The Court of Appeals in Boyd v. Boyd, for the first time analyzed and addressed whether an inchoate personal injury claim during the marriage is considered a marital property or a sole and separate property.

Shortly before divorce was finalized, the wife had incurred an accident giving rise to a personal injury claim which was not yet initiated or resolved.

The trial court there had held that an inchoate personal injury claim was not a marital asset because there was:

• No way of valuing it, and that
• Pain and suffering from the accident were “intensely personal,” and any recovery for pain and suffering should therefore belong solely to in the injured party, also that
• There were no loss of consortium resulting from wife’s injuries since the couple had separated before the accident

The Court of appeals disagreed and reversed.

The Court focused on the language of the divorce statute with strict interpretation which provides that in division of all property the court shall:

• Assign to each party his or her sole and separate property acquired prior to the marriage, and his or her sole and separate property acquired during the marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and any increase thereof, or property acquired in exchange therefor; and
• Distribute all other property accumulated during the marriage, regardless of whether title is held individually or by the parties in a form of joint tenancy or tenancy by the entireties, in a manner that is equitable, just and reasonable.

Thus, under the strict interpretation of the statute, all assets and property which are not sole and separate property or acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent — must fall under the marital property category.  This includes the tort claim such as here: the inchoate personal injury claim of wife arising out of an accident during the marriage.

Moreover, the “equitable distribution” legal framework applies to the personal injury claims arising during a marriage as marital property.  That is, the court will apply the same test for equitable distribution of property applicable to all marital assets with the personal injury rewards and collections of either spouse.

In sum, the wife’s inchoate personal injury claim was a marital property, and that the trial court’s decision to the contrary must be reversed. The trial court should simply consider this claim as a marital asset, along with all of the other marital assets, when determining the relative property rights of the parties and distribute such property equitably.

Arguably, using the same analysis by the Court, any and all personal injury claims by either party during the marriage may be excluded through a prenuptial agreement.  That is, parties may decide from the outset of marriage to waive any and all interest in each other’s personal injury claims.  Such waiver should be enforceable and effective in insulating personal tort claims and recovery from the martial property.

Refer to our Washington DC Divorce Lawyer as well as Prenuptial agreement lawyer pages for more detailed information.