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.