Defendant-wife appeals claiming that, among several other matters, Supreme Court erred by entitling the plaintiff-husband to an equitable share of the marital funds used to discharge the mortgage on the wife’s separate residence which had been used as the marital residence for the entirety of the marriage. Although the wife purchased the residence prior to the marriage, the parties used marital funds to pay for home improvements and to discharge the mortgage. Furthermore, the couple engaged in ‘complex financial dealings’ which included acquiring new lines of credit to pay off existing lines of credit. The Supreme Court’s decision was proper in allowing the husband to recoup his equitable share of the marital funds used to improve and reduce the indebtedness of the marital abode.

LINK TO DECISION