You are here: / / INHERITED PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL PROPERTY SHOULD...

INHERITED PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS MARITAL PROPERTY AND DIVIDED EQUALLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined in this divorce action that the inherited property which was commingled with marital should have been considered marital property and divided equally:

The proceeds from an inheritance are separate property (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][d][1]…). However, where separate property has been commingled with marital property, for example in a joint bank account, there is a presumption that the commingled funds constitute marital property … . This presumption may be overcome by evidence that the funds were deposited into the joint account as a matter of convenience, without the intention of creating a beneficial interest … .

Here, by depositing inherited funds into accounts titled jointly with the defendant, the plaintiff created the presumption that the funds were marital … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption that the funds were transmuted into marital property, as she failed to establish that the funds were deposited into the parties’ joint accounts only as a matter of convenience without the intention of creating a beneficial interest … . Candea v Candea, 2019 NY Slip Op 04349, Second Dept 6-5-10

 

You might also like
Elements of False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution Explained
POLICE OFFICER’S ALLEGED OBSERVATION OF A DRUG DEAL WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF COULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER TO POST A BOND, EVEN THOUGH THE BOND REQUIREMENT WAS LATER ELIMINATED ON APPEAL, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF PRESENTED CREDIBLE EVIDENCE HE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE BOND WHICH IS A DEFENSE TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Allowed.
​ DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING (1) THE VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE STOPPED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND (2) THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT (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

A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A MOTION... THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMON CARRIER’S VAN WAS NOT UNUSUAL OR VIOLENT, THE...