From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fedun v. Fedun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 20, 1996
228 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 20, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Sullivan County (Williams, J.).


Following their marriage in Florida in 1985, defendants moved to New York, taking up residence with plaintiff, defendant Waynne J. Fedun's father, in the Town of Thompson, Sullivan County. In 1986, defendants moved into a residence which they, plaintiff and other family members constructed on land owned by plaintiff. Subsequently, on July 24, 1989, the parties appeared at the office of plaintiff's attorney where plaintiff executed a deed conveying the subject property to defendants who, in turn, executed a $35,000 promissory note with interest at 9% per annum payable to plaintiff in monthly installments over a period of seven years that was secured by a mortgage on the property. It appears that defendants encountered matrimonial difficulties that culminated in the commencement of a divorce action in 1992 by defendant Kathleen M. Fedun (hereinafter defendant). In 1993, plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action that was tried before an advisory jury. The jury accepted defendant's defense, determining, inter alia, that plaintiff made a gift of the property to defendants and that the note and mortgage were unenforceable because defendant signed them as an accommodation to plaintiff who told her they were needed for tax purposes. Waynne Fedun responded by moving for an order rejecting the advisory jury's determination; Supreme Court declined to do so, issuing a judgment declaring the note and mortgage void and dismissing this action. Plaintiff appeals.

Waynne Fedun has elected not to participate in this appeal.

Inasmuch as Supreme Court was not bound by the advisory jury's verdict ( see, Mercantile Gen. Reins. Co. v. Colonial Assur. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 248, 253), and as it was its obligation to determine the issues presented in this lawsuit ( see, McClave v Gibb, 157 N.Y. 413, 422), our inquiry on this appeal is whether Supreme Court's decision is supported by the weight of the credible evidence ( see, Matter of Zielinski, 208 A.D.2d 275, 277, lvs dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 861, 87 N.Y.2d 944). In making this assessment, we shall give due deference to Supreme Court's determination that defendant's testimony was more credible than that of the other parties ( see, Standard Bldrs. Supplies v Gush, 206 A.D.2d 720, 721).

The proof shows that on several occasions prior to her marriage, plaintiff told defendant that he intended to give the subject property to defendants. After the deed was delivered to defendants and the mortgage executed, defendants exercised dominion and ownership over the property and plaintiff never asked for nor received any payments on the mortgage prior to the commencement of this action. It further appears that plaintiff knew that defendants were only earning about $10,000 per year and he recognized that they were in no position to pay the mortgage payments that annually totaled over $6,700. Despite not having received any payments, plaintiff's income tax returns for 1989, 1990 and 1991 disclose that he reported the principal and interest due on the note as ordinary income even though he was under no obligation to do so. Defendant's certified public accountant pointed out that oftentimes, in order to minimize the gift tax with respect to a gift of real property, a mortgage agreement will be structured with the donor then forgiving the interest and principal during the term of the mortgage. Significantly, plaintiff's accountant testified that he included the principal and interest on the above returns because plaintiff had gifted it to defendants. Interestingly, this practice ceased in 1992 following the disintegration of defendants' marriage.

Applying the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the foregoing evidence provides ample support for Supreme Court's determination to confirm the advisory jury's findings ( see, Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 53-57). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in favor of defendants.

Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Mercure and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Fedun v. Fedun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 20, 1996
228 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Fedun v. Fedun

Case Details

Full title:WALTER F. FEDUN, Appellant, v. WAYNNE J. FEDUN et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 20, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 384

Citing Cases

Roufaiel v. Ithaca College

We affirm. The various arguments raised by plaintiff do not warrant extended discussion. "Inasmuch as Supreme…

Crawford v. Crawford

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's finding, largely one of credibility, that…