Harned v. Harned, 585 N.Y.S. 2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). An increase in value as the result of expenditure of marital property is considered marital property.
Allen v. Allen, ___ A.D.2d ___, 693 N.Y.S.2d 708 (1999).
Appreciation in the value of separate property due to market forces is not subject to equitable distribution, but the non-titled wife was entitled to share in an increase in value that resulted from her own efforts.
Cowles v. Stahmer, 679 N.Y.S. 2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Increases in value are divided into whether they are “active” appreciation, making them marital, or “passive” earnings, making them separate.
Francis v. Francis, ___ A.D.2d ___, 692 N.Y.S.2d 263 (1999).
The wife was not entitled to credit for one-half of all real estate taxes paid on the marital residence, since such taxes were paid with marital funds. The wife was entitled to the appreciation in value of the residence, however.
Spencer v. Spencer, ___ A.D.2d ___, 646 N.Y.S.2d 674 (1996).
Funds inherited by the husband were his separate property, but the increase in value of the funds due to his management of the investment was marital property.
Du Jack v. Du Jack, ___ A.D.2d ___, 632 N.Y.S.2d 895 (1995).
Part of the appreciation of the husband's interest in a family-run business from the date of the parties' marriage until the sale of the business was marital property, where the husband engaged in substantial active efforts with respect to the business, even though the sale price exceeded the value of the business under standard accounting principles.
Capasso v. Capasso, 506 N.Y.S. 2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986); Pilato v. Pilato, 615 N.Y.S. 2d 182 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994); Karounos v. Karounos, 614 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div., 1994); Desmoyers v. Desmoyers, 530 N.Y.S. 2d 906 (N.Y.S. App. Div 1986). A marital claim is created if the separate property increases in value during the marriage because the owning spouse had more time to devote to the property due to the homemaker services of the other spouse.
Fitzgibbon v. Fitzgibbon, 555 NY.S. 2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). If the increase in value is due to just market forces, or if the non-owning spouse does not provide services that affect how much time the owning spouse can devote to the separate property, there is no marital claim.
Roemholdt v. Russell, 712 N.Y.S. 2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000); Kraeger v. Kraeger 706 N.Y.S. 2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). The appreciation in value is separate if due solely to inflation or market forces.
Roffman v. Roffman, 476 N.Y.S. 2d 713 (N.Y. Sup. 1983); Jolis v. Jolis, 111 Misc. 2d 965, 446 N.Y.S. 2d 138 (N.Y. Sup. 1981); Lisetza v. Lisetza, 523 N.Y.S. 2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div 1988); Shahidi v. Shahidi, 514 N.Y.S. 2d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). If only the spouse who owns the property does the services to improve the separate property during the marriage, there is no marital property.
Brown v. Brown, 611 N.Y.S. 2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994; Robertson v. Robertson, 558 N.Y.S. 2d 43 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992; Hartog v. Hartog, 605 N.Y.S. p749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993); Feldman v. Feldman, 605 N.Y.S. 2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). An increase in value of separate property due to market forces or the efforts of anyone other than a spouse should remain separate.
To learn more about the appreciation of property in divorce, consult our explanation here.
