The following papers were submitted and reviewed: Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Affidavit and Exhibits 1 RJE, CPA. CCIFP Trial Testimony Affidavit and Exhibits 2 Defendant’s Trial Testimony Affidavit, Affirmations in Support, and Exhibits 3 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Affidavit 4 Defendant’s Supplemental Affidavit 5 TRIAL DECISION The parties executed a So-Ordered Stipulation on October 26, 2022 (“So-Ordered Stipulation”), wherein they agreed that the issues of equitable distribution, separate property claims, and/or interpretation of their Prenuptial Agreement dated June 19, 2015 (“Pre-Nup”) would be decided by the Court based on affidavits and agreed-upon exhibits to be admitted into evidence in lieu of a trial. Pursuant to the So-Ordered Stipulation, the parties also waived their right to any appeal or cross-appeal of this Court’s determination on the grounds that a party or parties were deprived of their right to due process by virtue of the fact that such issues were determined based upon written submissions and not at a trial and/or hearing. Both parties filed their written submissions and substantial exhibits in support of their positions on December 15, 2022.1 Upon reviewing same, the Court required additional information before a determination could be reached. As such, on February 6, 2023, the Court issued a Short Form Order requiring the parties to provide supplemental affidavits. Both parties filed their supplemental affidavits in a timely manner. The parties were married on XXXXX, 2015, and there are no children born of the marriage. Plaintiff (“Wife”) is a permanent substitute teacher in the XXXXX School District, and Defendant (“Husband”) is a doctor at XXXXX specializing in XXXXX. Although Husband was historically the more monied spouse, both parties entered the marriage with significant assets. According to the Pre-Nup, Wife entered the marriage with a net worth of over $14.5 million, and Husband entered with significant assets including a Beechcraft Baron Twin Engine BE55, 50′ Viking Sport Cruiser, and multiple cars. Wife commenced the within action for divorce on May 31, 2019, which constituted a “termination event” under the Pre-Nup. Accordingly, all claims for maintenance were effectively waived by the parties since a termination event occurred prior to the parties’ fifth wedding anniversary.2 The Pre-Nup also set forth that each party would be responsible for the payment of their own respective counsel fees incurred in connection with this matter.3 Any issues not directly addressed herein are resolved in accordance with the Pre-Nup. Further, Wife is granted a divorce pursuant to DRL §170(7), the Irretrievable Breakdown of the Marriage. A 60 Day Order directing the submission of the Judgment of Divorce Packet shall be issued under separate cover. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Article IV of the Pre-Nup, titled “Separate Property Waivers,” sets forth, in pertinent parts, as follows: 1. Without in any way limiting the definition of separate property as set forth in paragraph numbered “1″ of this Article, separate property shall also include the following: (i) that portion of M’s income earned during the parties’ marriage that is deposited into M’s XXXX Credit Union Account, which he represents is approximately $7,000 per month, provided M’s annual income exceeds $350,000 in any year such income is deposited into the XXXX Credit Union Account; and (ii) any assets acquired with the funds set forth in subparagraph (i) and any loan repayment made by M from the funds set forth in subparagraph (i). (iii) M agrees to pay any outstanding loans on his boat, plane or cars from the XXXX Credit Union Account. 2. Inheritance and Inter-Spousal Gifts: In addition, the parties make the following specific declarations relative to their respective separate property interests: (i) Any funds or property inherited by either party shall remain the sole and separate property of the party so inheriting such funds or property;… Article VI of the parties’ Pre-Nup, titled “Payment of Marital Expenses,” sets forth, in pertinent parts, as follows: 1. The parties shall open a joint bank account after their marriage. M shall deposit into such joint account his salary and wages, at all times when he is employed, with the exception of the monies deposited into the XXXX Credit Union Account in accordance with Article IV, paragraph “2.” L shall deposit into such joint account her salary and wages at all times that she is employed. 2. The parties shall pay from the joint account their joint expenses, including but not limited to all costs in maintaining the parties’ residence, car insurance, travel and vacation costs, medical and dental expenses, automobile expenses, disability insurance not paid for by M’s employer, homeowner’s insurance, food, dining out and entertainment … 4. Upon a Termination Event, the parties shall equally divide the funds on account in said joint account on the date of the Termination Event. I. Husband’s XXXX Credit Union Account Both parties agree that throughout the marriage, a total of $517,471.76 was deposited into Husband’s XXXXX Credit Union Account (“Credit Union Account”). Wife argues Husband should have only deposited a total of $329,000(i.e., $7,000 x 47 months of marriage), and therefore, he overfunded the account by $188,471.76. She claims she is entitled to a credit because the extra monies are marital funds that should have been deposited into the parties’ joint account and, ultimately, divided between them. Husband argues Wife is misinterpreting the Pre-Nup, and he in no way improperly funded his Credit Union Account. He explains that the Pre-Nup does not strictly limit his monthly contributions to only $7,000. Husband claims that, at the start of the marriage, his contributions were, in fact, only $7,000 a month. However, he states that he began depositing more per month after his salary increased. As such, Husband argues that all monies in his Credit Union Account are his separate property, to which Wife is not entitled. Additionally, Husband notes that during the marriage, a deposit for $150,000 was made into his Credit Union Account. He explains that these monies came from the sale of a separate property boat and were transferred out a week later to purchase another boat. Wife does not address or otherwise raise concerns regarding this deposit. As with all contracts, prenuptial agreements are construed in accord with the parties’ intent, which is generally gleaned from what is expressed in their writing. Abramson v. Gavares, 109 A.D.3d 849, 971 N.Y.S.2d 538 (2013).”The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing.” (Slamow v. Del Col, 79 N.Y.2d 1016, 1018 [1992]). When interpreting a contract, the court should arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that their reasonable expectations will be realized. Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 50 AD3d 851 (2d Dept. 2008). Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Pre-Nup, which are set forth above, Husband was entitled to deposit “approximately $7,000 per month, provided [his] annual income exceeds $350,000,” into his Credit Union Account for the payment of any outstanding loans on his separate property boat, plane, or cars. Here, statements from the Credit Union Account show that from July 1, 2015 until November 6, 2015, Husband made bi-monthly deposits of $3,500 — for a monthly deposit total of $7,000. On November 11, 2015, Husband began depositing $4,928.33 on a bi-monthly basis, for a new monthly total of $9,856.66. Husband’s W-2s confirm that his income increased significantly around this time, from $712,381.21 to $1,351,097.85 per year. Additionally, his W-2s confirm Husband’s income exceeded $350,000 at all times during the marriage, as required by the terms of the Pre-Nup. The language of the Pre-Nup specifically includes the word “approximately,” rather than strictly capping Husband’s contributions to $7,000 or leaving the word out altogether. The only condition placed on Husband’s monthly contributions was that his annual income had to exceed $350,000, which as stated above, was clearly met. The Court is not empowered to read-in additional conditions or terms that the parties specifically chose not to include. Therefore, the Court disagrees with Wife’s contentions that Husband over-funded his Credit Union Account at any point during the marriage. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that all monies deposited into Husband’s Bethpage Credit Union Account throughout the marriage are his sperate property pursuant to the Pre-Nup. II. VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS UTILIZED THROUGHOUT THE MARRIAGE Pursuant to the Pre-Nup, the parties were to open a joint account shortly after getting married, and they obligated themselves to deposit their salary/wages into said account, with the exception of the monies Husband was permitted to deposit into his Credit Union Account, so as to pay all expenses that arose during the marriage. The Pre-Nup further provides that all income remaining in the account on the date a termination event occurs shall be divided equally between the parties. Wife argues Husband earned $2,968,209.02 throughout the marriage. Less the $329,000 she contends he was permitted to deposit into the Credit Union Account, Wife argues Husband should have deposited a total of $2,639,209.02 into their Joint Chase Bank Checking Account ending in 7860 (“Joint Account”). However, she claims Husband only deposited $1,480,800 into same throughout the marriage, and therefore, underfunded the Joint Account by $1,158,409.02. Wife alleges Husband directly “siphoned” the missing funds into his Credit Union Account and personal Citibank Checking Account ending in 8974 (“Citibank Account”). Husband argues Wife earned approximately $34,667 throughout the marriage, but never deposited any of her income into the Joint Account. As a result, he contends he is entitled to a credit of half this amount. Wife admits to immediately ignoring and violating the Pre-Nup, and she explains that she never arranged for her paycheck to be directly deposited into the Joint Account. However, she claims she only earned $28,810.54 during the marriage. While she acknowledges she underfunded the Joint Account, Wife alleges that in June of 2016, she made a deposit into the Joint Account in the amount of $16,466. As such, it is her position that she only underfunded the Joint Account by $12,344.54, of which Husband is entitled a credit of $6,172.27. Therefore, taking into consideration this credit owed to Husband by Wife, she argues that in order to be made whole as a result of Husband’s underfunding of the Joint Account, she is owed $573,032.24. Wife further argues that Husband improperly used net earned income in the Joint Account to pay non-living expenses, including $154,554.24 towards costs associated with his boat, plane, and cars. Specifically, Wife claims that $83,944.24 of marital funds were used to pay Husband’s loans, while $70,610.00 were used to pay the title payment for his plane. She contends these monies should have remained in the Joint Account to be equally divided upon commencement, and therefore, she is entitled to a credit of $77,277.12. Wife complains that, taking into account “the actual use of the monies Husband properly deposited into the joint account and improperly siphoned off to other accounts to apply toward non-living expenses,” she would be owed $313,311.00 before considering any credits owed to Husband. Husband argues that the parties did not strictly adhere to the terms of the Pre-Nup after getting married and mutually agreed to manage their finances differently than what was originally agreed to in the Pre-Nup. He explains that rather than altering his direct deposit instructions with his employer, he would provide Wife with a stack of blank checks from his separate Citibank Account. He states that Wife then wrote checks out to cash, paid expenses directly from his Citibank Account, or wrote a check to the parties’ Joint Account and deposited same. He further contends that he would also transfer funds directly into the Joint Account whenever Wife asked since she managed the account and ensured a majority of the bills got paid. Husband explains that a total of $2,430,971 was deposited into his Citibank Account throughout the marriage from his employer. From this account, checks provided directly to Wife totaled $1,556,160, while approximately $113,023 in marital expenses were paid directly from same. Husband also raises concerns regarding $30,110 in expenses for Wife’s separate property home in Florida that were paid from this account. Husband provides proof that Wife cashed checks made out to herself from the Joint Account totaling approximately $78,600, as well as withdrawals totaling $79,544 via deposits into her individual Chase Bank Account and individual Bank of America Account. Regarding his separate property loans, Husband alleges that Wife specifically requested that certain loans for his boat, plane, and cars not be paid from his Credit Union Account since she did not have access to same, and therefore, would not be able to manage or track those payments. Therefore, he claims those certain loan payments were, instead, scheduled to be automatically paid from his Citibank Account and the Joint Account. However, he states he provided proof that he transferred separate property funds into those accounts to fund the loan payments so as to ensure they were not being paid with marital funds. Husband states his Personal Citibank Checking Account contained a balance of $176,900.04 on the date of commencement. However, it is his position that there are no marital funds to be distributed from this account. He argues the ending balance must be offset by the surplus of separate property funds that were deposited into the account. As for his separate property deposits, Husband argues a combined total of approximately $875,820 in separate property funds were transferred into his Citibank Account and the Joint Account. From these accounts, only a combined total of $555,649 was paid towards separate property expenses. Therefore, Husband argues he actually deposited a combined surplus of $320,171 in separate property funds into his Citibank Account and the Joint Account, which were ultimately used for joint, marital expenses. Regarding any allegation of misuse of marital funds, Husband argues all income earned during the marriage, less the approximately $7,000 that he was permitted to deposit into his Credit Union Account, was either deposited into the Joint Account or was paid towards marital expenses via his Citibank Account. He further explains that the Pre-Nup did not limit or otherwise define what expenses could be paid with marital funds, aside from the specific provisions regarding the loans for his separate property assets. Therefore, Husband contends that payments toward things such as (a) his credit card, which was used for dining out, travel, and various living expenses; (b) his Mercedes Benz lease payment; or (c) maintenance for the boat and plane enjoyed together by the parties were properly paid with marital funds. Additionally, Husband complains that because the parties mutually agreed to manage their finances differently than how was originally set forth in the Pre-Nup, they “intentionally abandoned their right to strictly enforce the provisions” of same. It is Husband’s position that he is owed a total of $114,291 from Wife as a result of her (a) failure to contribute any of her earnings to the Joint Account throughout the marriage; (b) several pre-commencement withdrawals, which will be discussed separately below; and (3) expenses paid toward and profits realized on Wife’s residence in Florida, which will also be discussed separately below. While Wife admits that she was provided blank checks from Husband, she argues this method of managing their finances “prevented [the Joint Account] from growing as contemplated” in the Pre-Nup. Property acquired during marriage and before execution of a separation agreement or commencement of a matrimonial action is marital property, regardless of the form in which title is held. See DRL §236[B][1][c]; Fields v. Fields, 15 NY3d 158 (Ct. of Appeals, 2010). Where separate property has been commingled with marital property, the presumption arises that commingled funds constitute marital property. See Massimi v. Massimi, 35 AD3d 400 (2d Dept. 2006); Wade v. Steinfeld, 15 AD3d 390 (2d Dept. 2005). While property acquired during a marriage is presumed to be marital property, the party seeking to overcome that presumption may do so by proving beyond a fair preponderance of the evidence that the property in dispute is traceable to separate property. Fields, supra; Steinberg v. Steinberg, 59 AD3d 702 (2d Dept. 2009). Not all marital property must be distributed in the same manner or in the same percentage, as different equities or different credits may pertain to different assets. DRL §236[B][5][C]. Ahearn v. Ahearn, 137 AD3d 719 (2d Dept. 2016). Depending on the particular circumstances of the case, the court may also appropriately fix different valuation dates for different assets. Pappas v. Pappas, 134 AD3d 1001 (2d Dept. 2015). The Appellate Division, Second Department has consistently affirmed the awards of unequal distribution of marital assets. Ropiecki v. Ropiecki, 94 AD3d 734 (2d Dept. 2012) (affirming the award of 100 percent of the marital residence to the wife and considering the circumstances of the case, it was proper that the husband was required to pay the outstanding mortgage on the residence in full before transferring title completely to the wife); Mizrahi-Srour v. Srour, 138 AD3d 801 (2d Dept. 2016)(due to the husband’s ‘economic misconduct,’ the award of 70 percent of the known marital estate, consisting of the marital residence, two life insurance policies and retirement funds to the wife was proper); Samimi v. Samimi, 134 AD3d 1010 (2d Dept. 2015) (affirming the award of sole title to the marital residence to the wife); Kerly v. Kerly, 131 AD2d 1124 (2d Dept. 2015)(affirming the award of 70 percent of the marital assets to the wife due in large part the husband’s wasteful dissipation of marital assets). Under Domestic Relations Law Sections 236[B][5][c], “marital assets should be…distributed equitably between the parties, considering the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties.” Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution. Michaelessi v. Michaelessi, 59 AD3d 689 (2d Dept. 2009) and must be based on the circumstances of the particular case and the consideration of a number of statutory factors set forth in DRL §236[B][5][d], although not every factor applies to every case equally (Cappiello v. Cappiello, 66 NY2d 107[1985]). The Court considered the following factors in reaching its decision: 1. The income and property of each party at the time of marriage and at the time of the commencement of the action. Pursuant to the Pre-Nup, Wife entered the marriage with a net worth of over $14.5 million, and Husband entered with significant assets including a Beechcraft Baron Twin Engine BE55, 50′ Viking Sport Cruiser, and multiple cars. 2. The duration of the marriage and the age and health of both parties. The parties were married for 4 years, and neither party addressed any health issues. 3. The need of a custodial parent to occupy or own the marital residence and to use its household effects. N/A 4. The loss of inheritance and pension rights upon the dissolution of the marriage as of the date of the dissolution. Pursuant to the Pre-Nup. 5. Loss of health insurance benefits upon dissolution of marriage. Both parties will lose health insurance benefits from the other. 6. Any award of maintenance under subdivision six of this part. Maintenance was waived pursuant to the Pre-Nup, as previously discussed above. 7. Any equitable claim to interest in or direct or indirect contribution made to the acquisition of such marital property of the party not having title including joint efforts or expenditures and contributions and services as a spouse, parent, wage earner and homemaker, and to the career or career potential of the other party. Husband contends he contributed separate property money to pay marital expenses, as well as contributed money to Wife’s separate property Florida Residence, as discussed in detail below. 8. The liquid or non-liquid character of all marital property. All marital property is liquid and pursuant to the Pre-Nup. 9. The probable future financial circumstances of each party. Husband earns a substantial income as a doctor and, as set forth in the Pre-Nup, Wife entered the marriage with approximately $14.5 million in separate property. 10. The impossibility or difficulty of evaluating any component asset of any interest in a business, corporation or profession and the economic desirability of retaining such asset or interest intact and free from any claim or interference by the other party. N/A 11. The tax consequences to each party. Not applicable as maintenance was waived in Pre-Nup and there are no children born of the marriage. 12. The wasteful dissipation of assets by either spouse. Wife claims Husband underfunded marital account pursuant to the Pre-Nup. 13. Any transfer or encumbrance made in contemplation of a matrimonial action without fair consideration. Wife transferred funds prior to commencement, which is addressed in detail below. 14. Whether either party has committed an act or acts of domestic violence, as described in subdivision one of section four hundred fifty-nine-a of the social services law, against the other party and the nature, extent, duration and impact of such act or acts. None alleged. 15. In awarding the possession of a companion animal, the court shall consider the best interest of such animal. “Companion animal”, as used in this subparagraph, shall have the same meaning as in subdivision five of section three hundred fifty of the agriculture and markets law. N/A 16. Any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper. Regarding Wife’s claims that Husband underfunded the Joint Account, it is clear, and the parties admit, that they did not manage their finances how they originally agreed as set forth in the Pre-Nup. For example, review of the exhibits illustrate that the parties did not open their Joint Account until January of 2016 — eight (8) months into their marriage. Additionally, both parties admit they never arranged for their wages to be directly deposited into said account, and that the Joint Account was funded primarily with monies from Husband’s Citibank Account — which, as will be discussed below, contained a surplus of over $350,000 of Husband’s separate property funds. Additionally, review of Wife’s W-2s from throughout the marriage, and pro-rating the sums earned in 2015 and 2019 so as not to include pre-marital or post-commencement wages, illustrates that she also underfunded the Joint Account. Based on her W-2′s, Wife earned $34,783.15. A review of the submitted exhibits confirm that on June 27, 2016, a deposit totaling $16,466 was made into the Joint Account from a Checking Account ending in 9465, which is Wife’s pre-marital, separate property account. Even taking into consideration this separate property deposit, Wife also underfunded the Joint Account by $18,317.15. Nonetheless, as previously stated, the parties never followed the Pre-Nup. By mutually agreeing on a different method to manage their finances during the marriage, both parties relinquished their right to now attempt to strictly enforce the provisions of the Pre-Nup they effectively abandoned, specifically those provisions requiring that they directly deposit their salaries into the Joint Account. See Hannigan v. Hannigan, 960 NYS 2d. 492 (2d Dept. 2013). Accordingly, the Husband’s request for a credit as a result of Wife’s alleged underfunding of the Joint Account and Wife’s request for a credit as a result of Husband’s alleged underfunding of the Joint Account are DENIED. Additionally, the Court does not find Wife’s claims that Husband improperly used marital funds to pay non-living expenses credible. First, review of Husband’s submitted exhibits illustrate that significant separate property contributions were, in fact, made to his Citibank Account totaling $805,159.72 — specifically $330,000 from his Citibank Savings Account ending in 92704 (“Citibank Savings Account”); $78,000 from his Credit Union Account; and $397,159.72 from other separate property sources including inheritance and mandatory IRA distributions. As for his separate property expenses paid from his Citibank Account, Husband paid a total of $148,544 towards his separate property Intercostal loan and $275,083.73 to purchase a separate property 2006 Hatteras Boat, for a total of $423,627.73 paid towards separate property expenses paid from his Citibank Account. As such, Husband did, in fact, deposit a surplus of $381,531.99 of separate property monies into his Citibank Account. Regarding “non-living expenses” paid from the Joint Account, review of the submitted exhibits illustrate that Husband deposited a total of $70,000 in separate property funds originating from his Credit Union Account. From the Joint account, $27,968.90 was paid towards Husband’s boat loans and $104,052 was paid to Mahopac National Bank for plane loans, for a total of $132,020.90 paid towards Husband’s separate property expenses. The evidence showed that while there was actually a deficit of separate property monies in the Joint Account in the amount of $62,020.90, it is undisputed that this account was directly funded by Husband’s Citibank Account, which contained a surplus of nearly $400,000 in separate property funds. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals held in Mahoney-Buntzman v. Buntzman, 12 N.Y.3d 415 (2009), a Court should not second guess every financial decision made by the parties throughout the marriage or drill down into every economic choice so as to examine every debit or credit made through the marriage. Accordingly, Wife’s request for a credit as a result of Husband’s alleged misuse of marital funds is DENIED. III. WIFE’S PRE-COMMENCEMENT TRANSACTIONS Husband argues Wife made several large withdrawals from the Joint Account immediately prior to commencing the within action, totaling $52,500. He claims she made two withdrawals, each in the amount of $25,000 for a total of $50,000, which were subsequently deposited into Bank of America Accounts in Wife’s name. Husband further alleges Wife made a cash withdrawal of $2,500 the day before retaining her attorney. Additionally, Husband argues Wife inappropriately used $25,000 from the Joint Account to pay her retainer fee for JS LLP. Moreover, he contends Wife continually depleted the funds that were in the Joint Account and Joint Savings Account on the date of commencement, which should have been divided equally between the parties. He states the Joint Checking Account contained approximately $22,568 and the Joint Savings Account contained approximately $5,118 on the date of commencement As a result of the foregoing, Husband requests a total credit from Wife in the amount of approximately $52,593, which represents half the monies secreted from the Joint Account immediately prior to commencement, as well as half the monies that were remaining in the joint accounts on the date of commencement. Wife admits to making three withdrawals from the Joint Account — each in the amount of $25,000, for a total of $75,000. She claims one transaction was used to pay her attorney’s retainer and acknowledges Husband is entitled to a credit of $12,500 for same. Wife claims the other two withdrawals, totaling $50,000, were deposited into a Bank of America account in her name and used primarily for various living expenses since Husband underfunded the Joint Account throughout the marriage and she earned far less than him. However, she alleges $1,300 was paid toward Husband’s boat, plane, and car loans. Therefore, she contends Husband is only entitled to a credit of $24,025 as a result of these transfers from the Joint Account. Wife further argues that on the date of commencement, the Joint Checking Account contained $22,568. From these monies, she states $15,908 was paid towards Husband’s various loans and expenses, $8,311 was paid towards outstanding joint marital expenses, and $3,467 was paid towards Wife’s living expenses. Wife contends she is owed a credit of $7,954 for the monies put towards Husband’s expenses, and Husband is owed a credit of $1,733.50 for the monies put towards her living expenses. Regarding the $2,500 cash withdrawal raised by Husband, she argues this was a customary withdrawal used to pay for various monthly expenses such as the housekeeper, gardener, and nail appointments. A review of the submitted exhibits confirms the following: On March 21, 2019, $25,000 was withdrawn from the Joint Account. On the same date, $25,000 was deposited into a Bank of America Checking Account ending in 1282 in Wife’s sole name. On April 3, 2019, another $25,000 was withdrawn from the Joint Account. On that same day, $25,000 was deposited into a Bank of America Rewards Savings Account ending in 4903 in Wife’s name and POD to A.L.R. Furthermore, on May 29, 2019, Wife wrote a check (No. 321) from the Joint Account to JS LLP in the amount of $25,000. As mentioned above, Courts should not second guess or analyze every financial decision made by the parties throughout the course of their marriage. However, same is not true when such decisions are made in anticipation of the end of the marriage or as part of “divorce planning.” See Mahoney-Buntzman, 12 N.Y.3d 415 (2009); Opina-Cherner v. Cherner, 117 N.Y.S.3d 66 (2d Dept. 2019). Here, there is no dispute that the March 21, 2019; April 3, 2019; and May 29,2019 withdrawals by Wife, totaling $75,000, were improper and made without fair consideration. Additionally, Wife fails to provide any proof or identify any submitted exhibits that support her contention that $1,300 from these monies was paid towards Husband’s separate property loans. The Court finds Husband’s argument that he is entitled to a credit for each of the withdrawals on March 21, 2019; April 3, 2019; and May 29, 2019, totaling $37,500, to be credible. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that Wife shall pay $12,500 to Husband for his half of the monies improperly withdrawn from the Joint Account on March 21, 2019, within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry; and it is further ORDERED, that Wife shall pay $12,500 to Husband for his half of the monies improperly withdrawn from the Joint Account on April 3, 2019, within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry; and it is further ORDERED, that Wife shall pay $12,500 to Husband for his half of the monies improperly withdrawn from the Joint Account and paid to Wife’s attorney on May 29,2019, within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry. Regarding the $2,500 cash withdrawal made by Wife from the Joint Account on May 28, 2019, review of the exhibits confirms same occurred. However, the parties’ bank statements also confirm that withdrawals and checks made out to cash by Wife in various amounts were customary throughout the marriage. Additionally, Husband provides no evidence that suggests these funds were used inappropriately or siphoned into another account by Wife. Therefore, the Court finds Wife credible as to these funds, and Husband’s request for a credit of half these amounts is hereby DENIED. Regarding the funds remaining in the Joint Accounts on the date of commencement, Article VI(4) of the Pre-Nup clearly dictates that these monies were to be divided equally by the parties. The parties agree that on May 31, 2019, the Joint Checking Account had a balance of $22,568.26, and the Joint Savings Account had a balance of $5,118.10. While Wife suggests she used some of these remaining funds to pay various expenses for the parties, both individually and jointly, the Pre-Nup clearly dictates that these amounts were to be distributed equally between the parties. Additionally, she fails to provide any proof or identify any submitted exhibits that support her position. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that Wife shall pay $11,284.12 to Husband for his half of the monies that were remaining in the parties’ Joint Checking Account on the date of commencement, to wit: May 31, 2019, within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry. Husband states that the Joint Checking Account was closed at some point during the litigation but does not advise as to the status of the Joint Savings Account. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that all funds remaining in the Joint Savings Account on the date of commencement shall be divided between the parties equally, 50/50, within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry, if not already done so; and it is further ORDERED, that if all payments Wife is directed to make to Husband are not made in the timeframe specified herein, the Husband is entitled to a money judgment in said amount, and he may file same with the Nassau County Clerk’s Office with a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry and an Affirmation of Non-Compliance. IV. WIFE’S FLORIDA RESIDENCE Article v. of the Pre-Nup, titled “The Marital Residence(s),” sets forth, in pertinent parts, as follows: 1. The parties acknowledge that M is the owner of a house located at XXXXX, New York (“M’s Residence”). The parties acknowledge that M is the sole owner of this property, and that L has made no contribution or investment therein. 2. The parties acknowledge that L is the owner of a house located at XXXXX, New York (“L’s Residence”). The parties acknowledge that L is the sole owner of this property, and that M has made no contribution or investment therein. 3. M intends to sell M’s Residence and L intendents to sell L’s Residence, and the parties anticipate that they will purchase a new residence as Tenants By The Entirety (hereinafter “Future Marital Residence”). 4. The parties expressly agree that any contribution M shall make to the acquisition of the Future Marital Residence shall remain his separate property. In the event of a Termination Event, M shall be entitled to the return of his separate property contribution (dollar for dollar) to the acquisition of the Future Marital Residence “off the top” of the net sales proceeds as shall be defined herein. 5. The parties expressly agree that any contribution L shall make to the acquisition of the Future Marital Residence shall remain her separate property. In the event of a Termination Event, L shall be entitled to the return of her separate property contribution (dollar for dollar) to the acquisition of the Future Marital Residence “off the top” of the net sales proceeds as shall be defined herein. The parties agree that while they anticipated selling their separate property homes to then jointly purchase a marital residence as set forth in the Pre-Nup, once again, the parties changed their minds. Instead, they lived together in Wife’s XXXXX residence until the date of commencement. It is also agreed that on November 29, 2018, Wife purchased a home in XXXXX Beach, Florida (“Florida Residence”) with her separate property funds. Although Husband sold his XXXXX residence during the marriage, it is undisputed that the proceeds from same were not, in any way, contributed towards the purchase of the Florida Residence. However, Husband argues Wife sold the Florida Residence on November 12, 2019 for approximately $600,000 and made a profit, — entirely unbeknownst to him. Although the Florida Residence was undoubtedly Wife’s separate property, Husband contends the couple had countless discussions about how they would share the home together for “many years into the future.” Additionally, he claims his income was used to refinish the floors, paint, purchase new appliances and furniture, and otherwise enhance the value of the residence. Husband further alleges that Wife never afforded him any opportunity to remove his separate property personal belongings that were kept at the Florida Residence, including expensive artwork, a chandelier, and golf clubs. Despite being told by both Wife and her counsel during this litigation that the items were in a storage facility in Florida, Husband states they refused to provide the name and address of the alleged storage facility and, eventually, admitted the storage facility never existed. Husband specifically requests a credit from Wife in the amount of $44,365, which represents half the profits realized from the sale of the Florida Residence, as well as half the marital monies expended for appliances, art, and electronics. Wife argues she did not make a profit on the sale of the Florida Residence, but rather, suffered a loss of $27,606 once accounting for closing costs and mandatory repairs. She contends the home was purchased “as is,” and Husband was well aware that the appliances would need to be replaced if the parties intended to utilize the property as a vacation home. Wife alleges all purchases were made with Husband’s knowledge and with money he transferred into the Joint Account. She contends all costs Husband raises issue with were typical, joint marital “living expenses” paid by the parties. While the parties agree that the Florida Residence is Wife’s separate property and was indeed sold, they do not agree about whether a profit was realized or a loss was suffered, and no proof was provided to the Court to make such a determination. Regardless, Husband fails to provide any proof that would support his contention that any alleged increase in value of the Florida Residence was due to his contributions. Additionally, he provides insufficient proof of the value of the items for which he seeks a credit. For example, he seeks a credit for artwork, but provides no proof of the true value. He seeks a credit for appliances, but only provides a copy of a check in the amount of $15,000. While the memo line for the check says “appliance fla,” this is insufficient. Furthermore, he seeks a credit for electronics valued at $1,230, yet only provides several emails from Best Buy. Therefore, Husband’s request for a credit of half these amounts, as well as half the alleged proceeds from the sale of the Florida Residence is hereby DENIED. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. Dated: May 5, 2023
