The plaintiff-wife contends that since the proceeds of certain loans were used to finance the defendant-husband’s separate property (i.e. his medical practice), the Supreme Court should have allocated the loan as the defendant’s separate responsibility rather than equally between the parties. Here, the Appellate Court held that the loans at issue were used to benefit the defendant’s medical practice which was the sole means of financial support for the entire family. Therefore, under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the loan was incurred for the sole benefit of the defendant. As such, the Supreme Court’s decision to equally distribute the loan between the parties was proper.

LINK TO DECISION