Violet A. Reynolds - Page 10

                                       - 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