- 23 -
“on behalf of” Hermine. Although Hermine contends-–for the first
time on reply brief-–that some of these payments have not been
shown to be connected to the marital home or apartment, she has
offered no evidence to support this speculation; we believe the
stipulation that the payments, as described, were “on her behalf”
supports the inference that the payments were related to the
marital home or apartment in the absence of any other evidence.
We reach a different conclusion with respect to some of the
insurance payments. The stipulated description “insurance
payments” is not, on its face, connected with the operation or
maintenance of a residence. Further, there is other evidence in
the record bearing upon the appropriate classification of these
payments; namely, Harvey’s canceled checks and the homeowner’s
policies on the marital home. A review of the checks written for
insurance and the homeowner’s policies shows that $6,724 of the
stipulated “insurance payments” of $8,095.12 made in 1990 was for
premiums on a homeowner’s policy covering the marital home. The
remaining $1,371.12 went towards life insurance or other
insurance not shown to be connected to the marital home or
apartment. Similarly, in 1991 $7,471 of the stipulated
“insurance payments” of $9,952.07 was for premiums on a policy
covering the marital home. The remaining $2,481.07 went towards
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011