PELCHER, JANET R. v. CZEBATOL, J. MICHAEL

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

PELCHER, JANET R. v. CZEBATOL, J. MICHAEL

98 A.D.3d 1258, 951 N.Y.S.2d 288

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 28, 2012

DocketCA 11-02196

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 98 A.D.3d 1258 (PELCHER, JANET R. v. CZEBATOL, J. MICHAEL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

PELCHER, JANET R. v. CZEBATOL, J. MICHAEL, 98 A.D.3d 1258, 951 N.Y.S.2d 288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joanne M. Winslow, J.), entered February 8, 2011 in a divorce action. The order and judgment granted the motion of decedent for a determination of separate property.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Diane C. Czebatol (decedent) died during the *1259 pendency of this action for divorce commenced by her, whereupon her mother, as executor of her estate, was substituted as the plaintiff. Prior to her death, decedent moved for an order determining that the amount of $149,500 used for the purchase of the marital residence was her separate property, and that she was entitled to a credit in that amount from the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. Supreme Court properly granted the motion. “It is well settled that a spouse is entitled to a credit for his or her contribution of separate property toward the purchase of the marital residence, including any contributions that are directly traceable to separate property” (Juhasz v Juhasz, 59 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2009], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 848 [2009] [citations omitted ]), even where, as here, the parties held joint title to the marital residence. Here, decedent established in support of her motion that plaintiff transferred approximately $150,000 in mutual funds to decedent’s mutual fund account and that decedent thereafter withdrew funds from that account and deposited the funds into her individual checking account, from which she paid $149,500 toward the purchase of the marital residence (cf. Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 165-167 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 819 [2010]; Baker v Baker, 32 AD3d 1275, 1275-1276 [2006]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly determined that, although the deed to the marital residence establishes that decedent and defendant owned the property as tenants by the entirety, decedent did not contribute her separate property toward the purchase of the marital residence as a gift to defendant. Present — Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joanne M. Winslow, J.), entered February 8, 2011 in a divorce action. The order and judgment granted the motion of decedent for a determination of separate property.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Diane C. Czebatol (decedent) died during the *1259 pendency of this action for divorce commenced by her, whereupon her mother, as executor of her estate, was substituted as the plaintiff. Prior to her death, decedent moved for an order determining that the amount of $149,500 used for the purchase of the marital residence was her separate property, and that she was entitled to a credit in that amount from the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. Supreme Court properly granted the motion. “It is well settled that a spouse is entitled to a credit for his or her contribution of separate property toward the purchase of the marital residence, including any contributions that are directly traceable to separate property” (Juhasz v Juhasz, 59 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2009], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 848 [2009] [citations omitted ]), even where, as here, the parties held joint title to the marital residence. Here, decedent established in support of her motion that plaintiff transferred approximately $150,000 in mutual funds to decedent’s mutual fund account and that decedent thereafter withdrew funds from that account and deposited the funds into her individual checking account, from which she paid $149,500 toward the purchase of the marital residence (cf. Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 165-167 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 819 [2010]; Baker v Baker, 32 AD3d 1275, 1275-1276 [2006]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly determined that, although the deed to the marital residence establishes that decedent and defendant owned the property as tenants by the entirety, decedent did not contribute her separate property toward the purchase of the marital residence as a gift to defendant. Present — Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.3d 1258, 951 N.Y.S.2d 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelcher-janet-r-v-czebatol-j-michael-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack