In Fields v. Fields,1 the Court of Appeals infixed asymmetry into a complex arena dominated by statutory guidelines and a substantial body of decisional authority. The Court, counterintuitively: misapplied the plain statutory language in Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §236B[1][d], which identifies separate property, by inexplicably confirming a fait accompli special status on marital residences acquired with separate property down payments, although the Legislature never did so; improperly linked DRL §236B[1][d][1] with DRL §236B[1][d][3]; and shifted the nontitled spouse’s burden of proof in an appreciated separate asset acquired with separate property to the titled-spouse because of no more than the nature of the asset.
The Court further failed to apply its own precedent authority regarding the dichotomy between active-passive assets and the nexus of effort by the titled-spouse to his separate property. The cost of litigation has just risen precipitously.
