M.G. v. D.G.
| Decision Date | 06 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 50/2013.,50/2013. |
| Citation | 46 N.Y.S.3d 475 (Table) |
| Parties | M.G., Plaintiff v. D.G., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Ursula Gangemi Esq., Brooklyn, Attorney for Plaintiff Wife.
Adelola Shralynn Dow Esq., Staten Island, Attorney for Defendant Husband.
This action for divorce was commenced on September 24, 2012 with the filing of a Summons and Verified Complaint. These pleadings were answered by Wife via Verified Answer with Counterclaims. At a Preliminary Conference held on July 28, 2014, the parties agreed that (1) each party would waive any claims for maintenance from one another; (2) each party would waive any claim to the other's pensions or annuities; and (3) Husband would take the divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage pursuant to Domestic Relations Law Section 170(7). (Jud.Not.1–4). There are no children born of this marriage. The only issue raised by either party at trial is the equitable distribution of the former marital home located on Seidman Avenue in Staten Island, New York (hereinafter the "Marital Residence").
This limited issue divorce trial was held on November 15, 2015 and May 13, 2016 respectively. Plaintiff Husband testified on his own behalf and called Defendant Wife, and Melanie M. Marmer, Esquire (real estate attorney) as witnesses. Plaintiff also offered documents into evidence (Pl.Exs.1–12). Defendant Wife testified on her own behalf and called M.M. (her friend) and A.H. (her son) as witnesses. Defendant also offered documents into evidence (Def.Exs.A–K). Written Summations were received from both counsel on August 16, 2016, after which the matter was submitted for decision.
Many of the relevant facts in this matter are not disputed. With respect to those facts that are disputed, this Court makes the following findings after considering the credibility of the witnesses and reviewing the documentary evidence presented at trial.
The parties met on an on-line dating site and began dating in 2007. After a brief courtship, they moved in together in November of 2008 into a townhouse owned by Wife's mother located on Greenleaf Avenue in Staten Island, New York. At the time the parties first decided to cohabitate, Wife was living with her two sons (then 18 and 16 years old) and Husband was going through a divorce. Husband's divorce from his first Wife was finalized in or around October of 2009. Wife allowed Husband to move in because he was "getting divorced", was "looking for a place to live" and because she "felt sorry for him". Space was "tight" in the townhouse, but Wife "made room" for Husband to move in with her and her children.
After Wife's mother passed away, and after receiving the proceeds from her own divorce settlement, Wife searched for a larger home as the parties began planning for a future life together. After considering several properties over several months, Wife decided to purchase the Marital Residence at issue herein for $470,000. The closing was held in January of 2010. At the closing, Wife paid $200,000 as a down payment towards the purchase price. This money represented a large portion of proceeds she had received from her own divorce settlement. In addition to this cash down payment, Wife took out a mortgage, in her name only, for the sum of $270,000 from TD Bank. Husband contributed no money towards the actual purchase price of the property. At the time of purchase Husband was going through his own divorce, and had poor credit. The TD Bank mortgage was taken out in Wife's name alone, and Wife's name was the only name placed on the deed. As Wife was the sole titled owner of record, and the parties were not married, it is undisputed that at the time of purchase the property at issue was Wife's "separate property".
The parties did not move into the Marital Residence immediately. Rather, they decided to continue living in the Greenleaf Avenue townhouse while the Marital Residence was renovated to their specifications. Wife credibly testified that among other home improvements, new siding and windows were installed; the kitchen was remodeled, and flooring was replaced in some areas of the home and basement. Wood was also replaced in the stairway. Husband assisted in the funding, direction, and management of these renovations. To this end, he interviewed and selected contractors, negotiated the price of the work, and facilitated many of the payments. Husband used money that he received from his own divorce settlement to pay for some of the work. While his testimony was unclear, and thus inconclusive, as to the exact amounts that he actually expended, Husband claims to have invested about $114,000 to renovate the house. Wife admits that some work was actually done by Husband and other work was supervised by him, including work performed by a contractor friend of his, "Bella Contracting." However, Wife disputes the total amount of money contributed by Husband. She believes the figure to be closer to $70,000 than the approximately $114,000 he claims at trial. It is undisputed that at the time Husband began his involvement with these improvements, he was not a titled owner of the property at issue and he was not married to the Defendant.
In February of 2010, approximately one month after the Marital Residence was purchased, the parties got engaged. About four months later, in June of 2010, the parties and Wife's two sons moved into the marital residence. Two months after that they began cohabitating the parties were married on August 9, 2010. While they agreed to marry, the Marital Residence remained titled in Wife's name only, and Husband's was not added to the mortgage.
Soon after their marriage, the parties began fighting. Disputes also erupted between Husband and Wife's two sons. Wife credibly testified that Husband was "controlling" and "argumentative". He criticized her parenting and simply "did not like" her older son. Indeed on the very first night they were all to sleep in the Marital Residence, Husband refused to join them because Wife's brother came to help her sons move into their rooms. Wife credibly testified that while her brother was like a father figure to the boys, Husband deeply resented that relationship, distrusted his brother in law, and objected to his presence in the home. The parties also fought over Husband's adult daughter who Husband claims was made to feel "not welcome" in the marital residence. Another point of contention was the ownership of the property now at issue. Husband repeatedly demanded that the deed to the Marital Residence be modified to include his name to secure the money he contributed to the renovations.
In light of their increasing arguments, and at Husband's insistence, the parties attended marriage counseling. Wife's sons participated in some of the sessions. After going to several different therapists, the parties settled on one provider. According to Wife, the sessions revolved around Husband's demands that his name be added to the deed. Wife credibly testified that Husband threatened to leave her if he was not granted an ownership interest in the property. They also fought over Husband's daughter, and Husband's insistence that she be granted an area of the Marital Residence as her own personal space.
After much pressure from Husband, and in an effort to lessen the conflict between them, Wife agreed to add Husband's name to the deed in or around November of 2011. Husband retained, at his own expense, a real estate lawyer that he had previously used, Ms. Melony Marmer Esq., to prepare a new deed. Ms. Marmer credibly testified at trial that Wife appeared at her office on November 14, 2011 and executed the new deed that listed Husband as a co-owner of the property. Ms. Marmer further testified that she advised Wife that by adding his name to the deed Wife was giving him "certain equity rights" to the property. (Tr. 5/13/16 p. 15). Wife met this attorney, who represented Husband, for the first time at the closing. While Husband was added to the deed, he was not added to the mortgage loan relating to the property.
Despite Wife's stated intentions of lessening conflict, the fighting between the parties escalated after Husband was added to the deed. In Wife's words, Husband evolved into a "very nasty, abusive, manipulative person." When he became angry, he would frequently storm out the door. In December of 2011, one month after the deed was changed, Husband became so enraged at Wife that he threw a wooden chair in her direction. The chair broke on impact with the wall and did not make contact with Wife.
On July 4, 2012, Husband left for work and never came back to the marital residence. About two weeks later, Wife reached out to Husband to talk. They met at a diner. Wife asked Husband to return to the home so they could work on their relationship. Husband refused, and asked to be repaid for the monies he invested in the home. Wife offered him the sum of money, which Husband refused. Husband filed for divorce on September 24, 2012.
During the short period of time the parties resided together (June 2010 to July 2012), Husband contributed approximately $1,100 per month to household expenses, which Wife credibly testified was used to help pay a number of household bills such as utilities, food, and cable television. At that time, the mortgage payment was $1,800 and the monthly household expenses were about $3,000. Wife claims that Husband stopped making any monetary contributions after he left. Without financial contribution from Husband, Wife fell behind on her obligations and was forced to secure a second job in order to prevent a foreclosure. As of the date of her trial testimony, Wife credibly testified that there was approximately $251,000 still owed on the mortgage held by TD Bank.
In support of his claim for equitable distribution of the Seidman Avenue property, Husband argues that he filed this action simply to regain his equitable share of...
To continue reading
Request your trial