fbpx Skip to content

DIVORCE: Husband Allegedly Lost $500,000, When Working As A ‘Day Trader’

Case:  Anapol v. Navarrete

Court:  Stamford/Norwalk J.D., at Stamford

Doc. No.:  FA11-40200455; court Opinion by :  Emons, J.

Date:  Feb. 16, 2012

A court can refuse to credit testimony that a party lacks an earning capacity as a result of the recession.  The parties married in 1992 and have two children.  Allegedly, the husband, 51, worked in a real estate and then, in 2008, attempted to earn money as a “day trader,” and failed to disclose to the wife that he lost $500,000 from his new venture, or that he “borrowed” from the wife’s accounts.  The husband testified that he was unable to provide for his family.  The court found that the husband, who earned a New York University degree in finance and information technology, continues to possess an earning capacity of $150,000 per year.  The plaintiff wife, 51, left Nautica in order to work as a homemaker.  The parties agreed to joint custody and primary residence with the wife.  The court ordered the husband to pay $6,250.00 per month, as unallocated alimony and child support, until the wife’s death, marriage, cohabitation or Feb. 16, 2022, whichever takes place first.  The court also ordered the husband to pay 50 percent of expenses and extracurricular activities of the minor children that cost more than $100.  The court kept jurisdiction for the purposes of post-majority education support.  The court ordered each party to maintain $1 million in life insurance and to designate each other as the beneficiary, as long as either is obligated to pay alimony or child support.  The court ordered the wife the marital residence, which is in foreclosure, and ordered the parties to divide equally any sales proceeds or deficiency, in the event of transfer or sale, except that the wife may keep any sum that the bank pays, in event of transfer to the mortgage lender, provided that the husband is not legally responsible on the mortgage.  The court kept jurisdiction for the purposes of any transfer or sale of the residence.  The court ordered the husband to pay the wife $350,000, because he allegedly dissipated marital assets and “borrowed” form his wife’s accounts.  The court awarded the wife the BMW.