- 8 -
Petitioner argues that the payment was rehabilitative
alimony to cover the cost of Tulay’s obtaining a postgraduate
degree and, therefore, would terminate upon the death of Tulay.
Petitioner claims that the $35,000 amount was determined “based
on her receiving $600/month for 58 months, which represented
approximate costs for graduate school and the length of time
until * * * [the] youngest child would begin school respectively.
* * * The $600/month was consistent with the rehabilitative
alimony figures discussed during mediation.”
At trial, both Sobieski and Mynatt testified as to the terms
of the MDA. According to Sobieski, there was no agreement as to
alimony payments at any time. She testified that the unequal
division of assets, i.e., the “imbalance”, was intended as an
“equitable” division and that Tulay always claimed that she was
entitled to more than 50 percent of the property.
Mynatt testified that correspondence with Tulay’s previous
counsel regarding division of property and a draft MDA prepared
by Tulay’s previous counsel indicated that there was to be
alimony for Tulay in order for her to pursue a postgraduate
degree. However, none of the correspondence with Tulay’s
previous counsel was presented as evidence, and Mynatt
acknowledged that Sobieski never requested alimony on behalf of
Tulay. Mynatt recalled discussing support for Tulay at the
August 19, 2002, meeting, but he said that support was not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011