Gastineau v. Gastineau Brief

Gastineau v. Gastineau, 151 Misc. 2d 813, 573 N.Y.S.2d 819 (N.Y. 1991)

Procedural History:

            Lisa Gastineau sued Marcus Gastineau for divorce and charged that he dissipated some of the marital assets.  While the trial was in progress the court ordered Marcus to make payments to Lisa to cover expenses.  Marcus fell $71,707 behind and the court ordered the sequestration of his net severance pay of $83,000.  This removed it from his possession and control until the court rendered its decision.

Facts:

            At beginning of trial Mrs. Gastineau testifies to specific allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment committed by Mr. Gastineau.  Mr. Gatineau neither admitted nor denied this.  The court granted a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment based on DRL section 170(1).

            The New York Jets in college drafted Mr. Gastineau.  Mrs. Gastineau never finished college nor did she work during the marriage.  The parties purchased a house in New York for $99,000.  The spent an additional $250,000 in other renovations.  Mr. Gastineau’s salary beginning in 1979 increased substantially each consecutive year beginning with $55,000 and ending 1987 with $953,531.  The last year he played he was contracted for $775,000 with $50,000 in bonuses. 

            In 1988, Mr. Gastineau began an illicit relationship.  When the other party of this relationship was diagnosed with cancer Mr. Gastineau stopped playing because he could not concentrate on football.  He left after the sixth game breaking his contract.  Players in the National Football League are paid one-sixteenth of their contract at the end of each game.  Mr. Gastineau played six games and received $290,662 plus $50,000 in bonuses.

Issue:

            Can a spouse dissipate marital assets in order to lessen the amount of property to divide upon dissolution of marriage?

Holding:

            No.  The court will find that a defendant will still owe based on the amount that they may potentially make.

           

Rationale:        

            In equitable distribution it is a guiding principle that parties are entitled to receive equitable awards, which are proportionate to their contributions to their marriage, Ullah v. Ullah, 555 N.Y.S.2d 834 (2^nd Dep’t 1990).  The defendant’s decision to voluntarily terminate his contract with the New York Jets, depriving the plaintiff and the parties’ child of the standard of living to which they had become accustomed, his failure to obtain meaningful employment thereafter and the indirect contributions made by plaintiff during the course of the marriage warrant an award to the plaintiff of one third of the parties’ marital assets.

            The court used the tax returns from the 19988/99 season and used the value that the husband could have made had he not quit the team in the middle of the year which was $484,437.  The court considered the tax returns of the parties with reference to their tax consequences and took judicial notice of the fact that compensation for service constitutes income, which is taxable. IRC [26 USC] section 61(a)(1).

Decision:

            The court found that Marcus dissipated marital assets.  In the equitable distribution of marital assets they are treated as if they still exist.

Cantwell v. Connecticut Brief

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900 (1940)

Procedural History:

            Newton Cantwell and his two sons were arrested for violating a Connecticut statute and inciting a breach of the peace.  After trial in the Court of Common Pleas they were all convicted on the third count, which charged a violation of the General Statutes of Connecticut, and on the fifth count, which charged commission of the offense of inciting a breach of the peace.  They appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut and that court convicted them.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari based on the substantial question under the Federal Constitution.

Facts:

            Newton Cantwell and his two sons were arrested for violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate from the secretary of the public welfare council before soliciting funds from the public and breach of the peace.  Newton and his sons were Jehovah’s witnesses and were trying to spread their religion in a heavily catholic neighborhood.  They were going door to door with books and pamphlets and a portable phonograph with sets of records.  One of the materials named Catholics as “enemies”.  Citizens in the neighborhood who heard the Cantwells were outraged and almost acted against the Cantwells aggressively.  The Cantwell’s were arrested for inciting a breach of the peace and violating a statute requiring registration of religious solicitors.

Issue: 

Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights?

Holding: 

Yes.  This is because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Rationale:

            The purpose of the Connecticut statue is to protect the public from fraud in the solicitation of money or other valuables under the guise of religion.  The statute as construed and applied to the appellants deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The fact that an application must be sent in to the secretary of the public welfare council before asking for funds makes the Cantwell’s be in violation of the Connecticut Statute.  The Supreme Court states that this is in breach of the fourteenth amendment because it is up to an official to determine if a cause is a religious one or a charitable one.  Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth.

Decision: 

The lower courts ruling that Mr. Cantwell was in violation of the solicitation statute in the State of Connecticut and also that he violated the breach of the peace ordinance is reversed.