Who Keeps the Frequent Flyer Miles in a Divorce?
Those seemingly insignificant points accumulated through flights, hotel stays, and credit card rewards are now considered shared marital assets, becoming part of the "who gets what" debate during the divorce proceedings.
October 24, 2024 at 01:53 PM
4 minute read
Board of Contributors
Divorce can feel a lot like air travel—riddled with turbulence, unexpected delays and the occasional baggage mishap. Amidst all the emotional strain, division of property, and custody arrangements, there is a lesser-known battleground that divorcing couples rarely think about until it's too late: frequent flyer miles. Even in non-divorce cases, rows over frequent flyer miles can lead to some rather intense court battles. So, given the high emotions and potentially high costs associated with these disputes, it is key that spouses work together to properly divide this marital asset.
Frequent flyer programs, initially designed to help individual airlines stand out following the industry's deregulation in 1978, have since evolved into valuable assets that are often overlooked—until divorce proceedings begin. Those seemingly insignificant points accumulated through flights, hotel stays, and credit card rewards are now considered shared marital assets, becoming part of the "who gets what" debate during the divorce proceedings. These miles could make the difference between a glamorous post-divorce getaway or a cramped middle seat in economy, so it's important to treat them like any other financial asset. Today, miles can be earned through a variety of sources: credit card spending, partner hotels, dining programs, car rentals, and even online shopping portals. This makes it essential to assess all possible sources of accumulated points during asset division. Even though miles may not always be transferable, they can be factored into the overall financial settlement. By recognizing their value and understanding the many ways they're earned, couples can navigate the division of frequent flyer miles to reach more informed and equitable decisions. Here are a few suggestions to keep you pointed in the right direction.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Which Georgia Courts Are Closed Today?—Here's a List
- 2After DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 3People in the News—Jan. 23, 2025—Marshall Dennehey, Duane Morris, Hangley Aronchick
- 4Fried Frank Adds Latest Goodwin Partner in London
- 5Why U.S. Big Law Was Mostly Sidelined in Asian IPOs in New York Last Year
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250