A Marital Asset

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed an order dividing marital property and awarding alimony to the spouse of a successful attorney

Husband contends the trial judge erred by including in the marital estate part of a January 2013 payment from his law firm received after the couple separated. Husband also claims that the court abused its discretion by dividing the couple’s assets favorably to Wife, and in awarding Wife alimony. We find that Husband’s argument about his law firm payment is at odds with the plain language of his employment agreement, where the disputed payment represented “the balance of [Husband’s] prior year’s base compensation,” and therefore was partially includable in the marital estate. We also find that Husband’s other arguments essentially ask this Court to re-consider decisions within the Family Court’s discretion, which are supported by the evidence established over the course of five hearings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Family Court.

Appellant

Husband worked as an associate and then as a partner in a major law firm, earning a substantial income. In May 2011, Husband transferred to another major law firm, signing an employment agreement on May 12, 2011. By the end of the marriage, Husband was earning over $3 million per year. While married, the couple lived a wealthy lifestyle, with an expensive home, multiple country club memberships, private school for their children, and expensive vacations.

 Husband had received (and tried to protect) a $2.7 million payment from his new law firm five months after the parties had separated.

Husband’s argument is at odds with the express language of his employment agreement and the partnership agreement. Husband’s position merely reflects the special tax treatment of the January payment agreed to by Husband and his law firm, rather than controlling when the payment was earned for marital property purposes. The Family Court correctly decided that Husband’s January 2013 payment was earned in 2012 and therefore partially includable in the marital estate

 The court did not identify the parties by their real names. Wonder where the names “Gary Glanden” and “Terri Quirk” came from. (Mike Frisch)