. . . . The appreciation of the property has nothing to do with it.
Is that correct? You are going to stand on the proposition that in New Jersey both a separate asset and its appreciated value are immune from equitable division? That the non-owning spouse has no claim to that enhanced value whether it is active or passive? That both are immunized?
You are comfortable with that response and leave the poster with the impression:
That the New Jersey legislature was wasting tax payers' money in enacting
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1 creating a rebuttable presumption that each party made a substantial financial or non-financial contribution to the acquisition of income and property while the party was married?
That the New Jersey Court of Appeals was speaking through the back of its neck when in
Ozolins v. Ozolins 308 N, J. Super. 443 (App. Div. l998) it placed the burden of proof on the owner-spouse to prove that no benefit to his or her separate estate was derived from the cohabitation.
That the New Jersey legal scholars were off of their feed when after an exhaustive review of sometimes conflicting New Jersey case law on the subject they concluded that New Jersey law "
does immunize passive appreciation" of a separate asset, but not "
active appreciation" and that the "
efforts of a non-owning spouse as a homemaker and caretaker of children is an indirect contribution that entitles that spouse to an equitable distribution of the enhanced asset."
_________________________
For the benefit of you readers you should either warn them that you possess no qualifying legal credentials or stay out of the deep end of the pool!
________________________
"Beware of false knowledge. It is more dangerous than ignorance." GBS
