WALTER MELVIN, plf-res, v. SARAH MELVIN, def-ap

4805N. WALTER MELVIN, plf-res, v. SARAH MELVIN, def-ap — Warner Partners, P.C., New York (Kenneth E. Warner of counsel), for ap — Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Eric I. Wrubel of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered May 8, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff husband's cross motion for an order declaring defendant wife judicially estopped from claiming that charitable contributions reported on the parties' joint income tax returns from 2011 through 2015 constituted marital waste, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4805N. WALTER MELVIN, plf-res, v. SARAH MELVIN, def-ap — Warner Partners, P.C., New York (Kenneth E. Warner of counsel), for ap — Warshaw Burstein, LLP, New York (Eric I. Wrubel of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered May 8, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff husband’s cross motion for an order declaring defendant wife judicially estopped from claiming that charitable contributions reported on the parties’ joint income tax returns from 2011 through 2015 constituted marital waste, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The wife argues that charitable contributions totaling approximately $1.5 million, reflected on the parties’ joint tax returns from 2011 through 2015, were made without her consent. However, she does not deny that she signed the tax returns under penalty of perjury, that the charity receiving the contributions was a bona fide nonprofit organization, and that the marital estate received a benefit from the contributions in the form of tax deductions. Although the wife claims that the husband only sent her the signature page of the tax returns, so that she was unaware of their contents, she had unfettered access to the complete returns from the parties’ accountant. In any event, by signing the tax returns, she is presumed to have read and understood their contents (see Vulcan Power Co. v. Munson, 89 AD3d 494 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 807 [2012]; see also Da Silva v. Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 550-551 [1981]). Significantly, the wife does not argue that the husband received a financial gain from the donations, only that they were inherently wasteful in their excess.

WALTER MELVIN, plf-res, v. SARAH MELVIN, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal