You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE...

ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly allocated payment of a home equity line of credit (HELOC) incurred during marriage, taking into account a portion of the debt was used solely to further defendant-husband’s business:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay two-thirds of the balance of a home equity line of credit (hereinafter the HELOC) or $198,667, and that the plaintiff was to be responsible for one-third of the balance of the HELOC or $99,330. In general, “[e]xpenses incurred prior to the commencement of a divorce action constitute marital debt and should be equally shared by the parties” … . However, a financial obligation incurred by one party in pursuit of his or her separate interests should remain that party’s separate liability … . Under the circumstances of this case, inasmuch as the evidence established that the HELOC debt was incurred for the dual purpose of improving the marital residence and paying bills as well as funding the defendant’s separate business interest in which the plaintiff had no share, the defendant failed to show that the HELOC debt as to the defendant’s separate business interest should be shared equally. Horn v Horn, 2016 NY Slip Op 08198, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS)/MARITAL PROPERTY (ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS)

You might also like
A SUBCONTRACTOR CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE WORK SITE ONLY IF IT EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY (NYC) HAD ENTERED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNING THE REPAIR OF A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK, DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
Curtailing of Defense Counsel’s Summation Argument Re: Lack of Motive Was (Harmless) Error
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply
Criteria for Mandamus to Compel Explained (Not Met Here)
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE RECENTLY ENACTED FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​

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

PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR... GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE...