Ackley v. Ackley
| Decision Date | 06 March 1984 |
| Citation | 100 A.D.2d 153,472 N.Y.S.2d 804 |
| Parties | Donna Lee ACKLEY, Respondent, v. Gordon James ACKLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jones & Jones, Geneseo (Peter Skivington, Geneseo, of counsel), for appellant.
Streb, Porter, Meyer & Wesley, Geneseo (Randolph Meyer, Geneseo, of counsel), for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and DOERR, BOOMER, O'DONNELL and SCHNEPP, JJ.
This appeal requires us to decide whether a gift to a husband and wife from the parents of one of them is separate property or whether it is marital property for the purpose of equitable distribution in a divorce action.
Here, the only issue concerns the trial court's disposition of the marital residence. In 1980, one year before the commencement of this divorce action, the wife's parents deeded the residence to the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety. At the time of the conveyance, the property was worth $73,500, but the only consideration for the property was a bond and mortgage executed by the husband and wife in the amount of $35,500. After the transfer the parties obtained a home improvement loan in the amount of $8,000 and spent the proceeds for improvements to the property.
The trial court found that the wife's parents would not have made the transfer if they had not expected the marriage to continue and that they intended to benefit primarily the wife. Based on these findings, it concluded that, to the extent the value of the property exceeded the amount of the mortgage, "the parents made what was in the nature of an equitable gift" to the wife. The court further found that the value of the marital property, subject to distribution, was $43,500, representing the sum of the amount of the mortgage, $35,500, and the amount spent on home improvements, $8,000. In distributing the marital property interest in the premises, the court ordered that title be conveyed to the wife and that she assume the obligation to pay the balance of the mortgage and the home improvement loan. It awarded the husband, as his share of the marital interest, the sum of $381.25, representing one-half of the difference between the value of the premises as marital property, $43,500, and sum of the balances remaining on the mortgage and on the home improvement loan, $42,737.49.
On the facts in this case, we cannot agree with the conclusion of the trial court that the transfer of the premises to the husband and wife represented, in part, a gift to the wife alone. Such a conclusion contradicts the unambiguous language of the deed which vests title in both the husband and wife. Moreover, the wife's father testified that he conveyed the property to his daughter and her husband as a gift to both of them.
On this appeal the wife does not argue that the transfer was in part a gift to her alone. She contends that there is no authority for treating property as part marital and part separate and that the residence was sold to both parties and became marital property. We agree with the wife that the residence is marital property subject to equitable distribution. We need not decide if property may be considered part marital and part separate, for upon transfer the residence became marital property even if we consider the transfer as partly a gift.
By statutory definition, "marital property" is all property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage, except separate property (Domestic Relations Law, § 236, Part B, subd. 1, par. c). "Separate property" includes "property acquired * * * by * * * gift from a party other than the spouse" (Domestic Relations Law, § 236, Part B, sub. 1, par. d, cl. [1] ).
It is clear from the language of the statute that the legislature intended that a gift from a third party to one spouse be considered the separate property of that spouse. Not clear is whether it also intended that a gift to both spouses be considered the separate property of each.
1It may be argued that since the legislature did not limit its definition of separate property in the case of gifts to property acquired by only one spouse, it intended that all gifts from third persons, whether to one or both spouses, be deemed separate property. On the other hand, it may also be argued that the legislature indicated a contrary intent by using the words "the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strang v. Strang
...wife from the parents of one party is treated as marital property for the purpose of equitable distribution (see, Ackley v. Ackley, 100 A.D.2d 153, 155-156, 472 N.Y.S.2d 804, lv. dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 605, 481 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 471 N.E.2d 462); only when a gift is made to one spouse will it be d......
-
Barr v. Barr
...the purchase of the parties' residence has been held relevant to the division of marital property in other states. Ackley v. Ackley, 100 App.Div.2d 153, 472 N.Y.S.2d 804, appeal dismissed, 63 N.Y.2d 605, 481 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 471 N.E.2d 462 (1984); In re Marriage of Hedrick, 659 S.W.2d 352 (Mo......
-
Jeruchimowitz v. Jeruchimowitz
...given her by her father on a regular basis. Gifts received during the marriage may be deemed marital property (Ackley v. Ackley, 100 A.D.2d 153, 155-156, 472 N.Y.S.2d 804, and cases cited Examination of the various rent checks drawn on either of the two joint checking accounts, respective c......
-
Loeb v. Loeb
...property" a gift of property to both parties from a third party during the course of the marriage. Accord Ackley v. Ackley, 100 A.D.2d 153, 472 N.Y.S.2d 804 (N.Y.App.Div.1984) (same outcome--"gift from a party other than the spouse"); In re Marriage of Wendt, 339 N.W.2d 615 (Iowa Ct.App.198......