Divorce Attorney Brooklyn Secures Favorable Asset Division

The client had been married for approximately nine years and was the primary caregiver for two minor children throughout the marriage. 

Early in the relationship, the spouse insisted on assuming exclusive control over household finances, including salary deposits, bank accounts, and credit card usage, asserting superior financial expertise. 

Relying on marital trust, the client permitted centralized financial management and maintained minimal personal spending involvement, a dynamic that later proved detrimental when the marriage deteriorated.

The spouse developed persistent issues involving excessive alcohol consumption and gambling related expenditures, which were concealed from the client for an extended period. 

These activities resulted in rapid depletion of marital funds and accumulation of substantial unsecured debt unrelated to household necessities or child rearing expenses. 

When confronted, the spouse repeatedly minimized the conduct and denied responsibility, further eroding trust and making reconciliation impossible under the circumstances.

The legal team meticulously reconstructed financial records, including payroll deposits, bank statements, and credit activity, to demonstrate that a significant portion of the claimed marital debt stemmed from unilateral conduct unrelated to the marriage’s joint economic purpose. 

The attorney argued that under New York law, liabilities incurred through wasteful or reckless behavior should not be equitably allocated to the innocent spouse, particularly where such conduct directly contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.

In addition to debt exclusion, the divorce attorney Brooklyn presented comprehensive evidence regarding the client’s non monetary contributions, including child rearing, household management, and economic sacrifice during the marriage. 

The court was urged to consider asset dissipation and economically relevant misconduct, not as punitive factors, but as equitable considerations impacting fairness in distribution, consistent with New York equitable distribution principles.

The court expressly acknowledged that the disputed debts resulted from the spouse’s personal misconduct rather than marital necessity, and therefore declined to treat those liabilities as marital debt for purposes of equitable distribution.

As a result, instead of the approximately USD 100,000 initially sought after accounting for shared liabilities, the client was awarded approximately USD 190,000 in marital asset distribution, reflecting a recalibrated and equitable outcome under New York law. 

The client later stated that without the structured advocacy of a divorce attorney Brooklyn, such a result would not have been attainable.