Summary
In Spence v Spence (287 AD2d 447, 448, lv dismissed 97 NY2d 725), the Appellate Division, Second Department, declining to follow the holding in Hougie, found that the husband's enhanced earning capacity as an investment banker was not marital property subject to equitable distribution under circumstances where he earned his MBA, Series 7 license and Series 63 license four years before the marriage, so that his increased earning capacity was not attributable to a professional license or degree acquired during the marriage.
Summary of this case from Purygin v. PuryginaOpinion
Argued September 6, 2001.
October 1, 2001.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated October 10, 2000, which granted the plaintiff husband's motion, in effect, for partial summary judgment determining that his enhanced earning capacity as an investment banker was not marital property.
Gibney, Anthony Flaherty, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard L. Fisch of counsel), and Joseph P. Marro, New York, N.Y., for appellant (one brief filed).
William S. Beslow, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
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.