An appellate panel heard argument in the Nagy marital‑estate dispute after the case was remanded for further consideration of property valuation and equitable division.

Petitioner counsel Dana Curhan (for West Nagy) argued the trial judge’s post‑remand findings improperly treated the husband’s disability period differently from the wife’s longer disability, failed to account for rental income that the wife retained when she became property manager, and did not credit the husband for periods when he could not work. Curhan said the judge acknowledged market appreciation but then distributed assets in a way that produced inconsistent treatment of the parties and overlooked income that should have been considered on remand.

Responding counsel Peter Coopersmith, arguing for the wife (Elizabeth Nagy), said the judge complied with the remand instructions: she determined the market‑based increase for specified years (2017–2022) and then apportioned the portion of appreciation attributable to market forces. Coopersmith noted the judge found the wife received substantial disability payments during an earlier, longer disability period (2000–2010) and that rental income years showed limited positive returns for some years; he urged affirmance of the remand judgment as a discretionary equitable decision.

Why it matters: The dispute concerns how judges allocate market appreciation and apply equitable principles after remand in complex marital‑estate cases that include mixed income streams, disability income, rental earnings, capital losses, and non‑monetary contributions such as property management or repairs.

Key points from argument
- Curhan said the judge erred by concluding the husband contributed nothing during certain periods without considering that the wife retained all rental income once she became property manager and that lost investments and other expenditures (e.g., a Ponzi loss) affected the marital estate.
- Coopersmith said the judge found market appreciation over the remand period was attributable to market forces and then equitably awarded one property to the husband equivalently, resulting in an overall 55/45 split in favor of the wife — a legal and discretionary outcome within the judge’s authority.
- The panel questioned whether the judge’s treatment of disability and income differences between the parties created an inequitable result.

Quotations (verbatim)
"The judge found that the appreciation in the marital estate was 100% attributable to the market forces," counsel for the husband said, summarizing the post‑remand finding.
"The resulting equitable division was 55% to one and 45% to the other," counsel for the wife replied, urging the court to affirm the remand judgment.

Court status and next steps
Argument concluded and the case was submitted to the panel for decision.

Speakers (from the argument record)
- Dana Curhan — Counsel for West Nagy (appellant) (private)
- Peter Coopersmith — Co‑counsel for Elizabeth Nagy (respondent) (private)
- Presiding justice and panel members — bench (government)

Clarifying details from the hearing
- The trial court’s economic findings focused on the fair market value appreciation for a five‑year period (2017–2022) per remand instructions.
- Counsel referenced specific rental results for years 2017–2019 (loss in 2017, roughly $34k in 2018, $38k in 2019) and disability payments the wife received over a decade.

Searchable tags: divorce, property division, marital estate, remand, rental income