Nadine Khan v. Darryl Khan
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law—equitable distribution of a timeshare and associated marital debt
After a divorce trial, the Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the wife an equitable share of the marital estate but did not evaluate or distribute the jointly owned timeshare, its equity (if any), or its associated debts.
The appellate court modified the order, holding it was error to omit distribution of the timeshare’s ownership, equity, and associated debt, and remanded for directions on disposition and equitable apportionment.
Under Domestic Relations Law (DRL) § 236(B)(5)(a), (c) [equitable distribution statute requiring classification and distribution of marital property and apportionment of marital debts], the trial court must distribute marital assets and debts and direct their disposition. The panel cited Epstein v Messner and Annibaffa v Annibaffa in support of remanding for allocation and instructions on surrender or other disposition.
Background
The parties jointly acquired a timeshare during the marriage. Trial evidence showed there was an outstanding loan and membership fees, and contractual restrictions barred distribution until the loan and other debts were paid. The wife proposed awarding the timeshare to the husband, making him solely responsible for its debts, and requiring him to pay her half of its value.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (La Tia W. Martin, J.), entered an order on January 3, 2025, granting the wife an equitable share of the marital estate but declining to evaluate or distribute the timeshare, its equity, or allocate its associated debts, notwithstanding acknowledging the timeshare as marital property and the wife’s proposed disposition.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously modified and remanded. It affirmed the classification of the timeshare as marital property but held the court erred by failing to distribute its ownership, allocate the outstanding debt and any equity, and direct how the asset should be surrendered or otherwise disposed of. The matter was remanded for equitable apportionment of the timeshare’s debt and any equity and for specific steps to surrender or dispose of the asset; all other aspects of the order were affirmed without costs.
Legal Significance
Reinforces that courts must expressly distribute marital assets and debts, including timeshares encumbered by loans or contractual transfer restrictions. Omission of asset-specific allocation and disposition contravenes DRL § 236(B)(5).
In equitable distribution, a trial court must allocate both the ownership and the associated debt/equity of marital assets such as timeshares and provide concrete directions for their disposition; classification alone is insufficient.