Opinion ID: 2584589
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sheila's Caskill property taxation payments

Text: Sheila was given a credit for half the amount she paid after the separation date on the property taxes for the Caskill property. Richard argues that Sheila made the post-separation payment of taxes on the Caskill home with marital funds, and that as a result it was error to give her a credit for them. The payments were made from the joint account containing the AETNA settlement part 2.1(A) annuity payments later designated as marital property; Richard and Sheila were each awarded half these payments. Therefore he claims that the payments were an exercise in using marital property to preserve marital property. In Ramsey v. Ramsey, [37] we noted that no fixed rule need be imposed for crediting a spouse who has used post-separation, non-marital income to maintain marital property. [38] We held that a court has broad discretion to determine how and whether to credit such payments, including the discretion to credit the spouse with all or none of such payments. [39] Here, the situation is different from Ramsey in that payments were made from the 2.1(A) settlement annuity, the entirety of which the trial court classified as marital and then divided evenly between Sheila and Richard. However, as Sheila points out, she was only credited with half of the tax payments. We conclude that the trial court acted within his discretion in crediting Sheila with half of the post-separation tax payments that she made with an account that was half her property.