Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fromer, J.H.O.) ordering, inter alia, equitable distribution of the parties’ marital property, entered April 17, 2000 in Ulster County, upon a decision of the court.
The parties were married in September 1976, while both were in the military. They have two daughters, Jamie (born in 1978) and Lucy (born in 1984). Plaintiff eventually became employed as a correction officer with the Department of Correctional Services аnd defendant obtained her undergraduate and Master’s degrees (hereinafter her teaching degree) and permanent teaching certification (hereinafter her license) during the course of the marriage and has been a full-time teacher since 1987. This action for divorce was commenced in October 1998 and was tried by the court in September 1999. During the trial the parties entered into stipulations resolving all issues except the valuation and equitable distribution of the marital residence, the valuation and equitable distribution of defendant’s teaching degree and license and the respective responsibility of each party fоr the payment of college expenses for their oldest child.
Following trial on the remaining issues, Supreme Court ordered equitable distribution of the marital residence and denied equitable distribution of defendant’s teaching degree
On appeal, plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a distributive share of defendant’s enhanced earnings resulting from defendant’s teaching degreе and license, while defendant claims that plaintiff should be required to pay one half of the college expenses incurred for their older daughter prior to her 21st birthday.
Defendant concedes that her teaching degree and license are marital property (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; O’Brien v O’Brien,
During this long-term marriage of over 20 years, both parties worked at a variety of jobs, becoming “full and contributing marital partners” (Suydam v Suydam, supra, at 808), except for the period from 1983 to 1986 when defendant became a full-time student and obtained her undergraduate degree. While teaching full time, she thereafter obtained her Master’s degree in August 1990. During those entire periods, however, plaintiff worked full time on the third shift as a correction officer, was in the National Guard and operated a landscaping business, providing income for the family which then included their two daughters. Defendant agreed that plaintiff assisted with child care during her schooling as plaintiff had testified. Plaintiff also testified that he assisted defendant with her studies, purchased a computer for her schoolwork, took care of the household and was able to do this because, by working the midnight shift, he was often able to get sleep at work. He further testified that a portion of the cost of defendant’s schooling was paid for by their savings and his income. Defendant disputed plaintiff’s claimed monetary contributions to her education, providing proof that her military benefit provided $7,225 more than the total cоst of her undergraduate tuition over that period (1983 to 1986).
It is clear from the proof that for the period of the marriage that defendant withdrew from the labor force to attend school full time, plaintiff provided thе necessary monetary support to sustain the family unit from the income from his employment. In addition, defendant concedes that plaintiff made other nonmonetary contributions, however modest, which enabled her to attain her goal of earning a permanent teaching certificate.
An equitable distribution determination involves consideration of the respective financial conditions of the parties, the cirсumstances of the case and the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) (see, Carlson-Subik v Subik,
In determining the amount of plaintiffs distributive award, we first note that while plaintiffs modest contributions to defendant’s realization of her teaching license entitle him, under our law (see, e.g., O’Brien v O’Brien,
With regard to the proof of valuation of defendant’s enhanced earnings, we accept plaintiffs expert’s opinion reflected in his written report received in evidence аnd bolstered by his trial testimony. Plaintiffs expert opinion, that the value of defendant’s enhanced earnings was $333,000, was based on a thorough analysis of the valuation principles approved by our courts (see, e.g., O’Briеn v O’Brien, supra; McGowan v McGowan, supra). Applying plaintiffs percentage share of these enhanced earnings to that figure results in a distributive award of $33,300 payable by defendant to plaintiff, which may be offset, in pаrt, by plaintiffs obligation for defendant’s share of the equity in the marital residence resulting from Supreme Court’s unchallenged equitable distribution of that marital asset.
Turning to defendant’s next argument, we agree that plaintiff should be directed to reimburse her for one half of the college expenses for their older daughter incurred prior to that child attaining 21. Neither the parties’ stipulations nor Supreme Court’s judgment or findings addressed this issue, although thе issue of child support was raised in the pleadings and the college expenses at issue were the subject of proof at trial.
Generally, in the absence of a voluntary agreement between
In the course of plaintiffs testimony, he agreed that Jamie should go to college and that she has completed two years of undergraduate study. The record also reveals that the parties had relatively equal W-2 incomes for 1997, the last yеar for which proof was received, plaintiffs income amounting to $47,588.02 and defendant’s totaling $44,297.20. While the record does not contain a statement of net worth (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [a]) outlining plaintiffs expenses,
Given the circumstances of the parties, we find special circumstances exist and, in the exercise of our discretion, direct that plaintiff reimburse defendant $10,312 as payment of one half of the college loans incurred by defendant for their daughter Jamie’s college education.
Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, without costs, by directing defendant to pay plaintiff $33,300 as a distributive award for plaintiffs share of defendant’s advanced degree and permanent teaching certification and by directing plaintiff to pay defendant $10,312 as payment of his share of the college expenses of the parties’ daughter, and, as so modified, affirmed.
Notes
. In May 2000, defendant moved to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law to state that the parties had equal incomes at the time that they were married, have equal incomes and benefits now and that it would be inequitable to give plaintiff a distributive award of any portion of defendant’s teaching license and Master’s degree. By decision dated June 19, 2000, Supreme Court granted the motion and amended Paragraph Fifth of the April 7, 2000 findings of fact and cоnclusions of law as requested by defendant. No signed amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, amended judgment or a notice of appeal therefrom is found in the record.
. There is no statement of net worth from either party in the record.