CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnone v. Arnone

The parties married in 1980 and divorced after a prolonged action initiated in 1997. The Supreme Court's initial judgment distributed marital property, including the marital residence to the defendant, and allowed the plaintiff to retain his state pension. Defendant appealed the equitable distribution, challenging the classification of certain bank accounts as separate property and the denial of a share in the plaintiff's state pension. The appellate court upheld the separate property designations but found that the defendant was entitled to a 50% share of the plaintiff's state pension, modifying the judgment accordingly. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions regarding maintenance and counsel fees, denying further awards to the defendant.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDivorce ProceedingsSpousal Pension RightsAppellate ReviewSeparate PropertyMaintenance AwardsCounsel FeesDisability BenefitsProperty Valuation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Francis

This case concerns a bench trial to determine if three non-marital children (J, D, and S) are entitled to inherit from the decedent under EPTL 4-1.2 (a) (2) (C). The children's mother, the petitioner, presented extensive evidence of the decedent's relationship with her and the children, including cohabitation, financial support, and introductions to his family. The respondent, the decedent's spouse, contested this claim, asserting the decedent denied fathering other children and consistently resided with her. The court, finding the petitioner's evidence clear and convincing, concluded that the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity of the children, citing photographic evidence, rental agreements, tax returns, and testimony from both families. Consequently, the court ruled that J, D, and S are entitled to inherit from the decedent as his non-marital children.

Inheritance LawNon-marital ChildrenPaternityEPTL 4-1.2Clear and Convincing EvidenceOpen and Notorious AcknowledgmentEstate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFamily LawDistributees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. 02A01-9709-CV-00231
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Sarah Wilkerson v. Robert Wilkerson

This is a divorce case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the distribution of marital property. The trial court awarded the husband $25,000, representing 38.5% of the marital home's value, and the remainder of the marital property to the wife as alimony in solido, having considered the husband's fault. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in considering fault in the division of marital property and in failing to include all marital assets, such as both parties' automobiles and the husband's pension, in the marital estate. The court also determined that the presumption of equal marital property distribution was not overcome. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instructions for an equal, 50/50, division of marital property before addressing the issue of alimony.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewFault in DivorceEquitable DistributionPension ValuationAutomobile ClassificationSpousal SupportTennessee Family Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mylette v. Mylette

The plaintiff moved to have the defendant's disability pension, from the New York City Police Pension Fund, classified as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) (b). The defendant, a former New York City police officer, received the disability pension after a line-of-duty knee injury, terminating his employment after 12 years, short of the 15 years required for vesting. The court reviewed legal precedents from various states and New York, which generally treat disability pensions as separate property, particularly when compensating for personal injuries rather than deferred compensation. The court found that the defendant's pension was purely compensation for his injury, distinguishing it from retirement benefits, and that he had no option to choose a regular retirement package. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that the disability pension is the defendant's separate property.

Domestic Relations LawDisability PensionMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionSeparate PropertyPolice Pension FundPersonal Injury CompensationNonvested BenefitsFamily LawProperty Classification
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goudreau v. Goudreau

This case details an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning the equitable distribution of marital property and the denial of maintenance in a divorce action. The parties, married in 1978, had two children. The plaintiff worked in the defendant's contracting business without pay before developing a work-related partial disability and receiving workers' compensation benefits. The defendant's primary income came from his contracting business, and the couple acquired three parcels of real property during their marriage. The Supreme Court granted a divorce, distributed assets, and denied maintenance to both parties. On appeal, the court affirmed the equitable distribution, deeming it fair. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of maintenance, remitting the case for a new trial on that issue. This reversal was based on the Supreme Court's failure to provide a reasoned analysis for its decision, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (b), and concerns regarding the imputation of income to the plaintiff without adequately considering her partial disability or providing a factual basis for the calculation.

DivorceEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyMaintenanceSpousal SupportImputed IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1988

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

The plaintiff commenced a divorce action against the defendant on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The Supreme Court granted the divorce, awarded maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution of marital property. The defendant appealed, contesting the sufficiency of evidence for cruel and inhuman treatment and the excessiveness of the financial awards. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support the divorce and deeming the maintenance and child support awards reasonable. The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the valuation of retirement benefits.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyMaintenanceChild SupportAppellate ReviewCredibilityEvidence SufficiencyDomestic Relations Law
References
5
Case No. E2001-02849-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2002

Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins

This case involves an appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County concerning a divorce decree. James Franklin Hopkins challenged the Trial Court's award of alimony to Sherry Mae Hopkins and the order for marital debts to be paid from the sale of the marital residence. He also asserted Ms. Hopkins unlawfully disposed of marital assets. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and modified in part, reversing the alimony in futuro award and granting rehabilitative alimony for four years. The appellate court upheld the division of marital debt but found Ms. Hopkins violated a statutory injunction by selling a marital asset without consent, granting Mr. Hopkins a credit.

DivorceAlimonyMarital PropertyDebt DivisionSpousal SupportRehabilitative AlimonyMarital AssetsAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageFamily Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

McAteer v. McAteer

This case involves cross appeals from a Supreme Court judgment concerning equitable distribution of marital property and maintenance following a divorce. The parties were married in 1974 and separated in 1989. The Supreme Court initially awarded the plaintiff $400 per month in lifetime maintenance, later amending it to terminate upon the defendant collecting Social Security. The Court also applied the Majauskas formula for pension distribution, using the 1992 unsuccessful divorce action as the terminal date. The Appellate Court modified the judgment, setting the maintenance commencement date and the pension calculation's terminal date to November 15, 1999 (the start of the successful divorce action). The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for redetermination of these interdependent issues.

Equitable DistributionMaintenance AwardMarital PropertyPension DistributionDivorce ProceedingsRetroactive PaymentsSocial Security EntitlementsAppellate ProcedureFamily Law IssuesJudicial Discretion
References
8
Case No. W2013-02220-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2014

Melinda Jan Metzinger v. Ronald Wayne Metzinger

This appeal concerns the classification and division of a husband's $66,000 personal injury settlement in a divorce proceeding between Melinda Jan Metzinger (Wife) and Ronald Wayne Metzinger (Husband). The trial court initially classified the entire settlement as marital property, deducted $13,400 for marital expenses, and awarded Wife half of the remaining balance, or $26,300. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, agreeing with the Husband that only a small portion of the settlement, specifically $3,400 for medical bills and approximately $10,000 for lost wages, could be classified as marital property. Since the trial court had already deducted $13,400, which was greater than the determined marital property amount, no marital property remained for distribution to the Wife.

DivorceMarital PropertyPersonal Injury SettlementProperty DivisionLost WagesMedical ExpensesSeparate PropertyDissipation of AssetsAppealTennessee Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 235 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational