Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.
How Are Businesses Treated in a Divorce
You may be considering getting married soon. You may be the owner of a family business that you want to keep in the family. You may be married but unhappy in your marriage and you may be wondering what might happen to your business if the marriage were to end in divorce. In today’s modern […]
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
You may be considering getting married soon. You may be the owner of a family business that you want to keep in the family. You may be married but unhappy in your marriage and you may be wondering what might happen to your business if the marriage were to end in divorce.
In today’s modern society where about half of all marriages end in divorce, these questions may be an important part of your business planning. You engage in tax planning, retirement planning, and succession planning, but divorce planning may also apply to your situation.
Thankfully, a divorce may not be a sure thing, and optimistically most marriages would last forever, but for better or for worse, some marriages do not. So what may become of the closely held or family business upon the end of a marriage?
In New York, the process of dividing assets and debts upon divorce is known as “equitable distribution.” The rules by which assets and debts are divided are provided through various state statutes and rules, as well as court precedent. The phrase “equitable distribution” is not particularly revealing as to what, in reality, may happen to a business upon divorce. The term “equitable” refers to New York’s approach of dividing up assets and debts according to what is fair rather than a mechanical approach, such as a pure 50/50 approach, which may be used in other states.
Very generally speaking, all assets and debts acquired during the marriage are considered “marital property” and are subject to being divided under New York’s “equitable distribution” laws. If a business was founded during a marriage using marital funds, it will likely be considered “marital property.” If the value of a business acquired before the marriage increases during the marriage, the increased value may be considered a marital asset.
For example, under New York’s equitable-distribution approach, in some circumstances it may be “fair” or “equitable” to equally divide various marital assets and debts. But in other situations “equity” or “fairness” may indicate that the business-owner spouse get more than half of the value of the business.
Ultimately, though, what you want to know is whether the business (or its value) will be divided, and how much money to which each spouse may be entitled. As you might expect, many cases settle without going to court. But ultimately, cases that do not settle go to before a New York State Supreme Court judge.
Whether a case is resolved through negotiations and settlement or through a trial before a judge, the outcome is typically based upon a variety of factors and on a step-by-step analysis.
Identify
Is there a business that is an asset? For example, where a spouse grows plants in a garden and sells them at a farmers’ market on a few weekends, there may not be a “business asset” that has value subject to being divided with the other spouse. In contrast, a farmer who grows and sells substantial amounts of produce to supermarkets clearly has a “business asset” that is subject to division. One way to look at this is whether the “business” could be sold to another as a going concern.
Classification
The next step is to classify whether the business is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution or whether the business is the “separate” property of the business-owner spouse.
For example, if a business was purchased during the marriage with funds the spouses earned during the marriage, then the business would be a “marital” asset subject to being divided. But what if the business was started and fully developed before the spouses were married? Then the value of the business that existed before the spouses were married would be considered “separate” property.
The process for differentiating between the pre-marital, “separate” portion and the marital portion may involve valuing the business as of the date the spouses got married, and on the date in which one of the spouses files for divorce. The difference between the two figures would be the “marital portion” of the business, whereas the value of the business as of the date the parties were married represents the pre-marital, “separate” portion. The pre-marital, “separate” portion of the asset would generally not be divided between the spouses, whereas the “marital” segment would likely be divided between the spouses.
Valuation
Equitable distribution requires that the value of the business be determined so that the spouses know what there actually is to be divided. In many ways, the process of valuing a business for a divorce is not much different than valuing the business for other purposes. The intention is to determine the fair market value of the marital portion of the business subject to equitable distribution. Often, this involves retaining an expert, an accountant with expertise in valuing businesses.
Sometimes, both parties agree on using one expert accountant, but both parties have the right to retain their own expert, which happens when the spouses cannot agree on one expert, or when one spouse disagrees with the valuation of one expert.
The expert, or experts, will use typical accounting methods to determine the value of a business, such as the “income approach,” the “market approach,” and/or the “asset approach.” Different methods may apply to different types of businesses. In valuing a business, the expert accountant might need other experts to value various components or business assets such as inventory, real estate, equipment, or machinery. At the very least, the valuation expert will need to review all of the business’s financial documentation to determine the value of the business.
Distribution
This term refers specifically to the process of determining what portion or percentage of the value of the business to which each spouse may be entitled. That explanation certainly oversimplifies how each spouse’s respective portions may be determined. New York’s equitable-distribution law sets forth about 14 specific factors for courts to consider in determining each spouse’s share upon divorce. Some of the factors include, for example:
§ How long the spouses were married, and their ages and health
§ The income, assets, and debts that each party had when they were first married
§ Whether a spouse may lose pension rights or inheritance rights from the other spouse
§ Whether one spouse may have to pay maintenance (“alimony”) to the other,
§ The direct or indirect contributions of the “non-business owner” spouse to the business and to the family
§ The probable future financial circumstances of each party
Substantial court precedent fleshes out how these and other factors are applied in various circumstances. These factors are then applied in guiding negotiations and may ultimately be applied by a judge if a case goes to trial.
We hope this article provides you with some information that you find helpful, but please understand that is only a cursory introduction to the complicated issue of dealing with a business in a divorce.
David Tamber and Richard Alderman are attorneys with Alderman and Alderman in Syracuse. Contact them at (315) 422-8131 or email: dtamber@aldermanandalderman.com
The Governor Stands up for Upstate in de Blasio skirmish
The new mayor of the Big Apple, Bill de Blasio, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo are duking it out. The mayor wants to slap his city’s millionaires with extra taxes — to fund the pre-K program the teachers’ unions want. (Note: pre-K is not for the kiddies. It is for more jobs for dues-paying
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
The new mayor of the Big Apple, Bill de Blasio, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo are duking it out. The mayor wants to slap his city’s millionaires with extra taxes — to fund the pre-K program the teachers’ unions want. (Note: pre-K is not for the kiddies. It is for more jobs for dues-paying union members.)
The governor says no way. He is not so crazy about whacking NYC millionaires with even more taxes — because these ever-higher taxes drive the millionaires away. “Away” is a place from which this state collects zero taxes from them. The state has already lost millions per day in taxes the rich used to pay. Before they moved to “Away.”
Cuomo also says that when we do tax NYC millionaires more, we should spread the money around the state. He says it’s a bad idea for the Big Apple to keep the new revenue for itself. In this case, for its own teachers. (Yeah, yeah. It is all supposed to be about the kids.)
In the middle of these fisticuffs, the governor reminded the mayor that he, the gov., represents more than the kids in the Big Apple. He also represents kids in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, etc. Dear reader, if you don’t live in one of those cities, consider yourself part of the etceteras.
Bottom line is as follows. The teachers’ unions have bought the mayor’s support for pre-K. They have bought the governor’s support for pre-K. The mayor says let’s pay for these new union jobs by whacking the rich more. The gov. says let’s go slow on whacking the rich. Especially in this election year. Besides, if you loot the NYC rich, Upstaters deserve some of that loot.
This makes the governor look good to Upstaters. He is a modern-day Robbing Hood. After all, he is trying to spread loot among us.
He also makes us feel good. By showing us he even knows we exist. You need proof? He actually spoke the words “Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse.” Rumor is that he is in training to speak the words “Utica, Jamestown, and Geneva” later this year. Next year: Norwich, Watertown, and that really difficult one — Oswego.
This is a big deal. My guess is that if you asked the new mayor to name 10 upstate cities, he could not. Try asking NYC guys in the state Assembly to name them. They would begin with Passaic and Hoboken.
I give the governor full credit — for standing up for Upstaters in this skirmish. However, he would be the first to admit he can afford to do this. Just look at this through political lenses.
The governor could fill the streets of the Big Apple with cow manure and not lose a vote. The upper East Side has some Republicans, but it is like a gated community. The rest of the city will vote Democrat no matter what the governor says or does.
So what does he have to lose by standing up for Upstate? What does he have to lose by embarrassing the Big Apple’s new mayor? Absolutely nothing.’ That’s what he stands to lose.
So, Cuomo is in a sweet situation. He knows nobody will beat him in this year’s New York gubernatorial election. The Republicans might as well run my dog in the election. Meanwhile, by making nice to Upstaters, he can pick up extra votes. Unless my dog is more popular than I think, the gov. may win by a landslide. Which will give him more clout in the party.
Maybe the extra clout will help him win the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency. You never know. Hillary could have a heart attack en route to the coronation. You know, when she is shocked by totally unexpected bombshell news — such as Bill has stopped chasing skirts. That might do it. And that would leave an opening for our governor.
I can see it now. Cuomo addressing the Democratic National Convention. “And when the loot came in — in my beloved state — what did I do? Unlike some leaders, I spread that loot to the kids in Buffalo. And the kids in Syracuse. And the kids in … Os … Otswa … Ostral … to the kids in Etcetera!”
Here’s to you, governor. A toast from Etceteraville. With wine from the Finger Lakes.
From Tom…as in Morgan.
Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home near Oneonta, in addition to his radio shows and new TV show. For more information about him, visit his website at www.tomasinmorgan.com
Regents’ Decision to Modify Common Core Overdue But Not Enough
The New York State Board of Regents approved changes to Common Core recently, including delaying full implementation of the graduation requirements by five years — from 2017 to 2022. This means that instead of ninth graders being the first class to graduate with a Regents degree aligned with Common Core standards, it will now be
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
The New York State Board of Regents approved changes to Common Core recently, including delaying full implementation of the graduation requirements by five years — from 2017 to 2022. This means that instead of ninth graders being the first class to graduate with a Regents degree aligned with Common Core standards, it will now be this year’s fourth graders — the class of 2022 — that will be the first class with a Common Core-aligned Regents diploma.
The Board of Regents’ decision to delay full implementation of the graduation requirements was welcome news, but still doesn’t go far enough. Few take issue with the idea that we should raise learning standards in our schools, and the idea of the Common Core is to do just that. Indeed, 46 states including New York, adopted these standards. The problem in New York and elsewhere has been with the implementation of this curriculum.
Last year, my colleagues and I held 11 statewide public forums on Common Core. At these hearings, parents, teachers, students, and administrators expressed their concerns with, among other things: (a) the “one size fits all” aspect of the common core; (b) the lack of resources to help implement these new standards; (c) faulty and incomplete teaching modules; (d) over-reliance on high-stakes testing; and (e) the general unfairness of evaluating teachers on students’ success with a curriculum that has been rolled out quickly and contains numerous flaws.
The Board of Regents stopped short of removing the evaluation’s close tie-in with student performance. It stated it wanted the public to have more input and will comment on this aspect in April. Governor Cuomo criticized the Board of Regents for altering the course of Common Core and its tie-in with teacher evaluations. He believes they should be directly related. More will be decided on this in April.
I believe that there are positives to the Common Core standards, including teaching our children to think critically. However, we need to delay, for a time, evaluating teachers and students on their performance under the Common Core. Along with a number of my colleagues in the Assembly, I am sponsoring legislation that would create an independent commission to thoroughly review Common Core. This commission will examine how the Common Core is operating, how it is being funded, and provide recommendations on how to improve Common Core. Once these improvements are made, we can then start evaluating students and teachers on their performances under Common Core.
In the meantime, here are other changes to our education system that I support:
§ Eliminate the gap-elimination adjustment. Districts are being handed a big mandate with Common Core, on top of countless others they already have. We should fully restore funding for education that was removed in 2010 and that disproportionately hurt low-wealth school districts.
§ Restrict use of student data. While I’m pleased the Board of Regents has put this on hold for a year, I question whether the extent of information being shared with third-party vendors like InBloom is necessary at all.
§ Reinstate the full value of individual educational plan (IEP) by allowing disabled students to be assessed based on their instructional level and not their age. In order to reinstate this policy, a waiver from the federal Department of Education is needed. I’m pleased that the Board of Regents requested this waiver recently.
§ Provide enough funding and time for professional development. Teachers are expected to know and teach all new material with Common Core and it should come with more training.
§ Create alternate pathways to a high-school diploma including a career and technical education pathway by increasing state funds for BOCES.
A full report was published following the public forums our conference held in the fall. You can see this report at http://www.scribd.com/doc/201479293/At-the-Educational-Crossroads.
William (Will) A. Barclay is the Republican representative of the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact him at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us, or (315) 598-5185.
Greater Utica Chamber opposes ‘Paid Sick Leave Act’
UTICA — The Greater Utica Chamber of Commerce says it opposes a proposal that would amend New York state’s labor laws to require all employers
DeWITT — Caz Limo, Inc., a well-known charter bus and limousine service in Central New York, has closed its doors due to the firm’s “financial
Family & Children’s Society appoints Kubik as deputy executive director
JOHNSON CITY — The Family & Children’s Society, Inc. today announced the appointment of Diane Kubik to the position of deputy executive director. “Diane has
Empire Center report highlights local-government consolidation options
Shared services, dissolution, and mergers remain workable options for taxpayers and local elected officials facing challenging fiscal situations and historically high taxes in New York
Peoples Financial Services announces stock-repurchase plan
Peoples Financial Services Corp. (Ticker: PFIS), parent of Peoples Security Bank and Trust Co., recently announced that its board has authorized a plan to buy
Walmart Foundation awards WCNY $50,000 grant
SYRACUSE — The Walmart Foundation has awarded WCNY a grant of $50,000 to help with its Enterprise America program. The funding, awarded through the Walmart
Private-equity firm Veritas Capital completes acquisition of Anaren
DeWITT — Veritas Capital, an affiliate of the New York City–based Veritas Capital Fund IV, L.P., has completed its acquisition of Anaren, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANEN)
Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.