NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
Cosmo Lex
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

  • 1.  Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-14-2017 12:59 PM
    I've heard judges, settlement panelists, adversaries all say that we don't generally divide student loan debt since we don't divide the value of a degree (unlike in NY, where, for instance, if a spouse gets a medical degree during the marriage, it's a million dollar asset to divide - less the cost of obtaining it).

    I have an adversary who doesn't do much family and is reasonably enough asking for some legal support as to why $75,000 in student loan debt used for client to obtain Masters in Psychology shouldn't be marital debt subject to distribution / an offset against house equity being divided.

    It's one of those things that "we just know", yet... Is there a specific case? It feels like it'd be related to reimbursement alimony? Any authority for it aside from "I've heard it said"?


    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>


  • 2.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-14-2017 01:01 PM

    David:

     

    Was the debt incurred during the marriage?

     

    Robert E. Goldstein, Esq.
    Drescher & Cheslow, P.A.

    610 Bridge Plaza Drive

    Manalapan, NJ 07726

    (732) 972-1600
    Fax (732) 972-0038
    E-mail: [email protected]

     

    Visit my personal website:  www.mydivorcelawyernj.com

    Member, Middlesex County Bar Association,  Monmouth Bar Association, New Jersey Association for Justice and New Jersey State Bar Association

                                      

     

    IRS Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with certain regulations promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein, unless expressly stated otherwise.

    This E-Mail message and any documents accompanying this E-Mail transmission contain information from the law firm of Drescher & Cheslow, P.A. which is "Privileged and confidential attorney-client communication and/or work product of counsel." If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution and/or the taking of or refraining from taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this E-Mail information is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action being instituted against you. Please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission and delete the message and any accompanying documents from your system immediately. Thank you

     




    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-14-2017 01:12 PM

    Uh...yes. Is the part where people are going to say "what? I've seen judges divide student loan debt even though we don't divide the value of the degree"? I hope not...



    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.MurphyExposed.org
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-14-2017 01:41 PM

    I don't know how others feel, but if there is a large alimony obligation by debtor of the student loan, the loan was incurred during the marriage, and the education allowed the debtor spouse to produce the income that is now being used as a basis for the alimony, I think there is an argument to be made that the loan is a marital debt. Then the issue becomes what division should be made equitably.

     

    I would be interested in others' views. I do not know of any case law on this, however.

     

    Robert E. Goldstein, Esq.
    Drescher & Cheslow, P.A.

    610 Bridge Plaza Drive

    Manalapan, NJ 07726

    (732) 972-1600
    Fax (732) 972-0038
    E-mail: [email protected]

     

    Visit my personal website:  www.mydivorcelawyernj.com

    Member, Middlesex County Bar Association,  Monmouth Bar Association, New Jersey Association for Justice and New Jersey State Bar Association

                                     

     

    IRS Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with certain regulations promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein, unless expressly stated otherwise.

    This E-Mail message and any documents accompanying this E-Mail transmission contain information from the law firm of Drescher & Cheslow, P.A. which is "Privileged and confidential attorney-client communication and/or work product of counsel." If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution and/or the taking of or refraining from taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this E-Mail information is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action being instituted against you. Please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission and delete the message and any accompanying documents from your system immediately. Thank you

     




    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-14-2017 03:34 PM

    There's case law that says that student loan payments should be considered when determining support. In Lozner v. Lozner, 388 N.J.Super. 471, 480 (App. Div.2006), the App Div affirmed a trial court deviating downward from the CSG to take into account the obligor's student loan payments (not a dollar for dollar reduction, but some consideration).

    I think the same reasoning would apply when determining spousal support (assuming the spouse who got the degree is the payor) - that mandatory GSL payments are a factor. And, obviously, if marital assets were expended in obtaining a degree, that's why there's reimbursement alimony, but I'm talking about actually dividing the loan itself as a martial debt. I have a recent case where wife incurred $400,000 in student loans for undergrad and dental school. Husband isn't going to share in the value of the dental degree, so why would he share the cost associated with obtaining it? It would seem to be akin to saying "okay, outstanding car loan will be divided, but spouse A keeps the car with no offset."

    Still looking for a case - best I can find as of now is what's essentially dicta in  Cox v. Cox,  ("We observe, however, that while defendant is responsible for Heather's college costs, plaintiff is burdened with the cost of her own higher education debts. ..").


    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.MurphyExposed.org
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-14-2017 03:48 PM

    I was just alerted off-list that this issue was the subject of an article in the New Jersey Family Lawyer last year:

    https://higherlogicdownload.s3-external-1.amazonaws.com/NJSBA/FamilyLawv36n5April2016.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJH5D4I4FWRALBOUA&Expires=1492202680&Signature=baNEcF4XTUW%2FEHbIEmpM3HQnsIU%3D

    Still reading it, but I'm sure the answer is in there.


    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.MurphyExposed.org
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222


    The Division of Spousal Student Loan Debt in
    Divorce
    by Christopher Rade Musulin
    In Mahoney v. Mahoney,1 the New Jersey Supreme Court permitted a non-degreed spouse to recoup money for financial contributions toward the acquisition of an advanced degree by the other spouse. The restitution remedy was termed “reimbursement alimony” by Justice Morris Pashman, writing for a unanimous Court in an opinion also holding that an advanced degree—in this case, an MBA—was not property subject to equitable distribution. The opinion is now frequently cited and routinely applied in New Jersey family part litigation to compensate the non-degreed spouse for monies previously expended throughout the course of the marriage related to the acquisition of a college or advanced degree for the other spouse.
    Since Mahoney was decided 33 years ago, long before the explosion of costs related to the acquisition of a college or advanced degree, the Supreme Court has not yet specifically addressed responsibility for spousal student loan debt existing at the time of a divorce. Trial courts and attorneys have since struggled with the issue due to the fact that New Jersey case law decided after Mahoney offers little direction or analysis. In fact, responsibility for such debt has been the subject of dozens of learned opinions in other jurisdictions across the country, with clear principles emerging to analyze and attribute responsibility for spousal student loan debt.
    The logic of Mahoney, when read in conjunction with these opinions, creates complementary restitutive standards to address both previous expenditures throughout the marriage as well as debt existing as of the date of the filing of the complaint related to the acquisition of a college or advanced degree.
    The New Reality of Spousal Student Loan Debt in Divorce
    The division of spousal student loan debt in divorce is largely a function of post-Mahoney socioeconomic trends. It is well established that people are now marrying later in life, more people are pursuing higher education, and the expense of attending a college or a university has increased dramatically.2 It is not uncommon for litigants initiating a divorce to confront enormous student loan debt, upwards of $25,000, $50,000 or even $75,000. Next to a mortgage, student loan debt is often the most significant financial obligation incidental to the matrimonial estate. Mahoney—A Restitutive Remedy for Monies
    Previously Expended During the Marriage
    The Mahoney Court was presented with a very narrow issue: whether an MBA degree is considered property and, therefore, subject to equitable distribution in a divorce. For a number of important reasons, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to treat professional degrees as marital property subject to distribution. However, in attempting to create a remedy for the non-degreed spouse, the Court surveyed decisions from many sister jurisdictions and recognized the existence of certain divorce-related remedies to compensate a spouse who supports another spouse in the acquisition of a learned degree during a marriage.
    In fashioning a remedy, Justice Pashman wrote:
    Where a partner to marriage takes the benefits of his spouse’s support in obtaining a professional degree or license with the understanding that future benefits will accrue and inure to both of them, and the marriage is then terminated without the supported spouse giving
    anything in return, an unfairness has occurred that calls for a remedy.
    In this case, the supporting spouse made financial contributions towards her husband’s professional education with the expectation that both parties would enjoy material benefits flowing from the professional license or degree. It is therefore patently unfair that the supporting spouse be denied the mutually anticipated benefit while the supported spouse keeps not only the degree, but also all of the financial and material rewards flowing from it.3 The Court, therefore, specifically held as follows: To provide a fair and effective means of compensating a supporting spouse who has suffered a loss or reduction of support, or has incurred a lower standard of living, or has been deprived of a better standard of living in the future, the Court now introduces the concept of reimbursement alimony into divorce proceed-ings. The concept properly accords with the Court’s belief that regardless of the appropri-ateness of permanent alimony or the presence or absence of marital property to be equitably distributed, there will be circumstances where a supporting spouse should be reimbursed for the financial contributions he or she made to the spouse’s successful professional training. Such reimbursement alimony should cover all finan-cial contributions towards the former spouse’s education, including household expenses, educational costs, school travel expenses and any other contributions used by the supported spouse in obtaining his or her degree or license.4 The Mahoney Court articulated a restitutive remedy to compensate a non-degreed spouse for past expendi-tures made during the course of the marriage that either directly or indirectly assisted the degreed spouse in achieving his or her diploma. What the Mahoney Court did not specifically address (as the issue was not before it) was responsibility for spousal student loan debt exist-ing as of the initiation of the divorce case. As discussed above, this is likely due to the fact that significant student loan debt was not a common circumstance at the time the opinion was authored in 1983. Legal Principles from Sister Jurisdictions, Which Have Specifically Addressed Spousal Student Loan Debt in Divorce Many United States jurisdictions apply community property principles to address the division of assets and debts in divorce. Presently, there are 10 community prop-erty jurisdictions in America: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Wash-ington and Wisconsin. Despite the difference between community property and equitable distribution concepts, similar principles and trends emerge to address spousal student loan debt. Dozens of decisions from both community property and equitable distribution jurisdictions can be cited that identify three common principles utilized by the majority of American jurisdictions when addressing the issue.5 Use of the Loan Proceeds Based upon a survey of case law in all United States jurisdictions, the primary inquiry advanced in each reported opinion relates to the use of the loan proceeds.6 In the event the loan proceeds are used strictly for educa-tional purposes such as payment of tuition, the degreed spouse is generally held responsible for the debt. Howev-er, in the event the loan proceeds are used for general living expenses such as housing, utilities, childcare, groceries, etc., the debt is almost always divided between the divorcing spouses. In Wharton v. Wharton,7 the Delaware court deter-mined both parties should be responsible for the wife’s student loan debt because the proceeds were used for non-educational purposes, including family living expenses. The same result was reached in Eldrige v. Eldridge,8 where loan proceeds were used for childcare and household expenses. Contrast these decisions with Piotti v. Piotti,9 where the Pennsylvania Superior Court held the wife respon-sible for student loan debt utilized exclusively for her educational expenses.10 Date of Debt Creation and Length of Marriage11 A second principle that emerges from decisional authority surveyed concerns the timing of the debt in relation to the length of the marriage.12 Specifi-cally, if the debt attendant with the degree is created early in the marriage and the marriage is of a significant length where both spouses enjoy the fruits related to the advanced degree, the decisions surveyed gener-ally require a division of the debt at the time of divorce. However, if the degree and attendant debt is acquired near the end of the marriage, the majority of reported decisions require the degree holder to be responsible for the obligation. By way of example, the responsibility of the degreed spouse for late marriage spousal student loan debt was established by the Indiana Court of Appeals holding the husband responsible for his student loans when the parties separated two months before his law school graduation, in Roberts v. Roberts.13 Similarly, in Spears v. Spears,14 the husband was required to assume $233,000 of student loan debt where he received his medical license in 2008 and the wife filed for divorce in 2009. In Warren v. Warren,15 on the other hand, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a trial court decision classifying the wife’s student loan as a marital obligation where the court found the debt was incurred during the marriage and the parties were together long enough to mutually enjoy the benefits of the wife’s advanced degree. In California, the state legislature codified a time related protocol to address spousal student loan debt. Pursuant to Section 2641 of the California Family Code, a rebuttable presumption exists that a marriage of 10 years in length or longer substantially benefits from the acquisition of a college or advanced degree, rendering the student loan debt subject to community property division. There is a slight variation on this theme. In the event premarital educational debt is paid off during the marriage, the majority of the jurisdictions surveyed addressed this in a fashion similar to the Mahoney Court, and offer some form of a restitutive remedy to the non degreed spouse. Ability to Pay16 In virtually every decision reviewed, irrespective of whether the state recognizes community property or equitable distribution, the courts almost always consider the ability of the parties to pay the debt when assigning responsibility for the obligation.17 In several of the opin-ions this represents the dispositive criteria in addressing spousal student loan debt. In Spears v. Spears,18 the Arkansas Appellate Court held that no presumption regarding responsibility or spousal student loan debt exists, and the ability of the parties to pay represents the key consideration. The rela-tive economic position of the parties and their ability to pay was likewise critical to the Supreme Court of Alaska in allocating student loan debt in the decision McDougall v. Lumpkin.19 In Indiana, the Love Court held the degreed spouse’s future earnings potential directly attributable to the degree was dispositive in assigning responsibility for the student loan debt.20 Conclusion Mahoney remains viable law to compensate a non degreed spouse for expenditures made throughout the course of the marriage. The principles identified above create a complementary restitutive remedy. Use of loan proceeds, the date of debt acquisition and length of marriage, and ability to pay represent useful criteria when determining responsibility for spousal student loan debt existing at the time of divorce complaint filing. The three-part criteria described above is consistent with the analysis articulated by the Appellate Division in Monte,21 recognized as the leading New Jersey decisional authority apportioning responsibility for debt incurred during the marriage. In Monte, Judge Neil F. Deighan stated a liability will be subject to division where both parties are cognizant of the debt incursion and benefited from the encum-brance. 22 The court also determined the timing of the debt creation is an important factor.23 If incurred at the break-up of the marriage, implicitly providing no benefit to the joint marital enterprise, it should not be appor-tioned between the parties.24 The court further noted that, irrespective of the bona fides of the debt as a marital obligation, consistent with Painter,25 it can be dispropor-tionately allocated based upon ability to pay.26 Consistent with Monte, a party seeking the equi-table distribution of spousal student loan debt existing at the time of complaint filing has the evidential burden of establishing traceable debt obligations subject to division. Counsel should be vigilant in fashioning discovery inquiries to specifically address all aspects of spousal student loan debt, including origination docu-mentation, depository and bank statements, as well as the preparation of interrogatories and request for admissions specifically designed to identify and address the use of loan proceeds. Christopher Rade Musulin is a principal with Musulin Law Firm, LLC, in Mount Holly.
    Endnotes 1. Mahoney v. Mahoney, 91 N.J. 488 (1982). 2. See Pew Research Ctr., the Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families 11 (2010), available at pewsocialtrends.org/ files/2010/11/pew-social-trends-2010-families.pdf [perma.cc/XUS9-ESNN] (archived March 8, 2014). See also Alex Richards, Census Date Shows Rise in College Degrees, but also in Racial Gaps in Education, Chron, Higher Educ. ( Jan. 23, 2011), chronicle.com/article/Census-Data-Reveal-Rise-in/126026/ [http://perma.cc/ZW5L-EXQ2] (archived March 8, 2014); Larry Doyle, Are Student Loans and Impending Bubble? Is Higher Education a Scam?, Benzinga (April 26, 2011, 9 a.m.), benzinga.com/11/04/1032314/are-student-loans-an-impending-bubble-is-higher education-a-scam [http://perma.cc/UU4S-FSNM] (archived March 8, 2014). 3. Mahoney, supra, 91 N.J. at 500. 4. Id. at 501. 5. Alaska  McDougall v. Lumpkin, 2004 Alas. LEXIS 100 (Alaska Supreme Court, Aug. 4, 2004). Arizona  Leas v. Leas, 2013 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 780 (Arizona Appeals Court, Division 1, July 11, 2013); Porter v. Porter, 2008 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 456 (Arizona Appeals Court, Division 1, Sept. 30, 2008). Arkansas  Adams v. Adams, 2014 Ark. App. 67 (Arkansas Appeals Court, Jan. 22, 2014). Colorado  In re Marriage of Speirs, 956 P.2d 622 (Court of Appeals, Oct. 16, 1997). Delaware  Wharton v. Wharton, 2012 Del. LEXIS 228 (Family Court, April 25, 2012). Indiana  J.R. v. M.R., 2010 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 910 (Court of Appeals, July 1, 2010). Iowa  In re Marriage of Schoepske, 838 N.W.2d 868 (Court of Appeals, Aug. 7, 2013); In re Marriage of Deol, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 820 (Court of Appeals, July 28, 2010). Kansas  In re Marriage of Bradshaw, 792 P.2d 1077 (Court of Appeals, May 25, 1990). Kentucky  Kelley v. Kelley, 2014 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 777 (Court of Appeals, Oct. 3, 2014). Minnesota  Hlavac v. Hlavac, 2012 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 17 (Court of Appeals, Jan. 9, 2012). New Hampshire  Bourdon v. Bourdon, 119 N.H. 518 (Supreme Court, June 27, 1979). New York  A.C. v. J.O., 40 Misc. 3d 1226(A) (Supreme Court, 2nd JD, Aug. 12, 2013). North Carolina  Warren v. Warren, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 517 (Court of Appeals, June 16, 2015). Ohio  Daniel v. Daniel, 2012  Ohio-5129 (3rd District Ohio Court of Appeals, Nov. 5, 2012). Pennsylvania  Piotti v. Piotti, 2015 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1795 (PA Superior Court, June 17, 2015); Lucas v. Daum, 2015 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1738 (PA Superior Court, June 15, 2015). Tennessee  Jannerbo v. Jannerbo, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 155 (Appeals Eastern Grand Division, March 9, 2012). Virginia  Layne v. Layne, 2009 Va. App. LEXIS 468 (Court of Appeals, Oct. 20, 2009); Korku Damankah v. Katasha Spurlin Damankah, 2011 Va. Cir. LEXIS 82 (Circuit Court, 23rd JC, July 5, 2011). 6. See id. 7. Wharton v. Wharton, 2012 Del. LEXIS 228 (DE 2012) (published in table format at 44 A.3d 923). 8. Eldridge v. Eldridge, 291 Ga. 762 (GA 2012). 9. Piotti v. Piotti, 2015 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1795. 10. Id. 11. Arkansas  Spears v. Spears, 2013 Ark. App. 535 (Arkansas Appeals Court, Sept. 25, 2013). California  In re Marriage of Sullivan, 127 Cal.App.3d 656 (4th District Court of Appeals, Jan. 8, 1982). Connecticut  Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158 (Supreme Court, March 24, 1998). Indiana - * Louisiana  McConathy v. McConathy, 632 So.2d 1200 (2nd Circuit Court of Appeal, Feb. 23, 1994). Minnesota  Hlavac v. Hlavac, 2012 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 17 (Court of Appeals, Jan. 9, 2012). Montana  * Nebraska  Ourada v. Ourada, 2005 Neb. App.LEXIS 83 (Court of Appeals, April 12, 2005). 12. See id. 13. Roberts v. Roberts, 670 N.E. 2d 72 (Ind. App. 1996). 14. Spears v. Spears, 2013 Ark. App. 535 (2013).




    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-14-2017 08:43 PM

    I was informed off-list that the previously supplied link doesn't work. This one should:  http://community.njsba.com/familylawsection/viewdocument/new-jersey-family-la-57 

    And, Barbara, I tried to check the message I'd posted when I received the note saying the link didn't work ... it never came through to my email, I checked on the website and it's there. Just checked my spam and trash folders -- it didn't come through at all to me, but apparently did to others.


    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    -------------------------------------------
       www.MurphyExposed.org 
    -------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-15-2017 09:21 AM

    There is New York Legislation that overrules the  O'Brien decision regarding the valuation of degrees. The Legislation states that  that "court shall not consider as marital property subject to distribution the value of a spouse's enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement."  But courts in New York can still consider the direct or indirect contributions to the development during the marriage of the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse." 

    Btw according to Tim Tippins the O'Brien case is a great example of the adage that "Bulls make money, bears make money but pigs get slaughtered."  The wife in O'Brien worked as a teacher and help put her husband through med school.  As soon as he graduated he took up with a nurse.  The wife offered to settled the case by requesting that husband buy her a car....the husband said no way and took the case to trial....the court slaughtered him by ruling that the only asset of the marriage, his degree, was subject to equitable distribution.  Cautionary tale to all clients who unreasonably refuse to settle b/c the "law is on their side."



    ------------------------------
    [Angela Barker
    Law Office of Angela Barker, LLC
    [www.angelabarkerlaw.com
    646-415-8883
    646-395-9562 (fax)
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-15-2017 06:08 PM
    Btw according to Tim Tippins the O'Brien case is a great example of the adage that "Bulls make money, bears make money but pigs get slaughtered." Â The wife in O'Brien worked as a teacher and help put her husband through med school. Â As soon as he graduated he took up with a nurse. Â The wife offered to settled the case by requesting that husband buy her a car....the husband said no way and took the case to trial....the court slaughtered him by ruling that the only asset of the marriage, his degree, was subject to equitable distribution. Â Cautionary tale to all clients who unreasonably refuse to settle b/c the "law is on their side."

    Hindsight has 20/20... I'm sure we've all got those. The worst nightmare case I've handled (11 bankers' boxes, to the App Div x3, ongoing...) started with a settlement offer of 7 years alimony & standard ED. Husband said "no way, no alimony of any kind, go to hell." She got permanent at trial and case is still being fought 15 years later.

    Chris Muslin's article is excellent. Not only covers the direct question, but when reimbursement for payments made for pre-marital student loans if appropriate, etc. Excellent. People who think all we do is decide who gets which sofa have no clue what a forever-ongoing learning process this is.


    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-17-2017 08:08 AM

    A Financial Obligation Incurred by One Party During the Marriage in Pursuit of His or Her Separate Interests Should Remain That Party's Separate Liability

     

    In Marin v Marin, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2017 WL 1157567, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 02415 (2d Dept., 2017) the parties were married in July1989, and had two children together, born in 1992 and 1996. After the birth of their first child in 1992, the plaintiff stopped working outside the home and was the primary caregiver of the children. The defendant, a doctor of osteopathy with his own medical practice, was the sole source of financial support for the family since that time. In June 2008, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce. The Appellate Division, inter alia, rejected the plaintiff's contention that since some of the proceeds from certain loans were used to finance the defendant's medical practice, which was not treated as marital property, the Supreme Court should have allocated this debt to the defendant as his separate responsibility, rather than allocating it equally between the parties. It observed that Supreme Court is given broad discretion in allocating the assets and debts of the parties to a marriage, and may consider the entirety of the marital estate in apportioning responsibility for debts. While outstanding financial obligations incurred during the marriage which are not solely the liability of either spouse may be deemed marital obligations, a financial obligation incurred by one party in pursuit of his or her separate interests should remain that party's separate liability" (Corless v. Corless, 18 AD3d at 494). Here, the funds at issue were used to benefit the defendant's medical practice, which was the sole means of financial support for the entire family. Therefore, under the circumstances, it could not be said that this debt was incurred for the defendant's sole benefit. As such, contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the court's decision to distribute this debt equally among the parties was not an improvident exercise of discretion.



    ------------------------------
    Charles Abut Esq.
    Hackensack NJ
    (201) 342-0404
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-17-2017 05:30 PM

    So, what if the debt was incurred prior to the marriage but obviously benefitted both parties because it enabled the debtor to have the increased earnings to support the marital lifestyle?

     

    Robert E. Goldstein, Esq.
    Drescher & Cheslow, P.A.

    610 Bridge Plaza Drive

    Manalapan, NJ 07726

    (732) 972-1600
    Fax (732) 972-0038
    E-mail: [email protected]

     

    Visit my personal website:  www.mydivorcelawyernj.com

    Member, Middlesex County Bar Association,  Monmouth Bar Association, New Jersey Association for Justice and New Jersey State Bar Association

                                     

     

    IRS Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with certain regulations promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein, unless expressly stated otherwise.

    This E-Mail message and any documents accompanying this E-Mail transmission contain information from the law firm of Drescher & Cheslow, P.A. which is "Privileged and confidential attorney-client communication and/or work product of counsel." If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution and/or the taking of or refraining from taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this E-Mail information is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action being instituted against you. Please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission and delete the message and any accompanying documents from your system immediately. Thank you

     




    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-19-2017 12:52 AM
    Rob -
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>Chris covers that very well in the article - go check it out!


    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-19-2017 11:43 AM
    Hello everyone,
    If you are having difficulty logging in to get the issue of New Jersey Family Lawyer that David mentioned, here is a link to the edition:

    New Jersey Family Lawyer, Vol. 36, No. 5 - April 2016

    ------------------------------
    Barbara Straczynski
    Director of New Media and Promotions
    New Jersey State Bar Association
    New Brunswick NJ
    (732) 937-7524
    [email protected]
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree

    Posted 04-19-2017 11:58 AM
    Thank you.  I was having trouble!
     
     
     
    DAVID MOLK, Esq.
    71 Mount Vernon Street
    Ridgefield Park, New Jersey  07660
    (201) 440-3400; Fax (201) 440-4347
     
    This e-mail and any attachments contains information which may be confidential, privileged an/or proprietary.  If you are not the addressee(s) (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient(s), you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone the information contained in or attached to this e-mail.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all attachments.
     
    On 04/19/17, Barbara Straczynski via New Jersey State Bar Association<>org> wrote:
     
    Hello everyone, If you are having difficulty logging in to get the issue of New Jersey Family Lawyer that David mentioned, here is a link to the... -posted to the "Family Law Section" community

    Family Law

    Post New Message Online Post New Message
    Re: Case - student loan debt v. value of degree
    Reply to Group OnlineReply to GroupReply to Sender
    Apr 19, 2017 11:43 AM
    Barbara Straczynski
    Hello everyone,
    If you are having difficulty logging in to get the issue of New Jersey Family Lawyer that David mentioned, here is a link to the edition:

    New Jersey Family Lawyer, Vol. 36, No. 5 - April 2016

    ------------------------------
    Barbara Straczynski
    Director of New Media and Promotions
    New Jersey State Bar Association
    New Brunswick NJ
    (732) 937-7524
    [email protected]
    ------------------------------
      Reply to Group Online   Reply to Group via Email   Reply to Sender Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward  

    Original Message



     
    You are subscribed to "Family Law" as [email protected]. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.