Appeals court considers which date to value assets in long-running Fortis divorce

The Appeals Court heard argument in the divorce appeal of Eugene Fortis v. Beth Fortis over whether the trial court erred in using the judgment date to value marital assets after an extended, eight-year litigation.

Appellant counsel Jack P. Milgram said the judge should have used an earlier date — the son's 18th birthday (April 6, 2017), the date of a stipulation to sell (February 2018), or the actual sale date (February 2021) — because the wife made little financial contribution after the child became an adult and the husband continued to pay mortgages and other costs during the pendency of the case. Milgram argued the delay meant the wife should not share in increased pension or home value that accrued while she did not make comparable contributions.

Appellee counsel Rick Reed said Judge Casey reasonably used the date of divorce as the valuation date and found the wife had limited ability to earn because of medical conditions; Reed noted temporary alimony and later alimony findings and said the wife lacked resources to pursue a separate appeal of the division. Reed also pointed to the net $150,000 gain on the house sale and argued the husband was not harmed by any delay.

The panel questioned whether the trial record contained an explicit argument below using April 6, 2017, as the valuation date and whether the appellant had preserved that exact date for appellate review. Milgram told the court that while multiple dates were argued below, the equitable remedy sought is a remand to set the appropriate valuation date. The court took the matter under advisement.