Murphy v. Murphy
46 A.3d 1093
| D.C. | 2012Background
- Willie and Veta Murphy sought absolute divorce in DC Superior Court; marital home was the main asset.
- Trial evidence valued the S Street home at about $959,000 (2008 tax assessment) while appellant urged a lower current value due to market declines.
- Judgment of divorce and property distribution issued January 16, 2009, using the 2008 tax valuation.
- Appellant moved for new trial/alter or amend judgment arguing the value had materially declined; motion denied.
- Appellant proffered updated valuations showing substantial decline (to around $700,000) and urged reevaluation under McDiarmid requirements.
- Appellant challenged the court’s failure to address attorney’s fees; the court had not issued any ruling on fees at all.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether current valuation must be used for a just distribution | Murphy argues value declined after trial but before disposition | Murphy did not present contrary valuation; court relied on older valuation | Remanded for reevaluation based on current valuation |
| Whether the court properly credited mortgage payments in the distribution | Murphy contends mortgage payments should influence distribution | Court considered mortgage payments among factors | No reversible error; court properly weighed factors including mortgage payments |
| Whether attorney’s fees were addressed; need for findings | Murphy sought fees; court failed to rule | Fees issue not resolved on the record | Remanded for detailed findings on attorney’s fees under Rule 54(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDiarmid v. McDiarmid, 649 A.2d 810 (D.C.1994) (require current valuation to be considered for equitable distribution)
- McNaughton v. McNaughton, 608 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 1992) (valuation near distribution to reflect market fluctuations)
- Sutliff v. Sutliff, 543 A.2d 534 (Pa. 1988) (credit current values in distribution where time lapse impacts asset value)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 708 A.2d 249 (D.C.1998) (emphasizes consideration of current needs and circumstances in equity)
- Burwell v. Burwell, 700 A.2d 219 (D.C.1997) (monetary contributions and needs weighed in equitable distribution)