Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Matrimonial StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Litigation

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
December 18, 2009

No Separate Property Credit for Down Payment on Marital Residence

There can be no separate property credit for down payment on marital residence in the absence of proof that the source of the funds was separate. Wasserman v. Wasserman, 2009 NY Slip Op 07623, Appellate Division, Second Department, Oct. 20, 2009.

The Appellate Division determined that even though the lower court had properly distributed 50% of the value of the plaintiff's business interests to the defendant, it modified the payment terms, to avoid the plaintiff's having to liquidate assets in order to satisfy the order. It also affirmed the amount and number of years of maintenance due to the defendant wife and denied the plaintiff's request for a credit for his separate property contribution of the down payment on the marital residence because he failed to establish properly the source of the separate funds.

No Separate Property Credit for Down Payment on Marital Residence

There can be no separate property credit for down payment on marital residence in the absence of proof that the source of the funds was separate. Wasserman v. Wasserman , 2009 NY Slip Op 07623, Appellate Division, Second Department, Oct. 20, 2009.

The Appellate Division determined that even though the lower court had properly distributed 50% of the value of the plaintiff's business interests to the defendant, it modified the payment terms, to avoid the plaintiff's having to liquidate assets in order to satisfy the order. It also affirmed the amount and number of years of maintenance due to the defendant wife and denied the plaintiff's request for a credit for his separate property contribution of the down payment on the marital residence because he failed to establish properly the source of the separate funds.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?