NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3888-22
KIMBERLY EYDELMAN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VLADIMIR EYDELMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted December 4, 2024 – Decided February 18, 2025
Before Judges Currier and Marczyk.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-0590-15.
Keith, Winters, Wenning & Harris, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Brian D. Winters, on the briefs).
Buchan Palo & Cardamone, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Stephanie Palo, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM When the parties were divorced in 2017, the court held several issues in
abeyance, including equitable distribution, because defendant was incarcerated
after being convicted of charges for insider trading, and the majority of the
parties' assets had been seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Thereafter, plaintiff successfully sought the return of some of the seized marital
assets from the federal government, specifically relevant here, a luxury men's
watch collection valued at $200,000 (the watch collection).
After defendant was released from prison, he moved for equitable
distribution of the marital property. The court found because the watch
collection was returned to plaintiff as part of a settlement negotiation with the
federal government, it was no longer a marital asset, and, therefore excluded
from equitable distribution. Defendant appeals from the memorializing May 10,
2023 order and subsequent order denying reconsideration.
Because we conclude the watch collection was a marital asset at the time
of its seizure, that status cannot be altered or diminished by the federal
government's release of the watch collection to plaintiff. The acts of the federal
government were not equitable distribution findings nor a consideration of the
required statutory factors under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1 and governing New Jersey
A-3888-22 2 case law. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make factual
findings supporting an equitable distribution of the watch collection.
The parties were married in 1998 and had three children. Defendant was
employed as an Executive Director of Investments/Stockbroker. In 2014, the
FBI raided the parties' home, and a criminal investigation was initiated against
defendant for securities fraud, including insider trading and conspiracy . The
raid yielded seizure of numerous personal assets, including over forty pieces of
jewelry and the watch collection, which contained eight luxury watches, ranging
in estimated values from $2,190 to $59,999 from makers such as Rolex, Breguet,
and Patek Philippe.
In 2015, plaintiff submitted several declarations to the FBI claiming her
right to possess certain seized assets, including the watch collection. Thereafter,
the FBI released the watch collection to plaintiff.
Email exchanges between the parties' counsel following the release of the
watch collection to plaintiff reflect it was a hotly contested asset between the
parties, as defendant argued the watches were "his" and demanded their return.
Although the FBI had already released the watch collection to plaintiff,
defendant sought the return of selective seized assets, including the watch
collection, from the United States Attorney's Office.
A-3888-22 3 In 2016, defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud
and tender offer fraud and was sentenced to three years in prison. The United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a Consent Judgment
of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to
Specific Property (final as to the defendant) in restitution for defendant's crimes .
Defendant was released from prison in March 2018. In April, he filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Defendant did not include the seized watch collection as
one of his assets. During this litigation, defendant explained he did not list the
collection because it was not in his possession and available to satisfy the debts.
Defendant certified that the bankruptcy trustee was aware of the watch
collection.
After the bankruptcy court entered a final decree in August 2019 and lifted
the stay, defendant renewed his motion for equitable distribution of the watch
collection. Plaintiff contended the collection was not a marital asset because it
was returned to her in exchange for a release of her claims against the
government, which made it at that point a "separate" asset.
After initial oral arguments, the court adjourned the case, allowing
plaintiff an opportunity to submit proof "from the government that the[] watches
A-3888-22 4 were provided to [her] . . . as a settlement of her claim against the government."1
During the second round of oral arguments, plaintiff produced three emails.
Two of them refer to the release of a bank account to plaintiff. The third, sent
in June 2015, advised plaintiff she may retrieve the "jewelry" that was in the
FBI's possession.
On April 14, 2023, the court issued an oral decision finding (1) the parties
were represented by counsel at the time the watch collection was returned to
plaintiff; (2) there was no mention of the watch collection in the final release 2
because plaintiff already had the watches in her possession; and (3) defendant
failed to include the watches in his accounting of his assets before the
bankruptcy court. Therefore, the court determined the watch collection was
returned to plaintiff as part of a settlement negotiation, and it was no longer a
marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
1 Although this phrase "settlement of claims against the government" is used multiple times by plaintiff and the court, there is no explanation in this litigation what those claims were. 2 Reference to the "final release" here refers to the Money Judgment and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. A-3888-22 5 However, the court also ordered plaintiff to return defendant's Rolex
SkyDweller watch3 to him once he paid his 50% share of the children's
outstanding medical expenses. The court issued a written opinion and
memorializing order on May 10, 2023. Defendant's subsequent motion for
reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in finding the watch
collection was not subject to equitable distribution. We review a trial judge's
determination of what assets are available for distribution for an abuse of
discretion. Slutsky v. Slutsky, 451 N.J. Super. 332, 355-56 (App. Div. 2017).
In a divorce proceeding, a judge is authorized to "make such award or
awards to the parties, . . . to effectuate an equitable distribution of the property,
both real and personal, which was legally and beneficially acquired by them or
either of them during the marriage or civil union." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(h)(1).
However, before considering distribution of marital property, the trial
court must first decide which property qualifies as marital property and which
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3888-22
KIMBERLY EYDELMAN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VLADIMIR EYDELMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted December 4, 2024 – Decided February 18, 2025
Before Judges Currier and Marczyk.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-0590-15.
Keith, Winters, Wenning & Harris, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Brian D. Winters, on the briefs).
Buchan Palo & Cardamone, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Stephanie Palo, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM When the parties were divorced in 2017, the court held several issues in
abeyance, including equitable distribution, because defendant was incarcerated
after being convicted of charges for insider trading, and the majority of the
parties' assets had been seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Thereafter, plaintiff successfully sought the return of some of the seized marital
assets from the federal government, specifically relevant here, a luxury men's
watch collection valued at $200,000 (the watch collection).
After defendant was released from prison, he moved for equitable
distribution of the marital property. The court found because the watch
collection was returned to plaintiff as part of a settlement negotiation with the
federal government, it was no longer a marital asset, and, therefore excluded
from equitable distribution. Defendant appeals from the memorializing May 10,
2023 order and subsequent order denying reconsideration.
Because we conclude the watch collection was a marital asset at the time
of its seizure, that status cannot be altered or diminished by the federal
government's release of the watch collection to plaintiff. The acts of the federal
government were not equitable distribution findings nor a consideration of the
required statutory factors under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1 and governing New Jersey
A-3888-22 2 case law. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make factual
findings supporting an equitable distribution of the watch collection.
The parties were married in 1998 and had three children. Defendant was
employed as an Executive Director of Investments/Stockbroker. In 2014, the
FBI raided the parties' home, and a criminal investigation was initiated against
defendant for securities fraud, including insider trading and conspiracy . The
raid yielded seizure of numerous personal assets, including over forty pieces of
jewelry and the watch collection, which contained eight luxury watches, ranging
in estimated values from $2,190 to $59,999 from makers such as Rolex, Breguet,
and Patek Philippe.
In 2015, plaintiff submitted several declarations to the FBI claiming her
right to possess certain seized assets, including the watch collection. Thereafter,
the FBI released the watch collection to plaintiff.
Email exchanges between the parties' counsel following the release of the
watch collection to plaintiff reflect it was a hotly contested asset between the
parties, as defendant argued the watches were "his" and demanded their return.
Although the FBI had already released the watch collection to plaintiff,
defendant sought the return of selective seized assets, including the watch
collection, from the United States Attorney's Office.
A-3888-22 3 In 2016, defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud
and tender offer fraud and was sentenced to three years in prison. The United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a Consent Judgment
of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to
Specific Property (final as to the defendant) in restitution for defendant's crimes .
Defendant was released from prison in March 2018. In April, he filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Defendant did not include the seized watch collection as
one of his assets. During this litigation, defendant explained he did not list the
collection because it was not in his possession and available to satisfy the debts.
Defendant certified that the bankruptcy trustee was aware of the watch
collection.
After the bankruptcy court entered a final decree in August 2019 and lifted
the stay, defendant renewed his motion for equitable distribution of the watch
collection. Plaintiff contended the collection was not a marital asset because it
was returned to her in exchange for a release of her claims against the
government, which made it at that point a "separate" asset.
After initial oral arguments, the court adjourned the case, allowing
plaintiff an opportunity to submit proof "from the government that the[] watches
A-3888-22 4 were provided to [her] . . . as a settlement of her claim against the government."1
During the second round of oral arguments, plaintiff produced three emails.
Two of them refer to the release of a bank account to plaintiff. The third, sent
in June 2015, advised plaintiff she may retrieve the "jewelry" that was in the
FBI's possession.
On April 14, 2023, the court issued an oral decision finding (1) the parties
were represented by counsel at the time the watch collection was returned to
plaintiff; (2) there was no mention of the watch collection in the final release 2
because plaintiff already had the watches in her possession; and (3) defendant
failed to include the watches in his accounting of his assets before the
bankruptcy court. Therefore, the court determined the watch collection was
returned to plaintiff as part of a settlement negotiation, and it was no longer a
marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
1 Although this phrase "settlement of claims against the government" is used multiple times by plaintiff and the court, there is no explanation in this litigation what those claims were. 2 Reference to the "final release" here refers to the Money Judgment and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. A-3888-22 5 However, the court also ordered plaintiff to return defendant's Rolex
SkyDweller watch3 to him once he paid his 50% share of the children's
outstanding medical expenses. The court issued a written opinion and
memorializing order on May 10, 2023. Defendant's subsequent motion for
reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in finding the watch
collection was not subject to equitable distribution. We review a trial judge's
determination of what assets are available for distribution for an abuse of
discretion. Slutsky v. Slutsky, 451 N.J. Super. 332, 355-56 (App. Div. 2017).
In a divorce proceeding, a judge is authorized to "make such award or
awards to the parties, . . . to effectuate an equitable distribution of the property,
both real and personal, which was legally and beneficially acquired by them or
either of them during the marriage or civil union." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(h)(1).
However, before considering distribution of marital property, the trial
court must first decide which property qualifies as marital property and which
property, if any, belongs to either spouse separately. N.J.S.A. 2A:34 -23.1
("[T]he court shall make specific findings of fact on the evidence relevant to all
3 This watch had not been seized by law enforcement and so was not part of the returned items. A-3888-22 6 issues pertaining to asset eligibility or ineligibility, asset valuation, and
equitable distribution, including specifically, but not limited to, the factors set
forth in this section."). See Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219, 232 (1974)
(finding a trial judge "must first decide what specific property of each spouse is
eligible for distribution.").
This equitable distribution reflects the "acknowledgement 'that marriage
is a shared enterprise, a joint undertaking, that in many ways it is akin to a
partnership.'" Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350, 361 (1977) (quoting Rothman, 65
N.J. at 229). Therefore, "[a]ssets acquired by the joint efforts of the parties
while the shared enterprise continues, should be, on its termination, eligible for
equitable distribution." Ibid. "The goal of equitable distribution . . . is to effect
a fair and just division of marital assets." Steneken v. Steneken, 367 N.J. Super.
427, 434 (App. Div. 2004) aff'd in part, modified in part on other grounds, 183
N.J. 290 (2005).
"Generally, property qualifies for equitable distribution 'when it is
attributable to the expenditure of effort by either spouse during marriage . . . .'"
Genovese v. Genovese, 392 N.J. Super. 215, 225 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting
Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 609 (1995)). Accordingly, a marital asset is
that "which was legally and beneficially acquired by them or either of them
A-3888-22 7 during the marriage or civil union." Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269,
284 (2016) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(h)). "To refute such a presumption, the
party seeking exclusion of the asset must bear 'the burden of establishing such
immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset.'" Pascale, 140
N.J. at 609 (quoting Landwehr v. Landwehr, 111 N.J. 491, 504 (1988)).
Here, the parties agreed that the watch collection was a marital asset when
law enforcement seized it. In fact, in a 2018 order addressing post-judgment
applications, the court stated: "[T]he federal government did release
approximately $800,000 in funds and a number of [personal] items . . . including
luxury watches still retained by the plaintiff. These items are part of the assets
to be considered in equitable distribution."
Nevertheless, plaintiff now contends the status of the marital asset
changed when the watch collection was returned to her following negotiations
with the government entities. After reviewing the noted emails, the court agreed
and found the watch collection was no longer a marital asset subject to equitable
distribution.
However, the submitted documents do not support that finding. There is
no evidence in the record that the watches were a bargained for settlement. And
any negotiations plaintiff may have had with the government did not vitiate
A-3888-22 8 defendant's rights under New Jersey's equitable distribution law. Neither
plaintiff nor the court cited to any case law supporting how plaintiff or the
federal government were authorized to unilaterally void defendant's rights to the
marital asset.
In addition, defendant did not divest his interest in the watch collection
when he failed to list it as an asset on his bankruptcy petition. The fact may be
included in the equitable distribution analysis, but it is not grounds to support
the change of the status of a marital asset. Plaintiff has not met her burden of
demonstrating the watch collection should be excluded from equitable
Therefore, we reverse the orders under appeal and remand for the court to
make findings of fact, applying the statutory factors under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1,
to set an equitable distribution award regarding the watch collection.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this
opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3888-22 9