Melissa Janney v. Brice Janney (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The parties in the above captioned matter have filed Post-Judgment Motions directed to the Memorandum of Decision dated March 12, 2010.   Various motions for Clarification and Reargument, Objection to Reargument, and Articulation, were filed by the respective parties and argued before the court.

The following is this court's post-judgment decision:

Each party is to be independently responsible for their own respective attorneys fees.   Therefore, Mrs. Janney's $62,500 awarded to her pendente lite for counsel fees is to be credited back to Mr. Janney.   Mr. Janney's attorneys fees paid to his various legal counsel, Attorney Shanley and to Schoonmaker, George, and Colin are his sole responsibility.   If any such legal fee agreements were made via the equity line of credit that sum is to be paid back and/or credited to the other party at the sale of the family residence.

The value or balance of the Mann stock proceeds from the sale was $4,199,000.   The value or balance of those proceeds at the filing of the dissolution of marriage complaint was $3,867,429 and that is the amount to be divided one-half to each party together with one-half any interest earned from the return date of the legal action to the date of division between the parties.   There was a lack of credible evidence that the defendant secretly hid or acted in such a manner as to lead this court to find a dissipation of that asset.

As to the federal and state income taxes paid in 2009 for the 2007 tax year, the court finds that $81,958 was paid from the parties' joint HELOC account.   Therefore, the sum of $43,979 shall be a credit from the plaintiff to defendant, and is to be paid to the defendant at the time of the sale of the family residence.

The defendant's position that he be reimbursed and or credited $256,415 or one-half of the $512,830 that was transferred by the parties into the plaintiff-wife's 1996 trust from the parties' joint account is not accepted by the court.   That sum of money was voluntarily transferred into a trust in January 2007 or over one year prior to the initiation of this legal action.   Once that money was transferred by the defendant he waived his right to claim and is estopped to seek such a repayment.

The defendant further argues that he is entitled to retain his IRA of $50,000 and thus get a credit pursuant to the parties' prenuptial agreement.   However that IRA did not exist at the time of the trial between the parties and no reference is made to that IRA on the defendant's financial affidavit.   Thus, there is no such credit to the defendant for a nonexisting IRA.

BY THE COURT

MALONE, J.

Malone, John P., J.T.R.