At page 846 Reimbursement for payments toward marital debt during divorce15 citing cases“a party has paid the other party's share of what proves to be marital debt, such as the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital residence, reimbursement is required”
- Mohamed v. Abuhamra, 222 A.D.3d 1344 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2023).publishedThe money that was paid for those expenses came from joint marital funds placed in an escrow account as opposed to voluntary individual payments made "toward 'the other party's share' " of expenses ( Antinora v Antinora , 125 AD3d 1336, 13…
- Goldman v. Goldman, 131 A.D.3d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published“Where ... a party has paid the other party’s share of what proves to be marital debt, such as the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital residence, reimbursement is required” (Le v Le, 82 AD3d 845, 846 [2011]; see Judge v Judge, 48…
- Antinora, Julie W. v. Antinora, Terrance J., 125 A.D.3d 1336 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015).publishedContrary to the wife’s contention, the husband established at trial that he was entitled to credits against any award for retroactive maintenance for his voluntary payments toward “the other party’s share of what prove [d] to be marital de…
- Belkhir v. Amrane-Belkhir, 118 A.D.3d 1396 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014).published During the pendency of a divorce action, when “a party has paid the other party’s share of what proves to be marital debt, such as the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital residence, reimbursement is required” (Le v Le, 82 AD3d 84…
- Turco v. Turco, 117 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published Since the mortgages are marital debt, to be shared equally by the parties (see Epstein v Messner, 73 AD3d 843, 845 [2010]), and “[generally, it is the responsibility of both parties to maintain the marital residence . . . during the penden…
- Heymann v. Heymann, 102 A.D.3d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published Since those obligations were the sole obligations of the plaintiff, his use of marital funds to make those payments was improper, and the defendant is entitled to her equitable share of those funds, to wit, 50% (see Many v Many, 84 AD3d 10…
- Turbeville v. Turbeville, 140 A.D.3d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).publishedBased upon the parties’ arguments, the Special Referee correctly determined that plaintiff owed defendant 50% of the mortgage and maintenance payments defendant paid to maintain the marital residence, the parties’ most significant martial…
- McCaffrey v. McCaffrey, 107 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).published Accordingly, the husband should only be reimbursed for “one half of the amount by which the mortgage principal has been reduced” (Redgrave v Redgrave, 13 AD3d 1015, 1018 [2004]; see Le v Le, 82 AD3d 845, 846 [2011]; Arnold v Arnold, 309 AD…
- Belkhir, Lotfi v. Amrane-belkhir, Souad, No. CA 13-00762 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't June 20, 2014).published
- Uttamchandani v. Uttamchandani, 175 A.D.3d 1457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2019).published
Show 1 more citing case
- Savino v. Savino, 218 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2023).published
At page 845 Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff is entitled to receive a credit against the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence for the money…2 citing cases
- Morales v. Carvajal, 153 A.D.3d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).publishedContrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff is entitled to receive a credit against the proceeds of the sale of *515 the marital residence for the money that he paid to reduce the balance of the mortgage during the pendency of th…
- Hymowitz v. Hymowitz, 119 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff a credit against the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence for 100% of the payments he made to reduce the principal balance of the mortgage during t…
Other citing cases
- Joseph G. v. Mary R.G., 2026 NY Slip Op 51538(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty. 2026).unpublished
v.
Kevin Le, Lynn J. Brustein-Kamel, Nonparty
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff is entitled to receive a credit against the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence for the money that she paid to reduce the balance of the mortgage during the pendency of the divorce action (see Markopoulos v Markopoulos, 274 AD2d 457 [2000]). She made these payments without any contribution from the defendant (see e.g. Freigang v Freigang, 256 AD2d 539 [1998]).[*846] Where, as here, a party has paid the other party’s share of what proves to be marital debt, such as the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital residence, reimbursement is required (see generally Epstein v Messner, 73 AD3d 843 [2010]). However, the plaintiff was entitled to only a 50% of the reduction in mortgage principal because “[generally it is the responsibility of both parties to maintain the marital residence . . . during the pendency of a matrimonial action” (Judge v Judge, 48 AD3d 424, 425-426 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680 [2004]). Therefore, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff a credit for 100% of the payments she made on the marital residence during the divorce proceedings.
The remaining contentions are without merit. Co vello, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.