- 10 -
her for past services that she rendered to him. We do not agree.
Nothing in the record persuades us that petitioner ever sought in
the lawsuit remuneration for services that she may have rendered
to Mr. Kent during their relationship, let alone that Mr. Kent
intended to compensate her for any such services by paying her
the disputed amount. The written judgment sought by Mr. Kent and
the settlement agreement both indicate that the only reason Mr.
Kent commenced the lawsuit and paid the disputed amount to
petitioner was to retain possession of most of the assets
acquired during their relationship.
Although petitioner did refer in her Declaration to an
agreement under which she would provide services to Mr. Kent in
exchange for support, the facts of this case do not support an
inference that she ever sought in the lawsuit to recover
remuneration for these services, or, more importantly, that Mr.
Kent paid her the disputed amount intending to compensate her for
any services that she may have rendered to him.6 The payor's
intent controls the characterization of settlement payments, and,
as we have found, Mr. Kent intended to perfect his sole
possession of most of their joint property when he paid
6 Even if we were to assume arguendo that Mr. Kent did agree
to support petitioner in consideration for her homemaking
services, it would not necessarily follow that every item of
property that he gave her during their relationship was pursuant
to this agreement. In fact, if we were to believe the
allegations in petitioner's Declaration to the effect that Mr.
Kent spent approximately $32,000 to $38,400 a year on their
household and her personal expenses, it would seem most logical
to conclude that many of the additional amounts that he gave her
were gifts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011