Summary
In Ryan, the wife was awarded a share of the marital home when it was sold, even though the title to the property had been acquired by the husband before the marriage.
Summary of this case from Robinson v. RobinsonOpinion
October 14, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McBrien, J.).
Justice Mangano has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were married on October 1, 1960, and immediately moved into the marital residence at 447 O'Gorman Avenue in Staten Island. After their engagement, but before marriage, they began looking for a suitable home. In March 1960 they chose the O'Gorman Avenue property. From their salaries, both parties had been saving toward the purchase of a house. In May 1960 the plaintiff withdrew $1,600 and gave it to the defendant to be applied to the deposit on the house. The purchase price of the marital home was $21,900.
The closing took place on September 2, 1960, only 29 days before the marriage. Because the plaintiff was unable to appear at the closing due to her employment commitments, only the defendant attended. Therefore, title in what was to become the marital residence was in only the defendant's name, and remained only in his name throughout the marriage.
Immediately after the closing, in the month preceding their marriage, the parties began decorating and furnishing the house. Among other improvements, the plaintiff painted the interior. Their joint account provided the funds for the mortgage payments and other household-related expenses. After the plaintiff became pregnant with the couple's first child, she terminated her employment outside the home. For the next 17 years she concentrated her efforts on being a homemaker and parent to the parties' four children.
By summons and complaint dated May 6, 1983, the plaintiff commenced this divorce action on the ground of abandonment and sought, inter alia, equitable distribution of the marital residence. The defendant's answer contained a counterclaim demanding a divorce on the ground of the plaintiff's cruel and inhuman treatment. Special Term granted a divorce to the husband on that ground. The court then determined that the marital residence should be regarded as marital property even though title was only in the defendant's name prior to the parties' marriage, and ordered that the proceeds from the future sale of the house be distributed equally between them.
Marital property is defined by statute as "all property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement of a matrimonial action, regardless of the form in which title is held" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]). Because the marital home was purchased before the marriage, the defendant contends that the home was incorrectly determined to be marital property and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to equitable distribution of it. However, the statute's exception for separate property is narrowly written and expressly excludes from separate property the increase in its value as a result of "such appreciation [as] is due in part to the contributions or efforts of the other spouse" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [3]). Moreover, in determining the equitable distribution of the marital property resulting from such appreciation, the court must consider "any equitable claim to, interest in, or direct or indirect contribution made to the acquisition of such marital property by the party not having title, including joint efforts or expenditures and contributions and services as a spouse, parent, wage earner and homemaker, and to the career or career potential of the other party" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [6]; see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 489-490).
In the case at bar, the record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff substantially contributed to the acquisition of the marital home, and that the appreciation in its value was due, in part, to her contributions and efforts. Accordingly, considering the circumstances of this case and of the respective parties (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [c]), including the 22-year duration of the marriage (see, Bisca v Bisca, 108 A.D.2d 773, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 741), Special Term properly determined that, upon the future sale of the marital residence, the proceeds derived therefrom should be distributed equally between the parties.
The remaining contentions of the defendant have been considered and have been found to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.