Tom and Beth, both age 30, were married in New York in 1996. At the time of their wedding, Tom was a successful business executive, and Beth was a first year law student with no assets, living off the proceeds of a student loan. Before they were married, Tom and Beth consulted separate attorneys and agreed, in a duly executed and acknowledged prenuptial agreement, that in the event they were to divorce, neither party would seek equitable distribution from the other. The agreement contained no provision with regard to maintenance in the event of their separation or divorce.Immediately after they were married, Tom persuaded Beth to quit law school so that they could travel together in his business and she could assist him in hosting business dinners and other events.
Tom and Beth lived a lavish lifestyle over the next several years, traveling extensively and maintaining two elegant homes in New York, both owned by Tom. Tom gave Beth access to a substantially funded checking account to pay for household expenses for their homes and for her personal use. Beth managed the homes and assisted Tom’s career by overseeing the social obligations of his business and community affairs.Tom and Beth lived together in New York until January 2002, when Tom abandoned Beth,sold his New York homes, and moved to State X, where he established his domicile and has since resided. Beth has continuously resided in New York. In March 2004, Tom commenced an action for divorce in State X upon the ground of irreconcilable differences, a ground recognized in State X. No economic relief was sought in the action. Beth was personally served with the summons and complaint in New York, but did not appear in the State X action.
In July 2004, the State X court granted Tom a divorce from Beth, valid under State X law, and made no findings with respect to their economic affairs. Although his business has continued to flourish and he has amassed considerable wealth, Tom provided no support to Beth after he abandoned her. Beth has been able to support herself over the last few years by working as a caterer earning $30,000 per year. However, she has been unable to save or borrow sufficient funds to return to law school. In October 2004, Beth commenced an action against Tom seeking: a declaration of nullity of the State X judgment of divorce; a divorce on the ground of abandonment; and an award of maintenance from Tom.
Tom was personally served with the summons and complaint in State X. Tom moved to dismiss Beth’s complaint on the grounds that the State X judgment of divorce was valid and effective to bar any action for divorce or maintenance, and that, in any event, the New York court lacked any basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. The court (1) granted Tom’s motion based on the prior State X judgment to the extent of dismissing Beth’s action for a divorce, but (2) denied Tom’s motion as to Beth’s action for maintenance. The court (3) denied Tom’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. At the trial of Beth’s action for maintenance, proof of the foregoing facts was presented. Beth argued at the close of the proof that the facts entitle her to an award of maintenance.
Tom argued that, considering the relative brief duration of the marriage and Beth’s presentability to be self-supporting, such relief was not warranted. The parties were directed to submit post-trial briefs in support of their positions.
(a) Were the numbered rulings of the court correct?
(b) What arguments should Beth make in her post-trial brief in response to Tom’s arguments at trial and in support of her claim for maintenance?
No comments:
Post a Comment