Justice Matthew Cooper
Wife sought a declaration that loans husband incurred in connection with the purchase of the marital home remained separate, rather than marital debts. Husband borrowed money from his Citigroup accounts, and took a loan from his company, for the purchase of an apartment. Yet, neither of the loans was secured by the apartment itself, which was not encumbered by a mortgage, lien or equity line of credit. The prenuptial agreement provided wife was entitled to 50 percent of the residence after husband received a $1 million separate property credit. Husband argued that because the residence was bought before a prior apartment was sold, it did not qualify as "the new residence" under the agreement, thus was his separate property as it was purchased by sources deemed his separate property. A prior court found the new residence was subject to equitable distribution. This court ruled that as husband took a loan from his separate property, rather than take out a mortgage or other financing secured by equity in the marital residence, he could not broaden the scope of the parties’ marital property because he did not follow the agreement. Wife’s motion was granted declaring husband’s loans taken against his separate property were his separate debt.
