Source: Chicago Tribune repost on FL Sun-Sentinel
June 5, 2007 Author: Alexa Aguilar
CHICAGO -- Standing by his earlier ruling, a Cook County judge held Monday that half of the fortune amassed by a Chicago energy industry magnate should go to his wife -- about $184 million -- in their divorce case.
Circuit Judge William Boyd originally ruled in October that Maya Polsky should share half of husband Michael Polsky's fortune, but both sides had asked the judge to reconsider.
Boyd's decision Monday actually meant an additional $8 million for Maya Polsky because updated financial figures showed the couple's net worth had grown since last October.
Lawyers for Michael Polsky, chief executive of Invenergy LLC, had argued that his "skill, genius and drive" had created the fortune and that his wife, primarily a homemaker during the 31-year marriage, didn't deserve half.
Those lawyers didn't return a telephone call seeking comment, but in a Tribune story Monday, a legal expert said he expected any decision to be appealed.
The Polskys came to the United States in the 1970s from Russia with about $500. Michael Polsky founded the company that eventually became Northbrook-based SkyGen Energy, a leading independent power producer that was sold for about $450 million in 2000. Maya Polsky raised the couple's two sons and was his trusted confidant, her attorneys said.
The couple separated in 2002 and Maya Polsky filed for divorce a year later, citing irreconcilable differences.
In his decision Monday, Boyd ruled that "it is only equitable that the parties share in the marital estate equally," that the couple had "in excess of 30 years of marriage" and each contributed "in their own way to the amassing of the marital estate."
Howard Rosenfeld, an attorney for Maya Polsky, said Monday that Boyd's ruling sends the message that the Polskys were truly equal partners.
"If you don't treat a long-term spouse as a partner, what is she?" Rosenfeld said. "A servant?"
Joseph Tighe, Michael Polsky's attorney, could not be reached for comment Monday, but in a previous court filing, he wrote that "this court's 50-50 division of assets reflects a fundamental error of law and must be set aside."