AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

B. ANDREW H. SPENCE, respondent, v. PAULA P. SPENCE, appellant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The husband's enhanced earning capacity as an investment banker is not marital property subject to equitable distribution. The husband earned his MBA, Series 7 license, and Series 63 license four years before the marriage. Accordingly, his increased earning capacity is not attributable to a professional license or degree acquired during the marriage (see, O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576; McSparron v. McSparron, 87 N.Y.2d 275, 285; West v. West, 213 A.D.2d 1025, 1026). To the extent that the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department in Hougie v. Hougie ( 261 A.D.2d 161), holds to the contrary, we decline to follow it.

GOLDSTEIN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SPENCE v. SPENCE
(Oct 1, 2001)