You are here: / / Failure to Trace the Allegedly Separate Funds Used for the Purchase of...

Failure to Trace the Allegedly Separate Funds Used for the Purchase of Property During the Marriage Allows the Court to Treat the Property as Marital

The Second Department found a lot of mistakes in the division of property and the support awards made by Supreme Court.  The discussion of each category of mistake is substantive enough to be instructive.  With respect to an improperly awarded separate property credit, the court explained that a party’s failure to trace the source of the funds for a purchase made during the marriage allows the court to treat the property as marital:

“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” … . Here, BSH was formed and the building was acquired during the marriage, and the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of tracing the use of claimed separate funds to establish that they were used for the purchase of his portion of the property’s acquisition costs … . Marital property is to be viewed broadly, while separate property is to be viewed narrowly … . Where, as here, a party fails to trace sources of money claimed to be separate property, a court may treat it as marital property… . Hymowitz v Hymowitz, 2014 NY Slip Op 05306, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE.
DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
Complaint Stated Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice/Court Rejected Argument that Defect in Service Could Have Been Cured by Successor Counsel as Speculative
Law Office Failure Was Valid Excuse for Default—Answer Deemed Served in Absence of Cross Motion
Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold
NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Insurance Company’s Failure to Submit Second Request for Verification of No-Fault Claim Precluded Tolling of 30-Day Payment Period
Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant’s Actions In Driving Under the Influence and Causing a Collision... Question of Fact Whether Tenants Entitled to Equitable Renewal of Lease