Is a professional license obtained during marriage considered marital property subject to division upon divorce under New York law?

The plaintiff and defendant married in April 1971, both initially working as teachers. The defendant held a bachelor's degree and temporary teaching certificate, while the plaintiff completed his bachelor's degree and pre-medical courses during the marriage. In 1973, they relocated to Mexico for the plaintiff's medical studies, with the defendant working and contributing her earnings to their expenses. They returned to New York in 1976 for the plaintiff to complete medical school. The plaintiff obtained his medical license in October 1980 and filed for divorce two months later.

Throughout the marriage, the defendant contributed 76% of their income, excluding a $10,000 student loan. At the time of the trial, the plaintiff was a resident in general surgery. The marriage lasted approximately 9 years and 8 months, during which time the defendant supported the plaintiff's educational pursuits, including his medical degree and licensure.

O'Brien initiated a divorce action against her husband. The trial court initially ruled that her husband's medical license was marital property and awarded O'Brien a distributive share. O'Brien's husband appealed this decision to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's ruling, holding that the medical license did not constitute marital property. O'Brien then sought further review. The New York Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case on leave granted by the Appellate Division.

(Simons, J.)

Yes. A professional license obtained during marriage is considered marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce under New York law. The Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) broadly defines marital property to include all property acquired during the marriage, regardless of form. This definition encompasses professional licenses, which represent enhanced earning capacity resulting from the marital economic partnership. The statute explicitly recognizes contributions to a spouse's career or career potential as factors in property distribution, indicating legislative intent to include such intangible assets.

The nature of a professional license as property is not negated by its lack of market value or inability to be sold. Rather, it constitutes a new form of property specifically created by the Equitable Distribution Law. This law views marriage as an economic partnership where both spouses contribute to the acquisition of assets, including enhanced earning potential through professional credentials. Limiting compensation to maintenance or reimbursement would fail to recognize the true value of a license and frustrate the law's purpose of ensuring fair distribution of marital assets.

The inclusion of professional licenses as marital property aligns with the economic realities of modern marriages, where one spouse may support the other's professional advancement with the expectation of sharing in future benefits. It prevents unjust enrichment of the license-holding spouse at the expense of the supporting spouse. This interpretation ensures that courts can make truly equitable distributions that account for both parties' contributions to the marriage, whether financial or non-financial. The broad construction of marital property under New York law thus serves to protect the economic interests of both spouses and upholds the principles of fairness and equity underlying the state's divorce laws.

Concurrence (Meyer, J.) The majority's decision to consider professional licenses as marital property subject to equitable distribution is correct. However, there is potential unfairness in distributive awards based on licenses of professionals still in training. The legislature should consider allowing modifications to such awards to address this issue. This approach would provide flexibility in cases where the licensed spouse's career trajectory or earnings do not align with initial projections.

Concurrence (Titone, J.) I concur with the majority opinion and explicitly state a change in my previous position on this matter as expressed in Conner v Conner. Upon further consideration, I now recognize the validity of treating professional licenses as marital property subject to equitable distribution. This shift in perspective underscores the evolving nature of legal interpretation and the importance of reevaluating precedents in light of new arguments and societal changes.