Once in a while I see a divorce action where one of the parties to the action is entitled to lifetime medical insurance benefits as a result of his/her employment. For obvious reasons, such benefits may be of great value to one or both parties. What happens if one of the parties makes an argument that such benefits are subject to equitable distribution?
In Henig v. Henig, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50546(U) (Sup. Ct. Nassay Co. 2010), the husband was a former New York City Police Officer who retired in 2007. Since his retirement on December 31, 2007, he has been entitled to and does receive lifetime medical, dental and vision benefits for himself, wife, and the parties’ children. Wife argued that the medical insurance is a marital asset and subject to Equitable Distribution, and/or equals a benefit to be included in determining husband’s income.
Wife argued that the Domestic Relations Law contemplates an expansive view of marital property and analogized the lifetime health benefits to a pension insofar as such benefits are an asset, received only upon retirement. She claimed that husband’s rights to the coverage matured as of his retirement, and Wife has rights independent of the husband, i.e., if there were no divorce and husband were to die, Wife and children would still receive benefits.
While wife made that argument, however, her lawyer had not submitted any documentary evidence, specific to the plan, to substantiate these claims. Wife’s attorney also argued that lifetime benefits, like a pension, are contractual rights, which have some value because they are received in lieu of higher compensation, which husband would have earned otherwise, however, wife’s counsel again provided no proof to substantiate this claim.
Husband argued that since enactment of DRL §236 B, neither the Court of Appeals nor the four appellate divisions have held that employee-subsidized health insurance benefits are marital property subject to Equitable Distribution. In fact, in contemplation of the loss of such health benefits, DRL§255(a) directly addresses the issue stating that ” once a judgment is signed a party there to may or may not be eligible to be covered under the other party’s health insurance plan.” Husband’s lawyer also argued that amendments to DRL§236(B) provide that loss of health insurance benefits upon dissolution of marriage are factors that a court must consider for the purposes of determining maintenance and Equitable Distribution, but that such benefits are not itself an asset, and if the Legislature intended that such benefits be included in the definition of marital asset, it would have done so as it has amended and modified other provisions concerning health insurance.
Husband further argued that wife may elect continuation of coverage under a COBRA option, or she could obtain her own health insurance benefits through full-time employment, the cost of which is a consideration in her support award, if any. Wife’s available remedy through the election of COBRA coverage would ensure the avoidance of any possible double-dipping by ordering the husband, to pay for her health insurance. Husband’s counsel, however, has not submitted any proof of the availability of a COBRA option to wife upon dissolution of the marriage, nor was there any proof presented with as to wife’s ability to obtain benefits through employment.
As far as the health insurance benefits themselves, the husband currently pays $15.32 per month for such benefits and an annual deductible $300.00. The continuation of the benefits is at a continued cost to husband, and his failure to make such payments will result in the cessation of such benefits. In further support of the proposition that lifetime health benefits are not defined like a pension, husband’s lawyer asserted that wife has already received her marital portion of the insurance having enjoyed its benefits during the marriage, and even the period after husband’s retirement and until such time that the Judgment of Divorce is entered. Furthermore, he argued that upon divorce Husband will pay the monthly premium from his separate property, and continuation of the health insurance policy is conditioned upon payments made from separate property and therefore any marital right to the insurance terminates upon divorce.
Wife’s divorce attorney cited Walek v. Walek, 193 Misc 2d 241 (Sup. Ct. Erie Co. 2002), where the trial court held that health insurance benefits were a marital asset and subject to Equitable Distribution. The court in Henig found that case distinguishable since in Walek, the husband used a portion of his sick time, which could have been paid to him directly, to fund the 10% required premium payment necessary to receive those post-retirement, lifetime benefits. The sick time had a value, which was arguably marital property, which marital property was then used to directly fund those lifetime benefits.
Section 255 of the Domestic Relations Law states in pertinent part that:
A court, prior to signing a judgment of divorce or separation, or a judgment annulling a marriage or declaring the nullity of a void marriage, shall ensure that:
1. Both parties have been notified, at such time and by such means as the court shall determine, that once the judgment is signed, a party thereto may or may not be eligible to be covered under the other party’s health insurance plan, depending on the terms of the plan.
2. If the parties have entered into a stipulation of settlement/agreement on or after the effective date of this section resolving all of the issues between the parties, such settlement/agreement entered into between the parties shall contain a provision relating to the health care coverage of each party; and that such provision shall either: (a) provide for the future coverage of each party, or (b) state that each party is aware that he or she will no longer be covered by the other party’s health insurance plan and that each party shall be responsible for his or her own health insurance coverage, and may be entitled to purchase health insurance on his or her own through a COBRA option, if available.
***
Section 236 B(6) of the Domestic Relations Law states in pertinent part that:
In determining the amount and duration of maintenance the court shall consider:
(11) the loss of health insurance benefits upon dissolution of the marriage; and
***
The trial court held that the threshold question was whether the lifetime health benefits constituted property and the wife has failed to submit proof establishing this. Even if it were to be deemed property, wife has failed to provide the court with a sufficient showing to justify classifying such benefits are “marital property” or that the post-retirement lifetime benefits involved a reduction in husband’s earned wages in order to obtain such benefits or that these lifetime benefits are provided through the employer utilizing funds set aside from a portion of the husband’s income earned through his employment. She did not allege that husband had an opportunity to “opt out” of such benefits in exchange for higher wages.
Additionally, the argument with respect to the de minimus amount husband is required to pay for the continued health insurance and that husband’s cost for such comparable medical benefits pales in comparison to that which it would cost wife was not persuasive. Even if this argument were accepted, the loss of benefits for one spouse has been contemplated by the Legislature in its amendment to the Domestic Relations Law to include the loss of health insurance benefits in the determination of maintenance. Although wife’s attorney argued that such savings for Husband constitutes an asset to which Wife contributed, this argument did not persuade the court.
What is the final lesson of Henig? I agree with the court that the health benefits are not marital property as contemplated by the Domestic Relations Law. Furthermore, it was the intent of the Legislature to exclude such benefits from the totality of marital assets, as evidenced by the amendments to the Domestic Relations Law that specifically ensure that such loss of benefits by a spouse post-judgment is a consideration in the determination of maintenance, as well the recent language adopted to ensure that all parties are aware of the possibility of loss of such health benefits. Wife was not left without a remedy, since the future cost of health benefits is a consideration for any award of maintenance and Equitable Distribution.