You are here: / / WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH WAS COMMINGLED...

WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH WAS COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL FUNDS, WIFE ALSO ENTITLED TO SHARE OF APPRECIATION OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff wife was entitled to a share of husband’s separate property that was commingled with marital funds, as well as a share of the appreciation of husband’s separate property. Husband, a firefighter, received an award from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, which was placed in a joint checking account and then used to buy investment property:

… [S]eparate property that is commingled, for example, in a joint bank account, loses its character of separateness and a presumption arises that each party is entitled to a share of the funds … . “That presumption, however, may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the account was created only as a matter of convenience” … . The presumption may also be overcome by evidence that the account, although joint, is managed solely by one party … , or that the funds were deposited into the joint account only briefly … . In this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that by depositing the proceeds of the award into the parties’ joint account, the defendant’s separate property lost its character of separateness and a presumption arose that each party was entitled to a share of the funds, which was not rebutted. …

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the direct and indirect contributions of the plaintiff, as the nontitled spouse, contributed to the appreciation in the value of the defendant’s separate properties. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a share of that appreciation … . Brown v Brown, 2017 NY Slip Op 01175, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH WAS COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL FUNDS, WIFE ALSO ENTITLED TO SHARE OF APPRECIATION OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY)/SEPARATE PROPERTY (FAMILY LAW, (WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH WAS COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL FUNDS, WIFE ALSO ENTITLED TO SHARE OF APPRECIATION OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY)/MARITAL PROPERTY (WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH WAS COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL FUNDS, WIFE ALSO ENTITLED TO SHARE OF APPRECIATION OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY)

You might also like
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DOCTOR CONDUCTED AN ADEQUATE SUICIDE ASSESSMENT.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT SLID CAUSING HIM TO FALL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
RESTITUTION ORDERED WAS GREATER THAN THAT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; RESTITUTION VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) DOES NOT APPLY TO JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALES; HERE THE BANK DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF A SENIOR MORTGAGE; SALE SET ASIDE AND DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).
Only (No-Fault) “N-F 5” Form Triggers 30-Day Period to Deny or Pay a Claim

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

FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES REQUIRED REVERSAL. FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARIN...