{"id":3644,"date":"2019-07-29T18:49:45","date_gmt":"2019-07-29T18:49:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/?p=3644"},"modified":"2019-07-31T21:31:11","modified_gmt":"2019-07-31T21:31:11","slug":"connecticut-rules-against-double-dip-in-determining-alimony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/2019\/07\/29\/connecticut-rules-against-double-dip-in-determining-alimony\/","title":{"rendered":"Connecticut Rules Against Double Dip in Determining Alimony"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><span style=\"color: #800080;\">The &#8220;Anti-Steneken&#8221; Decision<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-3645\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/divorce-attorney.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"235\" height=\"214\" \/><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>On May 21, 2019 The Appellate Court of Connecticut ruled against the \u201cdouble dip\u201d in the case of PENNY OUDHEUSDEN v. PETER OUDHEUSDEN. The decision takes the opposite position of the New Jersey Appellate Court in 2004 in Steneken v. Steneken, 367 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2004) which decided the \u201cdouble dip\u201d was permissible.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #800080;\">So, what is the \u201cdouble dip\u201d?<\/span><\/strong> According to NJ attorneys Charles F. Vuotto and\u00a0Lisa Steinman:<\/p>\n<p>The \u201cdouble-dip\u201d refers to the double counting of a marital asset, once in the property division and again in the alimony award. More specifically, where a court uses a business owner\u2019s \u201cexcess earnings\u201d to value the interest in the business and also fixes support on that spouse\u2019s total income (inclusive of the \u201cexcess earnings\u201d used to value the business), a \u201cdouble-dip\u201d occurs. The tacit acceptance (by some) of a rule against the \u201cdouble-dip\u201d served to ameliorate the harsh result of distributing undiscounted business values while also fixing alimony on the same income stream used to value a business. However, the recent decision of Steneken, has submerged the availability of a rule against the \u201cdouble-dip\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #800080;\">Could this impact NJ divorce law?\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>As of this writing we don\u2019t know if the decision will be appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.\u00a0 As forensic accountants and non-attorneys, we don\u2019t know if New Jersey attorneys, using an out of state case, can try and overturn Steneken \u2013 something that would require a New Jersey Supreme Court Decision presumably on a new matter. That effort would take years and thousands of dollars in legal and expert fees. For the right case with enough dollars at stake it may make sense.<\/p>\n<p>If you would like a copy of the PENNY OUDHEUSDEN v. PETER OUDHEUSDEN decision email Jeffrey D. Urbach, partner at <a href=\"mailto:jdu1@ua-cpas.com\">jdu1@ua-cpas.com<\/a>.\u00a0 Jeff has been providing Court related litigation support services for over thirty years. He is a NJ Roster Rule 1:40 Mediator and is trained in Collaborative Law. Jeff is a CPA, ABV (Accredited in Business Valuations by the AICPA) and a CVA (Certified Valuation Analyst by the NACVA) among other advanced designations.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The &#8220;Anti-Steneken&#8221; Decision On May 21, 2019 The Appellate Court of Connecticut ruled against the \u201cdouble dip\u201d in the case of PENNY OUDHEUSDEN v. PETER OUDHEUSDEN. The decision takes the opposite position of the New Jersey Appellate Court in 2004 in Steneken v. Steneken, 367 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2004) which decided the \u201cdouble [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,32,5],"tags":[43,69],"class_list":{"0":"post-3644","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-alimony","7":"category-business-valuations-divorce-forum","8":"category-divorce-forum","9":"tag-alimony","10":"tag-divorce","11":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3644"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3644\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3655,"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3644\/revisions\/3655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ua-cpas.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}