Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an amended judgment of divorce insofar as it awarded the plaintiff a separate property credit for funds contributed toward the marital residence and awarded the defendant maintenance of $2,400 per month for one year. The court held that the plaintiff overcame the presumption that commingled funds were marital property and that the maintenance award was a provident exercise of the trial court's discretion.
Holdings
- The trial court properly awarded plaintiff a $226,557 separate-property credit because plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that commingled funds in a joint account were marital property.
- The trial court's award of maintenance of $2,400 per month for one year was a provident exercise of discretion and was affirmed.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff established that funds contributed toward the purchase of the marital residence were separate property despite defendant's later addition to the account.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding defendant maintenance of $2,400 per month for only one year.
- Whether any remaining contention raised by defendant warranted reversal.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Westreich v Westreich, 169 AD3d 972, 977(followed)
- Sinnott v Sinnott, 194 AD3d 868, 871(followed)
- Signorile v Signorile, 102 AD3d 949, 950(followed)
- Renck v Renck, 131 AD3d 1146, 1149(followed)
- Wade v Steinfeld, 15 AD3d 390, 391(followed)
- Sherman v Sherman, 304 AD2d 744, 744(distinguished)
- Mahoney v Mahoney, 197 AD3d 638, 639(followed)
- Torkin v Susac, 236 AD3d 1082, 1085(followed)
- D'Iorio v D'Iorio, 135 AD3d 693, 695(followed)
- Culen v Culen, 157 AD3d 926, 928(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…