Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Wilberforce THOMAS, appellant, v. Veta THOMAS, respondent.
In action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gibson, R.), entered June 17, 2004, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the defendant sole title to the marital residence, directed him to transfer his share of the marital residence to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of the defendant's share of the equitable distribution of the marital property, and failed to award him maintenance.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and as an exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $30,000 as a distributive award; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.
In making the determination as to the equitable distribution of the marital residence, the Special Referee failed to properly credit the plaintiff for a contribution made from his separate funds in the sum of $21,750, towards the down payment on the marital residence. In addition, the Special Referee failed to properly credit the plaintiff for contributions he made from his separate funds towards the payment of the mortgage and other household expenses during the approximately seven years he and the defendant lived in the marital residence. Under these circumstances and considering the relative length of this marriage, together with the sparse quantitative proof as to the expenditures of any marital funds on the plaintiff's separate property in Jamaica, we find that in distributing the marital residence, the Special Referee should also have made a distributive award of $30,000 to the plaintiff (see generally Kobylack v. Kobylack, 62 N.Y.2d 399, 477 N.Y.S.2d 109, 465 N.E.2d 829; Pelletier v. Pelletier, 242 A.D.2d 325, 662 N.Y.S.2d 64).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 07, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)