The applicant wife sought an equalization payment following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.
The respondent husband argued that the parties were merely roommates, that a handwritten letter constituted a domestic contract overriding statutory equalization, and that equalizing the pre-marital value of the matrimonial home would be unconscionable.
The court rejected the husband's arguments, finding that the parties were engaged in a valid conjugal relationship until their physical separation in October 2020.
The court ordered the husband to pay the remaining equalization balance of $183,654.72 plus pre-judgment interest.
