Judson v. Judson

• Decision Date: 05 November 1998
• Citation: 255 A.D.2d 656,679 N.Y.S.2d 465
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9480 William C. JUDSON, Appellant, v. Pamela J. JUDSON, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 465

679 N.Y.S.2d 465

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9480

William C. JUDSON, Appellant, v. Pamela J. JUDSON, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Nov. 5, 1998.

Jacobs & Jacobs (Michael A. Jacobs, of counsel), Stamford, for appellant.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and SPAIN, JJ.

SPAIN, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.) ordering, inter alia, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, entered November 14, 1997 in Otsego County, upon a decision of the court.

The parties were married in 1982 and have no children. In November 1994 plaintiff commenced this action for divorce based upon defendant's alleged abandonment; defendant answered and counterclaimed for divorce based upon plaintiff's alleged cruel and inhuman behavior. The parties eventually stipulated that plaintiff would proceed to obtain a divorce on grounds set forth in his complaint and defendant would withdraw her answer and counterclaim. Thereafter, Supreme Court held a nonjury trial on the issues of equitable distribution and maintenance. The record reveals that at the time of the marriage plaintiff was earning approximately $16,000 per year and had certificates of deposit (hereinafter CDs) totaling approximately $70,000 and an individual retirement account (hereinafter IRA) in the amount of $15,000. During the marriage defendant worked alongside plaintiff stocking vending machines but received limited financial compensation.

The record further reveals that following the marriage, plaintiff contributed $26,000 of his separate funds to purchase the marital residence; the amount included the purchase of a trailer and lot and the costs of improvements to the land. During the marriage plaintiff transferred the majority of his remaining separate assets into various joint accounts. Plaintiff testified that he transferred his assets into joint accounts in order to ensure that his wife would be taken care of in the event of his death and in order to take advantage of the tax benefits. Following trial, Supreme Court determined that the marital estate, including the marital residence, was worth $174,500 and awarded plaintiff 60% ($104,703) and defendant 40% ($69,807). The court also deemed a savings account held jointly by plaintiff and his mother and a trailer purchased by plaintiff located in Pennsylvania to be plaintiff's separate property. Finally, Supreme Court ordered plaintiff to pay maintenance to defendant for three years in the amount of $80 per month. Plaintiff appeals.

Initially, although Supreme Court properly determined the marital residence to be marital property, inasmuch as it was purchased after the marriage (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][c] ), the evidence in the record supports the conclusion that plaintiff contributed $26,000 of his separate funds toward the creation of this marital asset and is therefore entitled to a credit in that amount (see, Maczek v. Maczek, --- A.D.2d ----, 669 N.Y.S.2d 749; Ramsey v. Ramsey, 226 A.D.2d 989, 641 N.Y.S.2d 194; Zurner v. Zurner, 213 A.D.2d 906, 624 N.Y.S.2d 301, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 802, 638 N.Y.S.2d 425, 661 N.E.2d 999).

We do, however, reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in determining that the savings accounts, IRAs and CDs were marital property. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property and the party seeking to overcome such presumption has the burden of proving that the property in dispute is separate property (see, McSparron v. McSparron, 190 A.D.2d 74, 77, 597 N.Y.S.2d 743). The term "marital property" is to be broadly construed while the phrase "separate property" is to be narrowly construed (see, Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 15, 511 N.Y.S.2d 219, 503 N.E.2d 684). Significantly, once separate property is commingled with marital funds it becomes marital property...