Nowik v. Nowik
| Decision Date | 03 June 1996 |
| Citation | 228 A.D.2d 421,643 N.Y.S.2d 223 |
| Parties | Christina M. NOWIK, Appellant, v. Adam P. NOWIK, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Vergilis, Stenger, Roberts & Pergament, Wappingers Falls (Antonia T. Lucia, of counsel), for appellant.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, JOY and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sweeny, J.), dated April 26, 1995, as awarded the defendant husband $6,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
During their marriage, the parties resided in a residence which had been purchased by the wife three years prior to the marriage. The husband made various improvements to the wife's separate property, which included converting a garage into a "bar room", doing electrical work throughout the house, and laying a concrete walkway. The Supreme Court determined that the property appreciated in value by $9,000 due to these improvements and awarded the husband a judgment for two-thirds of that amount, or $6,000.
Although the appreciation in value of separate property due, in part, to the contributions of the nontitled spouse is subject to equitable distribution (see, Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 511 N.Y.S.2d 219, 503 N.E.2d 684; Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][d][3] ), we agree with the wife that the evidence in the record does not support an award to the husband on the theory that he contributed to an appreciation in value of her property. No evidence of the value of the property was offered by the husband from which it could be determined that the property had appreciated in value during the marriage. Moreover, in order to obtain equitable distribution of any appreciation in value of the wife's property, the husband was required "to demonstrate the manner in which his contributions resulted in the increase in value and the amount of the increase which was attributable to his efforts" (Elmaleh v. Elmaleh, 184 A.D.2d 544, 545, 584 N.Y.S.2d 857; Fitzgibbon v. Fitzgibbon, 161 A.D.2d 619, 555 N.Y.S.2d 399). The husband failed to meet his burden of proof.
We conclude, however, that the husband was entitled to a credit for the value of his contributions of labor and expenditures for the improvements on the wife's property (see, e.g., Garges v. Garges, 175 A.D.2d 511, 572 N.Y.S.2d 780; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayhew v. Mayhew
...process of the fourth step of our test. 29. If there was no increase in value the analysis terminates. See Nowik v. Nowik, 228 A.D.2d 421, 643 N.Y.S.2d 223 (1996) (no evidence of appreciation in value of separate stock shown); Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, 945 S.W.2d 744 (Tenn.App.1996) (property......
-
Ehlinger v. Ehlinger
...been. However, it was not actually acquired until the note and mortgage were satisfied. While the property The case of Nowik v. Nowik, 228 A.D.2d 421, 643 N.Y.S.2d 223, is instructive. There, wife brought a home into the marriage as separate property, but husband made contributions of labor......
-
Wurtzel v. Wurtzel
...(see, Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 511 N.Y.S.2d 219, 503 N.E.2d 684; Pulice v. Pulice, 242 A.D.2d 527, 661 N.Y.S.2d 675; Nowik v. Nowik, 228 A.D.2d 421, 643 N.Y.S.2d 223). Here, there are questions as to the defendant's contributions and efforts, either direct or indirect, toward the increa......
-
Pulice v. Pulice
...property was gifted to the husband. Therefore, there is no way to determine how much the property had appreciated (see, Nowik v. Nowik, 228 A.D.2d 421, 643 N.Y.S.2d 223). Accordingly the Supreme Court erred in awarding the wife a share of the appreciation in value of this The husband's rema......
-
§ 7.04 Characterizing Improvements
...657, 706 N.Y.S.2d 471 (2000). Virginia: Martin v. Martin, 27 Va. App. 745, 501 S.E.2d 450 (1998). [74] See: New York: Nowik v. Nowik, 228 A.D.2d 421, 643 N.Y.S.2d 223 (1996). Texas: Vallone v. Vallone, 644 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1982). [75] In re Marriage of Pearson-Maines, 70 Wash. App. 860, 855......