You are here: / / CALCULATION OF ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY STEMMING FROM A DEGREE EARNED...

CALCULATION OF ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY STEMMING FROM A DEGREE EARNED DURING MARRIAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOCATING MARITAL PROPERTY IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court property calculated the amount allocated to plaintiff wife for the enhanced earning capacity of defendant husband stemming from his MBA degree earned during the marriage:

The defendant’s MBA degree is marital property subject to equitable distribution in this case… . The value of the MBA degree is measured by the present value of the enhanced earning capacity which it affords the defendant … . The non-titled spouse is required to establish the value of the enhanced earning capacity and demonstrate that the non-titled spouse made a substantial contribution to the acquisition of the degree … .

Where a holder of an advanced degree has already embarked on his or her career and has acquired a history of actual earnings, the theoretical valuation method, which compares the average lifetime earnings of a college graduate against the average lifetime earnings of a person holding the relevant advanced degree, must be discarded in favor of a more pragmatic and individualized analysis based on the titled spouse’s remaining professional earning potential … . Actual earnings, projected over time, are a recognized proxy for the value of a person’s future earning capacity … . The valuation must be founded in economic reality … . Lynch v Lynch, 2019 NY Slip Op 00105, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

You might also like
Criteria for Setting Aside a Foreclosure Sale Explained—Not Met Here
THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FLOWER POT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCIDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).
Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Will Not Be Invoked Unless there Has Been at Least One Full Hearing on the Issues Involved
CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Defendant Entitled to Hearing on Motion to Vacate His Conviction (by Guilty Plea) Based Upon Defense Counsel’s Alleged Failure to Inform Him of the Risk of Deporatation
Insurer Not Estopped from Disclaiming Coverage Four Years After the Claim—No Prejudice to Insured and Disclaimer Supported by Policy Exclusion
PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER WAIVED HIS PRESENCE AT THE SORA... BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE...