate the desired distribution. A QDRO is a document that identifies the plan to be divided and gives specific details as to how that division will take place and what rights the party receiving the funds, referred to as the alternate payee, will have going forward. Failure to address the market experience can result in an unfair distribution.

by

How to Divide Your Retirement Plan

Retirement plans are often one of the significant assets up for distribution in the course of a divorce. Careful attention should be given to the type of retirement plan at issue to avoid tax penalties and/or early withdrawal penalties to the extent possible. Additionally, the type of retirement plan will dictate what will be necessary in terms of documentation or court orders to effectuate the rollover. Non-qualified plans include individual retirement accounts or IRAs. These can usually be rolled over by completion of a form with the applicable institution. You should still do a direct rollover to a similar account to avoid taxes and/or withdrawal fees.

Qualified plans include defined contribution plans such as 401Ks as well as defined benefit plans such as pensions. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) will be necessary to distribute a qualified plan. A QDRO is a document that identifies the plan to be divided and gives specific details as to how that division will take place and what rights the party receiving the funds, referred to as the alternate payee, will have going forward. Rights of the alternate payee may include receiving cost of living adjustments similar to the plan participant and being able to elect their own survivor beneficiary for their interest in the plan. Both qualified and non-qualified plans will be taxable as distributed. The QDRO effectuates a tax-free rollover of funds to the spouse being awarded a share of the retirement plan in divorce but the spouse will be taxed on it when they withdraw it.

by

Diminishing Credit

,

Diminishing credit is a concept that property brought into a marriage loses its separate nature and becomes marital in nature as the marriage progresses. The court may give credit for separate property brought into the marriage depending on the circumstances. Generally, any credit to be received decreases with the length of the marriage. For example, Bucks County will reduce the credit by 5% a year such that there is no longer a credit after 20 years. A prime example of a situation where this rule would be applicable is the purchase of a marital home. Say Spouse A contributed $40,000 of their pre-marital money to the purchase of the house. If the parties separated after 5 years, the amount of Spouse A’s individual contribution is reduced by 25%. Accordingly, Spouse A would argue that 75% of the $40,000 down payment, or $30,000, is their separate property and not subject to equitable distribution in the divorce. In contrast, Chester County applies a 10% reduction per year so that after 10 years there is no credit. In the above example, after 5 years 50% of the credit will have vanished so that Spouse A would only be able to assert $20,000 as separate property not subject to equitable distribution.

Since the diminishing credit is not a statute or official rule but more or less a policy used by the respective Masters when looking at the marital estate in a divorce matter, it varies from county and county. In that regard, it is important to work with an attorney who is familiar with the county where you are seeking a divorce. It is practical advice to avoid where possible the commingling of individual property with marital property. It will be hard to make an argument on the amount of individual property that should be credited to a party if it’s hard to trace the source of the funds. You ultimately risk all of the assets being addressed as marital property in equitable distribution and subject to division with your spouse if you cannot provide clear proof of their separate nature.

by

Workers Compensation Awards

Pennsylvania law does recognize workers’ compensation awards as marital property subject distribution in a divorce action. In order for the award to be classified as marital, the underlying injury creating the eligibility for workers’ compensation must have occurred during the marriage. Pennsylvania generally utilizes the timing of the receipt of assets for identifying marital property. The court still has the discretion to consider the purpose of the award and other equitable considerations when determining what percentage should go to each spouse in distributing the marital estate.

Drake v. Drake, 725 A.2d 717 (1999), is one of the cases that explains Pennsylvania’s stance on workers’ compensation awards. In the opinion, the court rejects the analytic approach which only allows an award to be marital if it’s intended to replace lost wages during the marriage. It disagreed with the other approach which is to classify an award as separate property if it is intended to replace future lost earnings extending beyond the end of the marriage. In Drake, Husband had sustained an injury in 1985. By 1989 he had entered an agreement with his employer to receive a lump sum commutation award. The parties did not separate until 1993. The court held that surely the right to receive the award had accrued during the marriage and was accordingly, marital property subject to equitable distribution.

by

Vanishing Credit

In certain circumstances, the court may give credit for separate property brought into the marriage. Generally, any credit to be received decreases with the length of the marriage. For example, Bucks County will reduce the credit by 5% a year such that there is no longer a credit after 20 years. A prime example of a situation where this rule would be applicable is the purchase of a marital home. Say Spouse A contributed $40,000 of their pre-marital money to the purchase of the house. If the parties separated after 5 years, the amount of Spouse A’s individual contribution is reduced by 25%. Accordingly, Spouse A would argue that 75% of the $40,000 down payment, or $30,000, is their separate property and not subject to equitable distribution in the divorce. Chester County may apply a vanishing credit over the course of 10 years such that the credit vanishes in 10% increments.

The rules on credit for individual or pre-marital property can vary county to county since it’s not a statute, but more or less a policy used by the respective Masters when looking at the marital estate in a divorce matter. It is important to be familiar with the policy in the county where you are pursuing a divorce. Another practice tip is to avoid mixing individual property with marital property. It will be very difficult to make an argument on the amount of individual property that should be credited to a party if it’s impossible to trace the source of the funds. An experienced family law attorney can help you navigate these issues.

by

Treatment of Pensions in Divorce

Pensions are subject to division in a divorce to the extent one of the parties earned the pension benefit during the marriage. The court will equitably divide the marital portion of a pension plan after considering all the relevant factors in equitable distribution. The marital portion of a plan would be the portion that accrued from the date of marriage through the date of separation. An entire pension will be marital if the parties were married the entire time a party earned benefits under the pension. In other cases, a coverture fraction is applied based on the total years of service compared to the number of years of marriage. Pensions are often a deferred distribution asset meaning that each party will receive their share at retirement age of the participant. There is the option to do an immediate offset of the marital portion of the pension if there are other assets of comparable value.

In a deferred distribution scenario, post-separation increases in the pension plan might also be allocated between the parties. An example would include post-separation cost of living increases. Since this increase in the benefit is not due to the effort or contribution of a party the courts feel it should be shared. Increases in the benefit due to the effort or contribution of the party or their employer post-separation will be non-marital. This treatment of post-separation increases has been addressed in several cases including MacDougall v. MacDougall, 2012 PA Super 83 and

Berrington v. Berrington, 534 Pa. 393 (1993).

by

Inherited Assets

The receipt of an inheritance may impact your divorce or support case. Section 3501 of the Divorce Code defines what will be considered marital property, and up for division, versus what will be considered non-marital property. Property received as a gift, bequest, devise or descent is non-marital per 23 Pa. C.S. 3501(a). Accordingly, an inheritance that is received during the marriage can be classified as non-marital property. A problem is created if the party who receives the inheritance places the funds into a joint account and/or commingles with other funds properly classified as marital. In that scenario, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to trace which funds were from the inheritance versus which funds were marital when trying to figure out equitable distribution at some later date. As a practical tip, parties should avoid commingling inheritance funds with other marital funds. Inheritance funds should still to be disclosed in a divorce action since the separate assets of the party are a factor for equitable distribution under 23 Pa. C.S. 3502.

As it relates to support matters, money received by way of an inheritance is not to be considered income. This was established in the case of Humphreys v. DeRoss, 790 A.2d 281 (Pa. 2002) wherein the court noted that the term “inheritance” was not expressly listed in the statutory definition of “income” under 23 Pa. C.S. 4302 and so was not intended to be included. However, Humphreys also established that receipt of an inheritance may still be a factor under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-5. Rule 1910.16-5 lists factors for the court to consider for possible deviation from a guideline support obligation. One of the factors the court may consider is the assets and liabilities of the parties, including inherited assets. In E.R.L. v. C.K.L., 2015 PA Super 220, the court upheld an upward deviation of a child support award where father had just received a $600,000 inheritance. The base support award was appropriately calculated in that case without the inclusion of the inheritance money as income.

by

Steps in Equitable Distribution

Equitable distribution is the term used in Pennsylvania as it relates to division of marital property in a divorce. Marital property will consist of nearly everything acquired in either party’s name from the date of marriage through the date of separation. Equitable distribution does not mean an automatic 50/50 split of all marital property. Instead, the statute on equitable distribution sets out thirteen (13) factors to be considered when seeking to set percentages for distribution on a case-by-case basis. In any divorce involving equitable distribution, the parties should first identify all the property to be considered. Specifically, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.33 discusses the requirement of each party filing an Inventory. The Inventory should list all marital assets and debts at issue. An Inventory must be filed prior to requesting a hearing on equitable distribution.

The second part of Rule 1920.33 goes over the requirements for a pre-hearing statement. This statement is to be prepared when your case is ready to go to court on equitable distribution (i.e. after you have grounds for divorce). Again, you will need to list all marital assets and debts, however, you should also include more detailed information regarding the assets and debts such as their values or balances at date of separation and present. Corroborating documentation should be attached to the pre-hearing statement as exhibits. Appraisals may be needed to confirm the fair market value of real property or defined benefit retirement plans such as pensions. Pre-hearing statements should be filed at least sixty (60) days prior to a scheduled equitable distribution hearing. It is important to work with an experienced family law attorney when dealing with equitable distribution matters to ensure all marital property is identified and subsequently submitted to the court in a timely fashion.

by

Receipt of an Inheritance

The receipt of an inheritance may impact your divorce or support case. Section 3501 of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code defines what will be considered marital property, and up for division, versus what will be considered non-marital property. Marital property includes all property acquired by either party from the date of marriage through the date of separation. There is a presumption all property acquired during the marriage is marital regardless of how title is held (e.g. individually vs. jointly). However, property received as a gift, bequest, devise or descent is non-marital per 23 Pa. C.S. 3501(a). Accordingly, an inheritance that is received during the marriage can still be claimed as non-marital property. As a practical tip, parties should avoid commingling inheritance funds with other marital funds. Inheritance funds may still need to be disclosed since the separate assets of the party are a factor for equitable distribution under 23 Pa. C.S. 3502.

Money received by way of an inheritance should not to be considered income for a support matter. This was established in the case of Humphreys v. DeRoss, 790 A.2d 281 (Pa. 2002) wherein the court noted that the term “inheritance” was not expressly listed in the statutory definition of “income” under 23 Pa. C.S. 4302 and so was not intended to be included. However, Humphreys also established that receipt of an inheritance may still be a factor under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-5. Rule 1910.16-5 states factors for the court to consider for deviation from a guideline support obligation. One of the factors the court may consider is the assets and liabilities of the parties. In E.R.L. v. C.K.L., 2015 PA Super 220, the court upheld an upward deviation of a child support award where father had just received a $600,000 inheritance. The base support award was appropriately calculated in that case without the inclusion of the inheritance money.

by