## Facts

- The parties married in December 1979 shortly after the husband was drafted to play professional football for the New York Jets; they had one child (born 1982).
- The wife did not complete college and did not work during the marriage; she served as homemaker and primary caregiver and contributed to household management, including supervising renovations to the marital home.
- The husband’s NFL earnings financed a high standard of living and acquisition of a Huntington, New York residence with substantial equity and an Arizona residence with no equity at trial.
- The wife commenced a divorce action in September 1986 seeking divorce, equitable distribution, and ancillary relief.
- Before trial, the court issued pendente lite support and expense orders; the husband failed to comply and accrued arrears of roughly $71,707, and the court sequestered his NFL severance pay to cover marital expenses.
- In 1988, the husband had an NFL contract for $775,000 payable in 16 game-based installments.
- After six games, the husband voluntarily left the team for personal reasons unrelated to inability to play, causing approximately 10 installments (about $484,437 gross) to go unpaid.
- The husband appeared pro se at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the husband’s voluntary termination of a lucrative, existing NFL contract during the marriage constituted dissipation (waste) of a marital asset for equitable distribution purposes.
2. If so, how the lost portion of the contract should be valued (including tax effects) and allocated in distributing marital property.
3. How statutory equitable-distribution factors, including the short duration of the marriage, the spouses’ respective contributions, and the husband’s arrears and noncompliance with pendente lite orders, should affect the overall distribution.
4. Whether a divorce should be granted on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.

## Decision

- The court granted a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.
- The court held the husband dissipated a marital asset by voluntarily abandoning the NFL contract midseason for personal reasons without regard to his family’s financial needs.
- The court treated the unearned contract payments as marital property charged against the husband, valuing the lost payments (gross amount reduced for appropriate tax and related adjustments) for distribution purposes.
- The court awarded the wife the Huntington residence and an overall share of approximately one-third of the marital estate as calculated, considering her needs, her non-economic contributions, the husband’s dissipation, and his substantial arrears.

## Legal Principles

- In equitable distribution, a spouse may be charged with dissipation of marital property when the spouse intentionally or unreasonably depletes or fails to preserve a valuable, existing marital asset or income stream for reasons unrelated to legitimate necessity.
- A present, enforceable employment contract with virtually certain payments if performed may be treated as marital property; voluntary abandonment can be treated as waste of that marital value.
- When an asset has been dissipated before distribution, the court may value the wasted asset (including appropriate tax consequences) and account for it by charging the dissipating spouse in allocating the remaining marital estate.
- Equitable distribution is not required to be equal; courts consider statutory factors, including the marriage’s duration, the parties’ economic and non-economic contributions, and the custodial parent’s housing needs.
- Persistent noncompliance with pendente lite support orders and resulting arrears may weigh against the noncomplying spouse in shaping equitable distribution and related relief.

## Conclusion

The court granted a divorce and, applying New York equitable-distribution principles, found that the husband’s voluntary abandonment of a lucrative NFL contract was dissipation of marital property; it valued the lost contract payments and charged that value against him, awarding the wife the equity-bearing marital residence and roughly one-third of the marital estate in light of her domestic contributions, custodial needs, and the husband’s arrears and misconduct.


Gastineau v. Gastineau, 151 Misc. 2d 813, 573 N.Y.S.2d 819 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cnty. 1991)