Category: Property Division

The Art of Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Dividing assets in a divorce is not only a requirement, it can be a difficult aspect of a divorce. If so, valuing an art collection is singularly one of the most disputed parts of a divorce. Not only is valuation a problem, but people are emotionally attached to their artwork as one billionaire couple in New York has found out.

art of divorce

Billionaire’s Row

The ex-husband is Harry Macklowe, a real estate developer. The ex-wife is Linda Macklowe, an honorary trustee of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, who is passionate about collecting modern art.

Together they have accumulated a $72 million apartment, so large it runs the full length of one side of the Plaza Hotel, with windows overlooking Central Park. A second Manhattan apartment is high up in one of the tallest buildings in the Western Hemisphere, along the so-called Billionaires’ Row.

Their $19 million house in the Hamptons on Long Island has neighbors with boldface names, including Martha Stewart and Steven Spielberg. The $23.5 million yacht is a 150-foot-long prizewinner.

And then there is the art collection, an enormous trove of masterpieces that the judge presiding over the divorce described as “extraordinary” and “internationally renowned” and that has become the latest chapter in the exes’ rancorous unraveling. Among the more than 150 pieces are multiple works by Pablo Picasso, Jeff Koons, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko.

The exes’ lawyers have fought about what most of them were worth — one rare moment of agreement came when two art experts hired separately by the exes both valued an Andy Warhol creation filled with images of Marilyn Monroe at $50 million — and who should get them.

Florida Property Division

I have written about property division before. Florida is an equitable distribution state when it comes to dividing art in divorce. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s nonmarital assets and liabilities.

In distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution.

Whenever an agreement cannot be made between the spouses, the court’s distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities must be supported by factual findings and be based on competent evidence. Whether the court distributes artwork equally or not, the court must make specific written findings of fact as to each marital asset and the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset.

Because an effective valuation is important, most attorneys will hire an expert appraiser to provide the appropriate report and testimony to the court.

It’s Up to You New York, New York

The Macklowes’ divorce comes with the twist of an impressive art collection that has been valued at as much as nearly $1 billion. In 2016, Mr. Macklowe told Ms. Macklowe that the marriage was over. By the end of last year, the Macklowes’ divorce had been granted. Mr. Macklowe then put giant images of himself and Patricia Landeau, his new wife, on the side of a luxury condominium building in Manhattan that he built.

But the wrangling continued over how to divide an art collection that David N. Redden, a former vice chairman of Sotheby’s, called “fairly staggering” and “one of the great prizes.” In the Macklowes’ divorce, the former spouses had to unload the art “to sustain their lifestyle. They don’t have the cash.” About 60 to 75 percent of their assets were tied up in the art collection.

As for the value of the art, during the lower-court proceeding, each side hired an expert to appraise the art. Mr. Macklowe’s expert estimated the value at $788 million; Ms. Macklowe’s expert said $625 million.

“If this had been a case with one or two fewer zeros, it would be an ordinary kind of dispute. Because of the prominence of the parties and the amount of money involved, this is a case that attracts natural attention.”

Ms. Macklowe did not want to let anything go. “She stated that she wished to enjoy the collection and sell individual pieces only as necessary to support her standard of living.” That would have posed tax problems for Mr. Macklowe. The wife wanted all the major pieces of art to go to her, and she would decide what to sell and when to sell it. The husband would have to pay taxes on what would be sold, because the value that would be attributed to the works would be the after-tax value. She would keep the art, the art would get sold and he would pay the taxes.

The New York Times article is here.

 

The Art of Property Division

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Developer Harry Macklowe and his wife, Linda, were ordered to split their “internationally renowned collection” of modern art from the likes of Andy Warhol and Alberto Giacometti in a property division case involving hundreds of millions of dollars.

property division

Who Needs Nine Marilyn Monroes?

A New York court in Manhattan ruled that the Macklowe art trove amassed during 59 years of marriage should be sold and the profits shared.

In a sign of the acrimony that fueled a prolonged legal dispute, the couple couldn’t agree on what the collection was worth — Harry’s expert said $788 million, while Linda’s said $625 million.

Their collection, which encompasses some 165 pieces of art, among them Andy Warhol’s Nine Marilyns which is estimated to be worth $50 million, Le Nez by Alberto Giacometti, worth up to $35 million, Jeff Koons Vest with Aqualung for $10-11 million, and Jackson Pollock, Number 17, valued at up to $35 million..

Florida Property Division

I’ve written about property division in Florida. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their nonmarital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties.

In dividing the marital assets and debts though, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal.

However, if there is a justification for an unequal distribution, the court can give less than equal. When a court orders an unequal distribution, it must base the decision on certain factors, including some of the following:

  • The contribution to the marriage by each spouse.
  • The economic circumstances of the parties.
  • The duration of the marriage.
  • Any interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities.
  • The contribution to the personal career or educational opportunity of the other spouse.
  • The desirability of retaining any asset.
  • intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets.
  • Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

The courts don’t even have to wait for the end of the case to start a property division. Florida law allows courts, if they find good cause that there should be an interim partial distribution during a divorce action, to equitably distribute property sooner.

The Nose Knows

After a 14-week trial last year, the divorce judge determined in a 65-page opinion how to split all the assets held by the 81-year-old developer and his wife, who is on the board of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Linda will get to keep $40 million in art but will have to pay half of that to Harry, she’ll get to keep their 14,000-square-foot apartment at the Plaza Hotel valued at $72 million but have to pay her estranged spouse $36 million for his share. Harry will retain ownership of $82 million in commercial real estate — including 737 Park Ave. — but pay Linda $41 million.

The couple will split the $62 million they have in cash, the judge said.

Linda Macklowe gets to keep another $40 million of art — including works by Koons and Picasso, but must pay Harry $20 million in credit, the judge said.

The couple were married Jan. 4, 1959, when he was a 21-year-old ad salesman for Parents Magazine and she was 20, working as a receptionist. They had no prenuptial agreement.

The Bloomberg article is here.

 

Today’s Property Division

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

According to People, former Today Show anchor, Matt Lauer, is finalizing his divorce with Annette Roque. The settlement is rumored to involve him paying his wife up to $20 million. The details of the property division however is unknown, but is a reminder that divorce property division laws in Florida recently changed in a big way.

Property Division

Good Morning Property Divisions

According to People, the couple, who wed 20 years ago in 1998, has agreed to share custody of their children. He is rumored to have a lot of guilt and wants to make sure Annette is taken care of.

Reportedly:

They seem happier and their family and friends are thrilled to see they are both moving forward.”

Left unsaid in the article is what happens to the $7 million coop in New York City, the Hamptons beachfront estate he bought for $36 million from actor Richard Gere, his Sag Harbor home, and other properties.

Florida Property Division . . . and Friends

I’ve written about property division before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their non-marital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties.

Marital assets and liabilities include, in part, assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them.

Passive Appreciation and Morning Joe

Passive appreciation of a nonmarital asset may also be a marital asset the court must equitably distribute. For example, Lauer bought his upper East Side apartment for roughly $6 million, but has it listed for over $7 million.

In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court held that “passive appreciation of a nonmarital asset … is properly considered a marital asset where marital funds or the efforts of either party contributed to the appreciation.”

The Florida Supreme Court created a formula for courts to use in determining the value of the passive appreciation of nonmarital real property for equitable distribution.

But the formula was flawed because there is no relationship between the amount of marital funds used to pay down a mortgage during a marriage, and the passive appreciation of the property.

Also, the case requires a nonowner spouse to have made contributions to the property as a prerequisite to sharing in the passive appreciation of the property.

Live with Kaaa

Recently, Governor Scott signed a bill to fix the problem. The bill amends our equitable distribution statute and establishes a statutory formula for courts to use.

The new statutory formula does not require the nonowner spouse to have made contributions to the property, and also bars the marital portion of nonmarital real property from exceeding the total net equity of the property on the valuation date in the divorce action.

The People article is available here.

 

Property Division is not Nirvana

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Kurt Cobain’s acoustic guitar from the MTV Unplugged concert is legendary. The equitable distribution of Kurt’s iconic guitar was a major property division issue in the divorce between Kurt’s daughter and her husband. The case of Kurt’s guitar is now decided.

About a Girl

The divorce between Kurt Cobain’s daughter Frances Bean Cobain and her Isaiah Silva may be over, but Cobain lost a prized possession to her now Ex-Husband: her father’s famous guitar.

Isaiah claimed he owns Kurt’s former Martin D-18E guitar from the famed MTV performance. The guitar is a very rare; only 300 were made.

For the Cobains however, the guitar’s sentimental value is immeasurable, as it was the last guitar played by Kurt before his suicide.

Silva argued the model had given him the guitar as a present, while she denied ever giving it to him. That was for the judge to decide.

Florida Property Division

I’ve written about equitable distribution and various types of property divisions in Florida before. Let’s assume that the guitar was in fact a wedding gift from Frances to Isaiah.

What happens? In all likelihood, the guitar would be considered marital property, not just Isaiah’s, and would have to be equitably distributed.

In Florida, “Marital assets and liabilities” include interspousal gifts during the marriage. In divorce proceedings, the court must divide the marital assets between the parties.

Courts begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on certain relevant factors.

These factors include things like the contribution to the marriage by each spouse, the economic circumstances of the parties, and any interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities of either party for instance.

So, what are “marital assets and liabilities”? They include things like assets acquired during the marriage, and interspousal gifts during the marriage for instance.

However, “nonmarital assets” include things like assets acquired before the marriage, and assets acquired by non-interspousal gift. This sort of non-interspousal gift argument may have been similar to what Isaiah argued successfully in court.

Smells Like Teen Spirit

Although she lost the iconic guitar in the equitable distribution, Frances did get the house they bought together, and doesn’t have to provide any spousal support; Silva had been asking for $25,000 a month.

The People article is here.

 

Property Division is Not Half Bad

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

They say a guy knows he’s in love when he loses interest in his car. A Kansas man is showing the reverse is also true. Alternatively, that would explain why the Kansas man still clings to his half-of-a-car long after his love ended. At the very least,his half-a-car is physical proof that a property division means equal halves.

The Better Half

According to the Kansas City Star, the late-Edgerton Mayor, Ray Braun, used to own the gas station where the front half of his 1987 Chevrolet Citation is parked, a testament to a successful property division.

On the side of the car is a sign which reads:

“Divorced. She got ½.”

The former mayor is the culprit who put his half of the equitable distribution – the half-car – in front of the gas station.

Some view his half a car as a landmark. If you go to Kansas City, or anywhere around, and ask about this town, they have no clue where it’s at. But if you ask them, ‘You remember that little half-car that’s off 56?’ ‘Yeah!’ ‘Well, that’s that little town.

But at a special morning meeting, the three council members in attendance decided unanimously for the city attorney to draft a resolution to finally be rid of the half car.

Florida Property Division

I’ve written about property division in Florida many times before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their nonmarital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties. In dividing the marital assets and debts though, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal.

However, if there is a justification for an unequal distribution, the court can give less than equal.

When a court orders an unequal distribution, it must base the decision on certain factors, including some of the following:

  • The contribution to the marriage by each spouse.
  • The economic circumstances of the parties.
  • The duration of the marriage.
  • Any interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities.
  • The contribution to the personal career or educational opportunity of the other spouse.
  • The desirability of retaining any asset.
  • The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.
  • Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

The courts don’t even have to wait for the end of the case to distribute property. Florida law allows courts, if they find good cause that there should be an interim partial distribution during a divorce action, to equitably distribute property sooner.

You Don’t Know the Half of It

Braun fitted his half-car with rear caster wheels and used to drive it in parades. But City Council President Clay Longanecker says the car has become “an eyesore” and the Edgerton codes department has ruled it has to be disposed of.

To some Edgerton residents however, the half-car has for years been seen as a welcoming post, a kind of unofficial eyesore monument. and some may fight to keep it.

The biggest joke of all? Braun was never divorced.

The Kansas City Star article is here.

 

Injunctions: Property Division on Ice

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Rapper Vanilla Ice’s divorce is getting hot! His wife’s lawyers filed court papers trying to stop him from selling marital property by asking for a court injunction. You can’t have a property division if your spouse gets rid of the assets first. Here’s how to protect yourself.

Ice Ice Baby

According to TMZ, Vanilla Ice’s Wife wants to prevent a fire sale in the wake of their impending divorce, which has already gotten underway with him allegedly unloading their jet skis.

He’s a gentleman, he’s not hiding anything”

said a source in Ice’s entourage who asked to remain anonymous because there’s a gag order in the case.

Vanilla Ice’s estranged wife, Laura Van Winkle, filed a motion for an injunction to prevent her husband from selling marital property earlier this month to stop any more sales.

Freezing Assets

I’ve written about property division before, but a property division does you no good if the assets are long gone. How exactly do you avoid getting frozen out of your fair share of the property if your spouse is getting rid of it before a court can divide it? One way is an injunction.

Our divorce statute has a provision which specifically allows a court to freeze assets when either party is about to remove his or her property out of the state, or fraudulently convey or conceal it.

Florida courts can enter an injunction against the party or the property and make such orders as will secure alimony or support to the party who should receive it. A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which are granted sparingly. The requirement to even be entitled to a temporary injunction, are tough.

In conclusion, Mrs. Ice must show that she will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; she has no adequate remedy at law; she has a clear legal right to the relief requested; and, the temporary injunction will serve the public interest.

There are plenty of examples of injunctions being used to prevent the waste of property. For example, they can be used to prevent both the sale of a home and prohibit you from going into further debt through a mortgage or line of credit.

Jet Skis on Ice

According to the article, Mrs. Ice claims Vanilla is in possession of nearly all of the couple’s marital assets, and she can’t stop him from doing what he wants with their property without a court injunction.

Mrs. Ice filed her original divorce petition in 2016. She asked to be allowed to stay in the family house, child support for the ice, ice baby, alimony, and attorney’s fees.

The TMZ article is here.

 

Ocean’s 492 Million: Divorce Fraud

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A London court ordered the seizure of a $492 million yacht in Dubai, to enforce one of the largest divorce property divisions in history. The reason for the large payout? The family law judge found that the husband tried to hide his assets.

© A.Savin, Wikimedia Commons

Cruisin’ for a Bruisin’

The British court ruled that Farkhad Akhmedov should transfer ownership of the 380-foot boat MV Luna, currently impounded in a dry dock in Dubai, to his wife, Tatiana Akhmedova. The judge granted the order to uphold his earlier $646 million judgment.

Judge Charles Haddon-Cave said that Akhmedov tried to hide his ownership of the Luna behind a group of companies and moved the ship to Dubai on the belief that it was “well beyond the reach of an English court judgment.”

Fraud and Unequal Distribution

I’ve written about property division in Florida many times before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their nonmarital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties.

In dividing the marital assets and debts though, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal. However, if there is a justification for an unequal distribution, as in the Akhmedov divorce, the court has the authority.

However, the court must base an unequal distribution on certain factors, including: the contribution to the marriage by each spouse; the economic circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage, or any interrupting of personal careers or education.

It has been a long-standing rule in Florida that an unequal distribution of marital assets may be justified to compensate for one spouse’s “intentional dissipation, waste, depletion or destruction of marital assets after filing of the petition….” For example, hiding your $492m yacht in the Middle East.

High Seas Adventure

In the final days of the divorce, the billionaire changed his ownership of the yacht to another of his companies. The transactions form part of the billionaire’s “continuing campaign to defeat Akhmedova by concealing his assets in a web of offshore companies.

The Luna, which boasts a 20-meter outdoor swimming pool and eight smaller boats, also has a mini-submarine.

Akhmedov said he had supported his wife after their marriage was dissolved in Russia. He blamed cynical lawyers for later filing for divorce in London, and U.K. politics for the court’s decision.

The couple met in 1989, marrying four years later and moved to London where the wife has lived with the children ever since. The marriage ended in late 2014.

Akhmedov, who refused to take part in the U.K. trial and moved back to Russia, has allegedly moved his substantial modern art collection, valued at 90.5 million pounds, to Lichtenstein, his wife said in the court documents in January.

The judge said that they needed to move quickly to enforce the order over the boat. Akhmedov “has over the past 18 months repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to take rapid and multifarious steps to evade enforcement at every turn.”

The Bloomberg article is here.

 

The Engagement Ring

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

If the luck of the Irish holds, your engagement diamond may be yours forever. Diamonds, given to you after someone asks the question: “will you marry me?” with a “yes” to follow, are a contract. This is why so many of them end up in court property division cases.

The Engagement Ring Tradition

Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiancé could sue for financial compensation for “damage” to her reputation under what was known as the “Breach of Promise to Marry” action.

As courts began to abolish such actions, diamond ring sales rose in response to a need for a symbol of financial commitment from the groom.

I’ve written about engagement rings before. Florida abolished the appropriately termed “heart balm statutes”. Heart balm statutes were laws allowing couples to sue each other to recover money for the alienation of affections and breaches of contract to marry.

As one court poetically noted:

[A] gift given by a man to a woman on condition that she embark on the sea of matrimony with him is no different from a gift based on the condition that the donee sail on any other sea. If, after receiving the provisional gift, the donee refuses to leave the harbor – if the anchor of contractual performance sticks in the sands of irresolution and procrastination – the gift must be restored to the donor. A fortiori would this be true when the donee not only refuses to sail with the donor, but, on the contrary, walks up the gangplank of another ship arm in arm with the donor’s rival?

Engagement Rings in Court

After an engagement ring is given, and if the couple doesn’t marry, in New York the law deems a broken engagement as no one’s fault. Accordingly, the ring should be given back to the giver, with few exceptions. Most states have adopted that approach.

This is true in Florida. Lawsuits to recover an engagement ring by disappointed donors usually are resolved by courts looking to see if the engagement was terminated by the donee or by mutual consent of the parties.

The rationale is that rings are given on the implied condition that a marriage ensue.

Once a marriage proposal is extended and accepted — once the promise is made — no matter what day of the year, that ring is no longer considered a gift. It’s a contract to enter into marriage.

Most states embraced the no-fault rule after the 1997 case of Heiman v. Parrish. There, the Kansas Supreme Court decided that no matter who broke the engagement, the ring should be given back to the giver if the parties don’t marry.

“Ordinarily, the ring should be returned to the donor, regardless of fault,” the court found.

But Montana hasn’t followed the rule. Montana classifies the ring as an unconditional gift. The recipient keeps it. California and Texas take a middle-of-the road approach: the recipient of the ring is expected to return it, unless the giver called off the engagement.

The general rule in Florida is that an engagement ring given before the marriage, becomes a non-marital gift if the marriage is completed. If so, the ring becomes the non-marital property of the Wife.

If the engagement ring is viewed by the court as a non-marital asset, it is not subject to equitable distribution in divorce proceedings, and the spouse keeps it as their own.

The New York Times article is here.

 

Dividing the Mommy Makeover: Cosmetic Surgery and Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Property Division in divorce can mean complex valuations are brought to court for a decision . . . but not always. Sometimes, breast augmentation surgery becomes a divisive issue. Recently, a state Supreme Court heard such a case. How are breasts equitably distributed?

Mommy Makeovers

Some call it “revenge plastic surgery”. Others call it the “Mommy Makeover”. There has been a long-term trend for women who have had breast augmentation surgery to separate and divorce, as compared to other women. There are now newer trends we’re seeing.

Men are also getting Daddy Makeovers. Men are enlarging their breasts, getting tummy tucks, and liposuction for body contouring for a more attractive physique.

Men and women are increasingly getting their physical enhancements done before filing for divorce. The new trend is for people considering divorce to plan for their divorce financially, emotionally and . . . physically!

The Great Divide

Erik Isaacson and Traci Isaacson were married in 1993, and have three children together. After filing for their divorce, they had to put together a schedule of assets and liabilities for the trial court to divide.

Erik put together his marital property list, and in it he included Traci’s breast implants, and valued the breast implants at $5,500. Traci listed them in her list, but assigned them no value.

The trial judge was not amused:

“[Breast implants are] the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen listed on a property and debt listing, next to the cat litter and cat box I had in my very first divorce, is going to be stricken.”

Hoping to avoid a painful distribution, the judge ruled on the cosmetic surgery:

I don’t know how you would expect me to award breast implants. Do you want me to have them cut out and given to Mr. Isaacson. . .? It’s absolutely nonsense. Do not waste the Court’s time with stuff like this.”

Erik appealed, arguing the trial judge improperly excluded the value of breast implants from the marital estate because it allowed Traci to spend marital funds on property she got to keep after the divorce.

Florida Property Division

I’ve written about property division before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law, but cosmetic surgery has not specifically been dealt with in Florida.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their non-marital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties.

Marital assets and liabilities include, in part, assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them.

In dividing the marital assets and debts though, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal.

One reason for an unequal distribution is the intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets.

Cosmetic surgery, and related medical bills, certainly fall into the category of marital liabilities. When a court has to determine which spouse pays for cosmetic surgery and related medical bills, a court may want to consider whether the procedure is medically necessary, or cosmetic, or a dissipation of assets.

Fargo

Erik and Traci took their breast case to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Citing cases from Hawaii, Delaware and Kentucky, Erik asked the Supreme Court to hold Traci’s breasts were a marital asset, the value of which are subject to an equal division of the marital estate.

During oral argument, one justice commented:

“Do we have any lines to be drawn? Is dental work a marital asset? Is a hip replacement a marital asset?”

In the end, the high court found that Erik never argued that the expenditure of funds to obtain the breast implants was a dissipation of marital assets:

nor did he present the district court with any reason why breast implants should be considered a marital asset.

The Supreme Court found the trial judge did not err in excluding the breast implants as a marital asset, and Traci was saved from a very painful property division.

Was Isaacson v. Isaacson the most important decision in matrimonial law? Probably not. But, equitable distribution does raise a number of interesting questions.

Especially when it comes to the increasing trend to undergo cosmetic surgery as a part of divorce planning.

The North Dakota Supreme Court decision is here.

 

Divorce and Cryptocurrency: A Bit of Bitcoin

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Divorces are increasingly dealing with a new kind of asset: Cryptocurrencies. They are volatile and can be difficult to trace. What is a cryptocurrency, why are they so popular, and how are they a part of a property division in divorce?

Bitcoin is a type of cryptocurrency, and they are the latest way to potentially stash money so it can’t be found when it comes to dividing the marital estate.

Due to the supposed anonymity of Bitcoins, it seems practical and logical that people try to hide their cryptocurrencies from their spouses.

Cryptocurrencies are growing in ever larger value, and they are popping up more in divorces as a new class of asset to divide.

The law is familiar with the redistribution of many types of assets, like cash, bank accounts and other investments, but cryptocurrencies may be charting new ground.

Cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrencies are digital currencies not associated with a central government. Bitcoin, the biggest and most well-known, was developed back in 2009.

They are created and controlled by computer programs, or algorithms. Those algorithms lay out how transactions are made and recorded, and how new coins or tokens are found and released.

People and organizations known as “miners” keep records of every transaction, and attempt to solve complex computer problems that, when solved, reward them with new coins.

In effect, users record transactions directly between peers, rather than through banks or other intermediaries. That system is known as a blockchain and the transactions, and even the currencies, are sometimes referred to as “peer-to-peer.”

A major difference between a cryptocurrency and the U.S. Dollar is that, unlike the U.S. Dollar, the total amount that can ever be in circulation is limited. Because the total supply of the currency is restricted, you do not use more coins to pay for goods and services, but less.

Florida Property Division

I’ve written about property division in Florida many times before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their non-marital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties. In dividing the marital assets and debts though, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal.

In Florida, if there is a justification for an unequal distribution, the court can do so, but must base the unequal distribution on certain factors, including: the contribution to the marriage by each spouse; the economic circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage, or any interrupting of personal careers or education.

Additionally, courts can consider the intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing of the petition.

A major fight which can take place during mediation is whether a spouse is responsible for the 50 percent drop in value of a cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin Mania

One of the main problems with a cryptocurrency is their high volatility. It is hard to equitably distribute volatile assets which can gain or lose so much value so quickly.

The price of Bitcoin, for instance, the world’s biggest and best-known cryptocurrency, almost halved in value from its peak value in December.

Cryptocurrencies will be a significant feature in a large number of divorces. Although they can be traceable, cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and they are not going to go away.

The Business Insider article is here.