Establishing Judicial Discretion in Asset Valuation and Wasteful Dissipation: Angello v. Angello (2025 NYSlipOp 02105)

Introduction

Angello v. Angello, decided on April 10, 2025 by the Appellate Division, Third Department of the New York Supreme Court, addresses core issues in equitable distribution, maintenance and counsel fees in a high-asset divorce. Joseph Angello (“the husband”) and Lilia Angello (“the wife”) were married in 1989, have one adult child, and litigated from 2016 to 2021 over an organic grocery distribution business, associated warehouse, marital residence, maintenance, and counsel fees. At trial the parties agreed to divorce on irretrievable breakdown grounds; contested issues were the valuation and distribution of marital property, allocation of business debt, temporary and durational maintenance, and counsel fee awards.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court found that the wife had “wastefully dissipated marital assets” by refusing a 2018 buy-out offer that would have transferred the husband’s failing business and $900,000 of its debt to a competitor. The court valued the business at trial date, allocated half of its $995,000 debt to each spouse, and ordered sale of the warehouse—applying proceeds first to liens, then to remaining business debt—and sale of the marital residence, with net proceeds divided equally after adjustment for arrearages. Temporary maintenance arrears were balanced. The court calculated presumptive maintenance at $914/month but deviated downward to $305/month for five years. It also ordered the wife to pay $20,000 of the husband’s counsel fees from her share of the residence sale. On appeal the Third Department affirmed most rulings, increased maintenance to $500/month for five years, and reversed the counsel fee award in favor of the husband.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Arthur v. Arthur (148 AD3d 1254 [3d Dept 2019]): Credibility deference to trial court on conflicting witness testimony.
Mesholam v. Mesholam (11 NY3d 24 [2008]): Broad judicial discretion to select valuation date for marital assets between commencement and trial.
Carter v. Fairchild-Carter (199 AD3d 1291 [3d Dept 2021]): Statutory grounding for valuation date discretion under Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(4)(b).
Giallo-Uvino v. Uvino (165 AD3d 894 [2d Dept 2018]) vs. Rich-Wolfe v. Wolfe (83 AD3d 1359 [3d Dept 2011]): Contrasting applications of valuation-date discretion.
Burnett v. Burnett (101 AD3d 1417 [3d Dept 2012]) & Southwick v. Southwick (202 AD2d 996 [4th Dept 1994]): Doctrine of wasteful dissipation allowing adjustment of distributive award.
Allen v. Allen (179 AD3d 1318 [3d Dept 2020]) & Sprole v. Sprole (145 AD3d 1367 [3d Dept 2016]): Discretion in ordering sale of real property and division of proceeds where spouses cannot maintain exclusive occupancy.
Bailey v. Bailey (232 AD3d 574 [2d Dept 2024]) & Smith v. Smith (116 AD3d 1139 [3d Dept 2014]): Standards for imputing income in maintenance calculations.
Breen v. Breen (222 AD3d 1202 [3d Dept 2023]) & Stricos v. Stricos (263 AD2d 659 [3d Dept 1999]): Authority to downward deviate from maintenance guidelines based on Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(6)(e).
Frankel v. Frankel (2 NY3d 601 [2004]) & O’Shea v. O’Shea (93 NY2d 187 [1999]): Legislative intent behind counsel-fee awards under Domestic Relations Law §237(a).
Mohamed v. Abuhamra (222 AD3d 1344 [4th Dept 2023]): Limits on awarding counsel fees to the monied spouse when fee need is not primary.

Legal Reasoning

1. Valuation Date Discretion: Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(4)(b) permits courts to value active marital assets “as of the date of trial” when circumstances change. Here the business was insolvent by trial and no improvement was foreseeable, justifying trial-date valuation.

2. Wasteful Dissipation: The wife’s refusal of a bona fide 2018 buy-out offer—uncontested by her own legal advisor—constituted “wasteful dissipation.” Under Burnett and Southwick, the court considered that dissipation in allocating business debt equally rather than pine-slicing by earning capacity.

3. Sale of Remaining Assets: The court acted within discretion in ordering sale of the warehouse and marital residence to satisfy lien and unsecured debt, since neither spouse could otherwise fund the obligations.

4. Maintenance Calculation & Downward Deviation: The husband’s actual post-insolvency income of $50,000 and the wife’s imputed income of $12,500 yielded a presumptive guideline award of $914/month. Under Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(6)(e) factors—wasteful dissipation by the wife, her employability without further training, and the husband’s reduced earning capacity—the court properly deviated downward. On appeal, the Third Department found an intermediate deviation to $500/month for five years more in line with guidelines and equities.

5. Counsel Fees under DRL §237(a): Although DRL §237(a) empowers courts to address economic disparities by awarding counsel fees, the statute’s 2010 amendment presumes awards to the less-monied spouse. Here the husband, being better-funded, sought fees based on the wife’s litigation conduct—not need—contravening the remedial purpose announced in Frankel and O’Shea. The appellate court thus found an abuse of discretion and reversed.

Impact

Angello v. Angello clarifies and reinforces several principles:

Courts have wide latitude to fix valuation dates when ongoing litigation reveals asset deterioration.
Refusal of bona fide offers that would preserve marital value can constitute wasteful dissipation, affecting debt allocation.
Sale orders of key real property remain appropriate remedies when neither spouse can assume full financial responsibility.
Downward deviations from maintenance guidelines must be carefully tethered to statutory §236(B)(6)(e) factors; appellate courts may fine-tune but will not disturb reasoned decrements.
Domestic Relations Law §237(a) continues to favor counsel-fee awards to the economically disadvantaged spouse; seeking fees without showing financial inability undermines legislative intent.

Future matrimonial litigation will cite Angello for guidance on timing of asset valuations, proof requirements for dissipative conduct, and the boundaries of counsel-fee awards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Wasteful Dissipation: When one spouse deliberately or unreasonably uses or destroys marital property, reducing its value for both parties.
Valuation Date Discretion: Though the default is the date of divorce commencement, courts may select trial date when asset values change materially.
Durational Maintenance: Spousal support awarded for a fixed term, calculated under statutory guidelines and subject to upward or downward judicial deviation.
Imputed Income: Unrealized earning potential assigned by the court to a spouse deemed capable of earning more than actual income.
Counsel Fees under DRL §237(a): Allows fee shifting to ensure the less-paid spouse can secure legal representation, overriding the “American rule” that each bears own fees.

Conclusion

Angello v. Angello establishes significant guideposts in New York matrimonial practice: courts enjoy broad discretion to value changing asset portfolios at trial; wasteful dissipation can justify equity-shifting remedies; sale of jointly held real estate remains a practical distribution device when debts overwhelm resources; maintenance deviations must align closely with statutory factors; and counsel-fee awards must honor the remedial aim of balancing economic disparity. Taken together, this decision refines the standards for equitable distribution and spousal support, ensuring that litigants cannot weaponize asset decline or fee motions to tilt the scales unjustly.