- 14 -
show that Mrs. Spector surrendered property rights in exchange
for the payments.
Mrs. Spector claims that various assets were improperly
included or excluded from the division of their marital assets.
We think her argument misses the mark. We do not decide here
whether the assets were equally divided; we only consider what
Dr. Ehrenworth and Mrs. Spector intended when they negotiated the
property settlement and weekly payments.
Mrs. Spector contends that Dr. Ehrenworth conceded that she
surrendered property rights in the marital estate in exchange
for the weekly payments. We disagree. Dr. Ehrenworth merely
acknowledged that she surrendered rights to property in exchange
for his agreement that the payments would continue even if she
remarried.
We conclude that Mrs. Spector did not surrender valuable
property rights in exchange for the weekly payments. This factor
favors treating the payments as alimony.
b. Whether Mrs. Spector and Dr. Ehrenworth Intended the
Payments To Effect a Division of Their Assets
Mrs. Spector argues that she and Dr. Ehrenworth intended
that the weekly payments would result in an equal division of the
marital property. She argues that, without the weekly payments,
she would have received less than one-half of the marital
property. She contends that she agreed to receive the payments
for 12 years to complete the equitable distribution of the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011