Chen Xiang Xia

IF YOU CLICK A LINK THAT SCROLLS THE PAGE, HIT THE BACK BUTTON TO GO BACK.

14 Factors

In New York, when determining equitable distribution of marital assets in a divorce, the court considers 14 factors under Domestic Relations Law (DRL) § 236(B)(5)(d):

  1. Income and Property of Each Spouse
    • The court looks at each party’s income and assets at the time of marriage and at the time of divorce.
  2. Duration of the Marriage and Health of the Parties
    • The length of the marriage and the health/age of each spouse may affect the division of assets.
  3. Need for a Custodial Parent to Stay in the Family Home
    • If one spouse has custody of minor children, they may be allowed to stay in the marital home.
  4. Loss of Inheritance and Pension Rights
    • The court considers the impact of the divorce on future financial security.
  5. Loss of Health Insurance Benefits
    • If one spouse will lose health coverage, the court may factor this into its decision.
  6. Award of Maintenance (Alimony)
    • Whether one spouse is receiving spousal support affects how assets are divided.
  7. Contributions to the Marriage
    • Both economic and non-economic contributions (such as being a homemaker) are considered.
  8. Future Financial Circumstances
    • The court evaluates the future earning potential of both spouses.
  9. Wasteful Dissipation of Assets
    • If one spouse wasted marital funds, it could impact the division of property.
  10. Transfer or Hiding of Assets
    • If a spouse attempted to hide or transfer assets before the divorce, the court may adjust the distribution.
  11. Difficulty in Valuing Assets
    • Some assets are harder to value, and the court considers how best to divide them.
  12. Tax Consequences
    • The tax impact of asset division is taken into account.
  13. Any Other Factor Deemed Relevant
    • The judge can consider any other relevant circumstances.
  14. Pre- or Postnuptial Agreements
    • If a valid agreement exists, it will affect how assets are divided.

These factors guide the court in ensuring an equitable (fair but not necessarily equal) distribution of marital property.

Factor 1 – Income and Property of Each Spouse

Xia has made multiple statemements concerning her income.

  • Original Demands
  • 2/24/2024 Xia submitted a notorized Statement of Net Worth stating that her income was $22,792.39.
  • 7/10/2024 Xia submitted a proposal stating her income was $26,000.
  • 9/20/2024 I received an order to show cause for temporary maintenance where Xia’s income was listed as $19,500.
  • 11/6/2024 Xia submitted a proposal stating her income was $34,500

7/10/2024 I received a proposal for settlement (above) with her income listed as $26,000. In this she attempted to settle for $934 every two weeks for 9 years ($218,556) and $50.00 per month for her cat insurance. This would give her a total monthly income of $4,239. I take home $5000 per month before, in this situation, paying her $1,868 leaving me with $3,132. In this offer she would also recieve her share of of my pension, $5,000 for a vehicle that has less equity than hers, over $100,000 from our house and $5,000 for her attorney fees for an estimated total of $382,556. This is the offer that really made me take a step back and start digging into her finances. This made no sense to me.

9/20/2024 I received an order to show cause for temporary maintenance where Xia’s income was listed as $19,500. 11/1/2024 Two adjustments were made by order of Judge Platkin.

First adjusment was to her $19,500 calculation showing a salary of $34,500. Second, Judge Platkin, based on 1 of the many pieces of evidence presented here, imputed $10,000 additional income. In the recording provided, Xia admits to continue to run her business, and admits to receiving money from China. Judge Platkin, based on just the audio recording, has these things to say in his decision.

“Additionally, defendant’s proof shows a substantial likelihood that plaintiff has other sources of income available that she failed to disclose.”

“Plaintiff also admitted that she continues to operate the business by purchasing items and sending them to China for resale. Further, while admitting that she receives money from China, in the form of transfers from debit or credit cards, she attempted to characterize funds as “gifts” from her brother, mother and/or father.”

“Under the circumstances, the Court declines to accept plaintiff’s reported income.”

Upon reading these words, the Judge saying wait a minute, Xia has failed to disclose information and Xia has admitted that she continues to operate the business, and Xia admitted that she receives money from China in an audio recording. And then the judge states that the court DECLINES to accept plaintiff’s reported income. This was based on 1 audio recording. The judge didn’t see the pile of evidence shown here yet. But, Xia, continues to say she hasn’t gained anything from that business, she hasn’t earned anything from that business, and she contines to deny income from the business.

Ltr to OC re Proposal 11.06.24Download

On 11/6/2024 I received a proposal for settlement with her income listed as $34,500. This suggests that the money received from China is only in the form of a temporary gift and not sustainable or able to be classified as income. This suggests a monthly alimony payment of $1,420 instead of $1,868 from the proposal made on 7/10/2024. It splits the calculated alimony and the temporary maintenance amount that was decided by Judge Platkin. Again it divides the money gained from the sale of our house, approximately $100,000, $10,000 for my vehicle which has less equity than her vehicle, then another $5,000 for my vehicle, and half my pension, and again $5,000 toward her attorney fees. While she states she makes more money than she stated before, the outcome of this proposal is $327,360 compared to the estimated $382,556 from before.

First, the amount set by Judge Platkin was a temporary amount used to make sure she was ok during the divorce stages, which is understandable. Second, all of the income she has stated on every document so far has omitted her income from her business. And by 11/6/2024 I knew absolutelly how much money she was earning from her business, how she hid it, and how she lied about her income for years. I knew how she made very little financial contribution to this marriage, and how she blamed me for debt incurred while I struggled to cover all of our financial obligations including the phone bills, car insurance bills, healthcare bills, utility bills, grocery bills, vacations, everything as presented in our financial statement analysis. So no, I was not going to agree to this, or anything like it. I would not agree to anything based on a lie.

We can agree that Xia’s income based on wages earned from New York State Department of Taxation and Finance is $34,500 rounded. What we do not agree on is the nature of the income she receives from China, and whether or not that is business income.

I offer the listed evidence as evidence that she has operated her business since 2012 and that she continues to operate her business making the income she recieves more likely income rather than a gift. Even if the court decides there is insufficient evidence to prove that she is operating her business, the court need not prove she is currently receiving this income, or currently operating this business, but can impute income based on her knowledge, experience and capacity to earn the amounts provided here from her own bank and credit card statements. See for example, Orlando v. Orlando, Goudreau v. Goudreau and Brown v. Brown.

Property

  • Marital Resident Proceeds
  • Xia’s Vehicle
  • My Vehicle
  • Max’s Vehicle
  • My Pension
  • Xia’s 401k
  • Xia’s Business
  • Xia’s Inventory
  • My Yoga Business

Factor 2 – Duration of the Marriage and Health of the Parties

We were married since August of 2003. Neither of us are disabled, of retirement age, and do not suffer from chronic illness.

Factor 3 – Need for a Custodial Parent to Stay in the Family Home

There is no need for the custotial parent to stay in the family home. This was resolved when we sold the home at 34 Stony Brook drive. Our son Max, is 20 years old, and lives the majority of the time in Colorado, at school. When he returns he should have the option to staying with me or Xia at his own discretion. I do have concerns about the living arrangements Xia is currently in and have express those concerns here.

Factor 4 – Loss of Inheritance and Pension Rights

In accordance with the laws of New York I agree that Xia has a right to claim her portion of my New York State Pension. Likewise, I believe I have the same right to her 401k savings. There does not seem to be a long-term impact on Xia’s retirement or my retirement. We both have a long time before we can retire (approximately 25 years), she works for the state and I work for the state, and we will continue to have a pension in place for later years.

Factor 5 – Loss of Health Insurance Benefits

Since Xia and I both work for the state we both have equal access to Health Insurance Benefits. I have, and will agree to carry insurance for our son Max until he is 26 years old or is self supporting.

Factor 6 – Award of Maintenance (Alimony)

This factor, directs the court’s attention to the “total package” approach under the Equitable Distribution Law. See also, Domestic Relations Laws §236(B) (6) (a) (1). To the parties, the overall package is most important. Although the allocation of marital property and an award of maintenance serve different purposes, it is fair and realistic to consider the total economic picture.

This is most likely where we disagree most in this divorce. As stated earlier Xia’s first attempt to settle pre-trial, after quiting her job, asked me for $934 every two weeks plus $50.00 for cat insurance. This was based on Xia’s claimed income of $26,000 from her previous job at Amazon. She included no information concerning her business and has pretended to have no involvment in the business since 2020 when she closed the business. Due to unknown information the best I can offer for total income is estimations based on the information we have. If I use her year-to-year transactions, cash given to me, known cash expenditures I estimate $91,021 total income including her $34,500 salary at New York State Tax. If I use her website statistics and the logic from her tax return, I get $54,068 + $34,500 = $88,568 with gross sales of $542,068 annually. While they are not exact, it’s very interesting to me that the two independent calculations produce a similar result.

Xia Earns Between $88,568 and $91,021 annual income

As evidence to prove this income I offer the following sections:

With an income of between $88,568 and $91,021 I do not believe maintenance is required and do not believe she would be required to pay maintenance to me. In this regard, I believe no maintenance to be equitable.

Factor 7 – Contributions to the Marriage

In determining an equitable disposition of property under paragraph c, the court shall consider: (7) any equitable claim to, interest in, or direct or indirect contribution made to the acquisition of such marital property by the party not having title, including joint efforts or expenditures and contributions and services as a spouse, parent, wage earner and homemaker, and to the career or career potential of the other party. (Domestic Relations Law §236 [B] [5] [d] [7])

Between 2003 and 2012 I was the sole provider for our family but because Xia was a homemaker during that time it is fair to say that between 2003 and 2012 we both made equal contribution. See Hughes v. Hughes, Holterman v. Holterman (2004), Hartog v. Hartog (1995), Grunfeld v. Grunfeld (2000), Obrien-v-Obrien, Rathburn v. Rathburn, Majauskas v. Majauskas, Wolfe v. Wolfe

However from 2012 to 2024 it would not be fair to label Xia as a homemaker. The duties of the household were shared once she began her own business. She felt that since she was contributing financially that we, as a family could contribute more at home. Which we did. For contribution analysis see After The ACH Payments, Imputing Income, Financial Statement Analysis, Year to Year Deposits, Division of Property Attempts – Pre-Trial

If we use the results from the Financial Statement Analysis as representative of the years after she started her business, and use 50/50 as representative of years prior to her doing business then we could agree that our contribution toward the marriage as a whole was

Plaintiff Xia (22% + 50%) / 2 = 36%
Defendant Dan (78% + 50%) / 2 = 64%

See also thoughts on Alimony

Xia has mentioned in conversation the term, “enhanced earning capacity”. Under the guidelines of 2016 where we would consider direct and indirect contributions to the development during the marriage. I assert that Xia helped me in no way. I attended school from home late in the evenings, continued my full time job, continued to hold all responsibilities same as prior to attending school again for my Masters Degree. One could argue, that while I was developing my degree, Xia was developing and perfecting her business and in many ways the outcome of her business was more favorable than mine, since I still have an outstanding debt for attending university while has a realized net gain from her business. And one could also argue, that since my civil service job was given to me because I scored highly on a civil service exam, and that many of those who hold the same title as me do not have MBA’s, one could assume my income has nothing to do with holding an MBA.

Domestic Relations Law §236[B] [5] [d] [7] was amended in 2016 to eliminate enhanced earning capacity as a marital asset. The amendment added the following paragraph to factor 7 for property distribution: The court shall not consider as marital property subject to distribution the value of a spouse’s enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement. However, in arriving at an equitable division of marital property, the court shall consider the direct or indirect contributions to the development during the marriage of the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse. The amendment was intended to eliminate enhanced earning capacity as a marital asset, thus, legislatively overruling McSparron and Grunfeld too.

Factor 8 – Future Financial Circumstances

If we remained as we were today, Xia earning $34,500 + business income totalling between $88,568 and $91,021 and I contined earning wages in my current career at the Department of Taxation and Finance as well as teaching Yoga part time, we would end the marriage on equal footing earning approximately the same annual income.

Factor 9 – Wasteful Dissipation of Assets

There was no known wasteful dissipation of assets. Xia contends that I purchased expensive vehicles and created credit card debt. The finances show that we had large financial obligations within the confines of marital expenses. Utilities, Mortgage, Phone, Internet, Cell Phones, Vacations, Ordering out, etc. And the financial obligations show that Xia did not contribute her fair share to our marital expenses.. If we analyze our spending on vehicles, I signed with agreements to pay in the future without any large outlays of cash. Xia full paid a vehicle and had a large outlay of cash on another vehicle. When compared side by side we spent a similar amount of money on vehicles. We both had equal non-household spending. See Total Spending, Financial Statement Analysis.

In Mahoney-Buntzman v. Buntzman, 208 the Court of Appeals observed that “… during the life of any marriage, many payments are made, whether of debts old or new, or simply current expenses. If courts were to consider financial activities that occur and end during the course of a marriage, the result would be parties to a marriage seeking review of every debit and credit incurred. It held that as a general rule, where the payments are made before either party is anticipating the end of the marriage, and there is no fraud or concealment, courts should not look back and try to compensate for the fact that the net effect of the payments may, in some cases, have resulted in the reduction of marital assets. Nor should courts attempt to adjust for the fact that payments out of separate property may have benefitted both parties, or even the nontitled spouse exclusively. The parties’ choice of how to spend funds during the course of the marriage should ordinarily be respected. Courts should not second-guess the economic decisions made during the course of a marriage, but rather should equitably distribute the assets and obligations remaining once the relationship is at an end.

Factor 10 – Transfer or Hiding of Assets

While Xia began the divorce with what I believe to be false statements concerning her income, I’ll let the court decide based on evidence presented. I believe without a doubt Xia has hidden and is hiding assets in China, did lie about her financial situation on documents presented to the court, and continues to deny her involvement in an ongoing business.

Factor 11 – Difficulty in Valuing Assets

Assets that are hidden are difficult to value. Assets that we have before us seem easy enough to value. The largest value of assets we posses is in liquid form in the form of an escrow account. There are other questions that can be posed on asset allocation. For example, if Xia’s statements are true and she continued to purchase inventory for sale during the same year that she closed her business saying there was no inventory and no income, what happened to the two years worth of inventory that was purchased for over $100,000? And, if I were subsidizing her expenses by paying more than her toward our shared bills, wouldn’t it make sense that half of the inventory that wasn’t sold ($50,000) would in fact be a marital asset that I could make claim toward?

Another point of valuing assets, since her transactions are cash based, do we estimate the cash value of her oustanding assets for consideration even without evidence of such cash? I do not pretend to know the answer to this, and believe the court will make the best decision regarding details such as these.

Factor 12 – Tax Consequences

We have decided to claim 50% of the sale of our house on each separate tax return for 2025. We have also decided to claim 50% of our sons college payments. While it doesn’t seem to be the intention of this section, I believe there will be major tax consequences toward both of us based on Xia’s behaviors observed, learned, and discovered in the research presented here. We will be forced to face those consequences separately.

Factor 13 – Any Factor Deemed Relevant

Xia will bring up ideas such as abuse, and ideas concerning infidelity. Please see Xia’s Match.com account, thoughts on infidelity, and thoughts on her claiming abuse. I believe she has an image and a screenshot to support her claims. Infidelity, while I do admit was true from my side, was both forgiven and mutual, and mutually forgiven. Concerning abuse, I do not believe my introverted nature is abusive, and do not feel that I was abusive in this marriage. Xia is a very strong-willed person who is often in control of all conversations she has. See also Anger and Trust, Thoughts on her claiming abuse.

For me, the fact that Xia has lied since the beginning of these proceedings to increase her potential for gaining favor in these decisions, I believe, should play a role in the decision making process.

  1. I believe with the evidence provided, it is apparant her current wages are likely not her current total income and certainly not representative of her capablities.
  2. I believe with the evidence provided, that she continues to operate her business.
  3. I believe with the evidence provided, that business started in 2012 even though I only have evidence for 2014.
  4. I believe with the evidence provided, that Xia has made many decisions in the course of this divorce to attempt to optimize maintenance payments, and to gain an unfair advantage in asset distribution.
  5. I believe Xia’ living conditions are self created. She has spent a long time attempting to hide her income and has done so in such a way that it was hard for her to pass an apartment application process. However, with the living conditions she has cited, I request consideration be given concerning Max so that he knows he has a choice to live or not live in those conditions.
  6. I believe, that Xia has filled Max’s mind with all sorts of fabricated information designed to make Xia look as favorable as possible and for me to look as unfavorable as possible. I have refrained from discussing personal opinions of Xia to Max and have said nothing that I didn’t have immediate evidence to say during normal conversations. Out side of that, or discussions include school, outdoor activities, class topics, stocks, computer programming, and politics. Topics that are enjoyable for us to talk about. I do not attempt to alienate her from him. She is his mother.
    • In Tropea v. Tropea, a New York appellate case from 2012, the court reviewed a custody dispute in which allegations arose that one parent’s behavior was detrimentally affecting the child’s relationship with the other parent. The trial court had found that certain actions—characterized by disparaging remarks and a lack of nurturing behavior—undermined the child’s emotional well-being and warranted a modification of custody and visitation arrangements. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division upheld these changes, emphasizing that the child’s best interests remain paramount and that evidence of conduct leading to parental alienation must be taken seriously in custody determinations.
  7. I believe with the evidence provided, Xia may be liable to eventually answer to other courts and agencies due to financial matters shown and I question whether full responsibility to should be given to her regarding our son Max.
  8. Xia has threatened to spread rumors via interoffice email systems thus threatening my career and livlihood and I would hope that any agreement includes either her agreement to not take these actions or is worded in such a way to inform Xia of potential consequences of such actions.

The rule is that marital fault ordinarily is irrelevant under the Equitable Distribution Law and should be considered only when it is so uncivilized or egregious that it shocks the conscience of the court. Even where the misconduct is egregious, it is but one factor among many which must be considered by the court. Examples given of “egregious” misconduct are (1) the dissipation of marital assets by a gambler husband, and (2) placing a contract to have a spouse murdered. The courts in the Third Judicial Department [which includes the Albany area upstate New York] have rejected this rule when it comes to the role of marital fault with regard to maintenance and consider egregious marital fault in fixing maintenance awards.

Factor 14 – Pre or Postnuptial Agreements

No formal agreement exists.

Division of Property Attempts Pre-Trial

My latest offer to settle to Xia. We divide marital assets and debt equally. $265,000 – $50,000 = 215,000/2 = $107,500 to each of us. Except I give her $10,000 more than me from our marital assets. We divide Max’s room and board equally. $12,000 / 2 = $6000. There is no Alimony / Maintenance. We share Max’s expenses equally. She receives her share of my pension. I make no claim on her 401k. She covers her attorney fees. I cover my attorney fees. We both agree not to defame each other professionally.

Xia Said No. Xia’s counter offer was this:

We divide marital assets and debt equally. $265,000 – $50,000 = 215,000/2 = $107,500 to each of us. Except Xia gets $60,000 more than me from our marital assets to cover alimony that I do not believe she qualifies for. She would get $167,500 while I receive get $48,000. We divide Max’s room and board equally. $12,000 / 2 = $6000. There is no Alimony / Maintenance. We share Max’s expenses equally. She receives her share of my pension. I make no claim on her 401k. She covers her attorney fees. I cover my attorney fees. We both agree not to defame each other professionally. With her offer she also offered to take the $60,000 extra, and put it into an account for Max. Which means, again, (see other parts of this write-up), that Xia doesn’t really need maintance.

See Offer recording where she thought our house would sell for $250,000 and she offered $100,000 as payment for alimony. When the house sold for much more and we could both receive $100,000, she changed her story. After the house sold she wanted $280,000 for alimony. Xia has been driven by money since before she filed divorce. She has planned it so that it appeared her business was in decline, or closed. She has shifted financial transaction behavior. She quit her job right before she filed divorce. And she has changed the story about her business multiple times. Xia just wants money. But she is not happy with $107,000. She is not happy with $107,000 + $10,000, she is not happy with $107,000 + $15,000, she is not happy with $107,000 + alimony over time, she wants all the money and she wants it now, and she has done so many things to try to make that happen even while I continuously offered fair settlements. Below you will see a legal argument based on the actual facts and details of this divorce. Despite my offering fair settlement offers, the law may support an outcome that is very different than what we both offered.

The items in question that we are in dispute about are:

  • Asset Distribution
  • Alimony / Maintenance
  • Debt
  • Infidelity
  • Reimbursement

The legal system certainly does support an uneven distribution of assets. But I don’t believe it will favor Xia. According to all documentation and evidence this is what the result could look like in court. We divide all assets in the following manner.

Assets
Me: 78% of escrow account. $206,700
Xia: 22% of escro account. $58,300

This is based on marital contribution. Xia has, on average contributed between 22% and 25% to our marital obligations. It has been decided in the past, that it is fair to allocate similar proportions to asset allocation. See Asset Distribution, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Miller v. Miller, Hughes v. Hughes, Kawasaki v. Kasting, Grasso-v.-Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes

Please see Factor 7 where I made adjustments for her 50% contribution during the first half of our marriage as a home maker making the division 64% me, 36% her.

Xia has repeatedly asked me to cover all debt. This email sent to me on 9/19/2024 sort of sums it up. I was responsible for paying all household bills, and all household bills were in my name.

It is normally not the decision of the court for one person to cover all debt while the other does not. If for example, Xia made equal contributions, and I squandered tons of money somewhere, then perhaps it could be considered fair. See factor 9. However that is not the case. I consistently contributed more toward household expenses, child expenses, home maintenance, vacations, etc. Xia consistently spent more in other areas of spending outside household expenses. While it may be deemed to divide debt as 50/50 it has also been found in cases where they divide debt in accordance with the asset division. See Kawasaki v. Kasting, Barnes v. Barnes, Fischer v. Fischer, and Morales v. Carvajal .

Debt
Me 50%
Xia: 50%

Or

Debt
Me 78%
Xia 22%

Please see factor 7 where this is adjusted for 50% contribution during the first half of our marriage.

  • Hirsch v. Hirsch, NYLJ, 3/31/93, P.25, Col.2 Sup.Ct., Nassau Co. (Winick, J.)
    • secret assets uneven distribution
  • Miller v. Miller, 170 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
    • wife could have contributed but didn’t, didn’t disclose, uneven division of assets
  • Hughes v. Hughes, 305 A.D.2d 601 (2d Dept. 2003).
    • wife didn’t contribute uneven distribution of assets
  • Kawasaki v. Kasting, 124 A.D.2d 1034, 508 N.Y.S.2d 762 (4th Dep’t 1986)
    • higher percentage of assets to cover debt
  • Grasso-v.-Grasso, 47 A.D.3d 762, 851 N.Y.S.2d 213 (2d Dep’t 2008)
    • Error to hold debt 100% to husband
  • Barnes v. Barnes, 106 A.D.2d 535, 483 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dep’t 1984)
    • home given to wife when husband contribution very little
  • Morales v. Carvajal 53 A.D.3d 514, 60 N.Y.S.3d 228 (2d Dep’t 2017)
    • reimbursement for payments on marital debt
  • Fischer v. Fischer, 116 A.D.3d 1128 (2014)
    • Comparable incomes, wife didn’t pay her share

Alimony. When determining maintenance (also known as spousal support or alimony), courts typically consider factors like: the marital standard of living, each spouse’s age and health, earning capacity, length of the marriage, contributions to the marriage, the needs of the parties, and the distribution of marital property; essentially focusing on the ability of one spouse to maintain their lifestyle after the divorce compared to the other spouse’s earning potential.

Discussions of our divorce began more than 4 years ago. With everything from reconciliation attempts to divorce confirmation to discussions about alimony and everything in between occuring for those 4 years. From openly earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, Xia has taken intentional steps toward making the optics of her income appear as minimal as possible. There are endless accounts of her financial practices reported here. When that happens in divorce, the evidence is looked at, and the court decides what is true. Based on the evidence that is shown here, financial statements submitted by the plaintiff and myself aggregated together to give us many views of our relationship. One view of her finances shows that she consistently spends more money than she earns. She has a large quantity and large value of cash transactions. And she has other means of financial manipulation that has all been evidenced here to show that the income she claims and has claimed is not valid. In cases like these the court can impute income onto someone existing income. I estimate the value to be imputed to her current salary of $34,500 will be imputed value between $88,568 and $91,021 + $34,500.

All of these situations result in imputed income. And with the imputed income calculated above based on actual spending, Xia should not receive alimony. She makes and can make just as much as I do.

And another thought on maintenance. If alimony is designed to help safeguards ones standard of living in a positive direction, ie. one spouse supports another to increase their standard of living. It must also be true that actions can be take by a spouse that would decrease the other spouses standard of living during the marriage. For example, if I were a gambler, and every week I came home after losing my paycheck at the casino. This would most likely have a negative impact when considering spousal support or maintenance awards. Likewise, if Xia, ran a successful business and made hundreds of thousands of dollars, but somehow lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth inventory, that may be akin to the same gambling problem example. Or, if Xia, lied about closing a business and hid her assets in a way to make me believe I had to pay for more than what was necessary by failing to contribute to the household, this may be an example of one spouse decreasing the standard of living of another. DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete gives us an example similar to these even though the genders are reversed.

DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879 (1987): The New York Court of Appeals ruled in this case that a spouse’s actions that deplete marital assets or fail to contribute fairly to the marital finances could be considered by the court in determining the amount of maintenance or spousal support. The court found that the wife’s financial sacrifices and the husband’s failure to support the marriage financially were factors in determining the appropriate spousal support.

The final point is infidelity. Xia believes that my infidelity will be a decisive factor in this case. And while it certainly won’t be ignored, there are examples below of Xia’s infidelity as well. Both were equally as wrong. And there is also the fact that she found out about my infidelity in 2021, I found out about hers in 2020. Neither of us acted on it. Both of us attempted to forgive and make amends. We continued to cohabitate until 2024. We continued to have sexual intercourse until 2024. While it won’t go unnoticed. It may not be a decisive factor for either of us.

Even though the reason for this divorce is not listed as adultery, I believe the determinations from adultery cases are still relevant. Where the defendant in an action for a divorce based on adultery interposes the defense that the adultery has been forgiven by the plaintiff, the forgiveness may be proven by establishing the voluntary cohabitation of the parties, (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 171) provided it is with knowledge of the adultery. Where the plaintiff has voluntarily cohabited with the defendant with full knowledge that the defendant has committed adultery, it is presumed that the plaintiff has forgiven the injury, and the defense is proven. (Brown v. Brown, 21 NYS2d 325 (Dom Rel Ct 1940)).

Cohabitation, and thus forgiveness, will be inferred from the fact that the parties are living together as husband and wife, where nothing appears to the contrary. (Larger v. Larger, 9 Misc 236, 44 NYS 219 (1897)) However, in the absence of any other evidence tending to establish forgiveness, a single act of intercourse between the husband and wife is not sufficient to prove forgiveness, particularly where the intercourse occurred at a time when the plaintiff was emotionally upset and under the influence of alcohol. Kiley v. Kiley, 115 NYS2d 341 (Sup 1952). Kiley v Kiley does not represent our situation since we engaged in sexually activity approximately every two weeks if not monthly every month since 2020.

For cohabitation of the husband and wife to constitute forgiveness of the adultery, it must take place with full knowledge of the adultery. N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 171 This means that the cohabitation must be with the knowledge that the defendant committed adultery. It must appear with reasonable clearness that the plaintiff had obtained knowledge upon which to base a belief in the guilt of the defendant, not only of the particular act of adultery, but of all the then existing charges of adultery. The plaintiff must not only have some indication of the fact of adultery, but must believe the fact to be true. Where the adultery is denied by the allegedly guilty party, the plaintiff’s mere circumstances of a suspicious nature do not constitute sufficient knowledge by the plaintiff of the adultery such that his or her subsequent cohabitation establishes forgiveness. A husband or wife is justified in relying upon the other spouses denial of adultery, so long as he or she is not does not have substantial evidence of guilt. See Harris v. Harris, 83 App Div 123, 82 NYS 568 (1903); Deisler v. Deisler, 59 App Div 207, 69 NYS 326 (1901); Merrill v. Merrill, 41 App Div 347, 58 NYS 503 (1899); Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, 17 Abb NC 236; Dunnells v Dunnells, 272 App Div 779, 69 NYS2d 651 (1947); Digs v. Digs, 187 App Div 859, 175 NYS 791 (1919); Abbott v Abbott, 132 Misc 11, 228 NYS 611 (1928).

Reimbursement. If the final divorce judgment determines that the receiving spouse was not entitled to as much pendente lite spousal support as they received temporarily, the court may require repayment. If the recipient spouse provided false financial information or concealed assets, they may be required to return some or all of the temporary alimony. See Johnson v. Chapin. See What Happens if I Lie to the Court?

It may be my right to seek reimbursement for all temporary maintenance payments. It may also be in my right to seek reimbursement for all house payments, utility bill, insurance, car insurance, phone, phone service, and other expenses paid between February 2024 and December 2024 while she lived in our house and I didn’t. It may also be in my right to seek repayment in either asset allocation division, or direct payment from Xia because of the discrepency between how much we both contributed toward our household expenses. See Morales v. Carvajal, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso-v.-Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Fischer v. Fischer

Marriage Timeline

Why is this here? This is here because Xia quit her job, filed for a divorce, claimed to have nothing, and proceded with settlement offers from her attorney based on fabricated information which would cause an alimony calculation to exceed $2,000 per month. She can rightfully make claims on my pension, and half the value of our marital residence ($107,500 each person). However she doesn’t agree. While we can see from a financial analysis we can see that she contributed to much less than 50% of our daily household expenses, yet she denies her responsibility to be partially liable for our debt. We can also see that she had the money to contribute to 50% of our household expenses, and has maneuvered her business in a way so as to make it appear that she earned less money than she actually does, and is attempting to change the narrative so as to make us perceive that the business doesn’t exist for the purposes of gaining alimony. These are all my opinions, and I have backed each statement with evidence, analysis and logic. I have included all possible detail and continue to add evidence that I can find, prove, and capture.

  • 2003 Married in Zhangiang, China
  • 2004 Max was born.
  • 2005 -2010 I worked at Sun Yat Sen University (full-time), Guangzhou English Training Center (part-time), and Panyu Middle School (Fridays).
  • 2010 we moved from Guangzhou, China to Brewerton, New York.
  • 2011 to 2015 I worked at Paul Delima Coffee in Cicero, New York.
  • 2012 – 2014 Xia started an online business exporting and selling U.S. products to China from our house in NY.
  • 2015 – Current, I worked at New York State Department of Taxation and Finance
  • 2019 Xia Registered a Business in Albany, County
  • 2019 Reported Gross Income $10,957 from her business on our 2019 tax return.
  • 2019 Purchased a Chevrolet Trax for around $22,000 cash.
  • 2019 Xia gave me $35,000 cash to pay off our credit cards, and secure a lower mortgage payment.
  • 2020 Xia contributed $10,000 to refinance our house.
  • 2021 We both contributed half ($11,000) on a $22,000 car for our son Max.
  • 2021 We decided to divorce when Max graduated from High School giving Xia time to go back to school and employment.
  • 2021 Xia began reducing her contributions to our household.
  • 2021 Xia told me she closed her business (DBA in Albany County).
  • 2022 Xia paid around $7,400 for her own college. A certificate program costs around $9,000, amazon contributed $2,625.
  • 2022 Xia Purchased a 2021 Jeep Wrangler $30,000.
  • 2023 Xia received an associates degree.
  • Between 2020 and 2024 there were 747 Calls to Shipping companies.
  • 2024 Claims to receive a gift from her parents of $800 per month.
    • There are ATM withdraw receipts totaling over $800 in a month from Chinese bank accounts.
    • There are ATM cash deposit receipts over $800 in a single day.
    • There are statement entries for cash deposits, ACH deposits, Zelle deposits, and check deposits over $800 in a day.
    • There are over ($800 X 12) $9,600 in deposits on her bank statements in a year.
    • There are a over $127,000 in cash deposits from Xia to either her account or my account between 2019 – 2023.
  • There is cash withdrawn from Chinese bank accounts that is not reflected in her bank statements, income statements, or any other statements.
    • Cash Given To Me
      • 2019 $42, 750
      • 2020 $8,140
      • 2021 $7,520
      • 2022 $3,090
      • 2023 $2,750
  • There are NO cash withdrawals from her personal account from 2019 to 2023 according to the bank statements she provided.
  • There are NO cash withdrawals from her business accounts from 2019 to 2023 according to the bank statements she provided besides the cash withdrawn when she closed her business account in the amount of $10,509.47.
  • There are many payments to shipping companies from 2019 to 2024 according to the bank statements that she provided.
  • Xia has sales between $542,068 and $1,108,965 annually.
  • Xia, according to the logic of her schedule C, earns between $54,068 to $110,800 in Net Profit annually, not $10,600 as claimed on her 2020 tax return. This understanding is limited by the blind data view between her sales in China, holdings in China, and transfers to the U.S. There is an X value in China that she has not submitted on.
  • In 2022 While Xia worked part-time at Amazon making $22,792 (2023 Tax Return), she contributed 20% of her salary, $4,683 to her Amazon 401k account.
  • 2024 Request for Temporary Spousal Maintenance

The Beginning of Her Business

In the summer of 2014 my son was 9 years old. Here is a picture of Max (bottom center) and his friend Dillon, our neighbor, in 2014, in Brewerton, NY. We can determine that it’s 2014 using the properties of the image. When we look at the properties of the image we can see that this picture was taken on 10/13/2014. While the timestamp does say AM, it’s simply a lack of setting the time on the camera from a Beijing timezone to a New York time zone which is exactly 12 hours different. As we continue to look at the property details we can see that the camera used is a Canon PowerShot SX510 HS, a camera purchased in China.

Here is another photo taken around the same time, with the same camera, a Canon PowerShot SX510 HS. Notice the products, Azo with red and white bottle. Azo with blue and yellow box. Azo with red box, ZzzQuil. etc. Date taken 10/19/2014.

And here are some more pictures taken around the same time, using the same camera, for reference.

In 2014, Xia was exploring her product mix. During this time I would drive her to store(s) and she’d purchase products to resell. She would bring them home and take photos of them. She’d pack them, I’d drive her to the Post Office where she would send them off to China. Once they were in China her and her brother would post them to their website and they would both communicate with buyers via Taobao and Taobao related online apps.

At one point, she started to make a lot of sales of one of the products above, Miconazole. It turned out that it’s not always safe for people to use and the 广东省公安厅 Guangdong Public Security Bureau visited her brother in China. He got into some trouble, but ultimately was let off with a warning with a promise not to continue to sell Miconazole. So she stopped sending that.

She continued to sell her products to China. Azo, Dietary Supplements, Vitamins, Tampons, etc. At first, it seemed harmless. A few dollars here and there. I’d drive her to the store once a month, once a week. But eventually it started to become a burden. One of the nearest stores was Target, and Target offered good deals on shipping to our house so she started to use my Target card and ordering online. One day around 2015, we received a letter saying the Target Red Card could not be used for business purposes. And they stopped my account from being able to order online.

In 2015 I began working for New York State Tax Department as an entry level field agent. In learning about my own responsibilities as a public employee, and representative of the Tax Department I began to talk to Xia about registering her business and filing income taxes. I explained multiple times that she could potentially get herself in trouble, and that I could be terminated from my job if she caused an issue with our taxes. She argued and shrugged it off saying she wasn’t making much money at all.

As time went on and my job began to develop more, and her business continued to develop and in March of 2017 we moved to Albany so I could seek further opportunities in the Tax Department. She continued to order and send products to China to sell on Taobao.

Over time our discussions became more intense and more serious about her registering a business, and filing taxes. I was being promoted, and doing well in the tax department, and she was doing very well with her business, except she wasn’t operating a legal business. By 2018 I had finally had enough and said I wouldn’t drive her to the Post Office or to the stores any more.

She decided to get her drivers license. She bought a 2019 Chevy Trax LX and paid around $22,000 cash for the vehicle using money earned from her business.

She wasn’t yet a confident driver and had an idea to send the products to a freight forwarding company instead of going to the post office. She asked me to drive her to:

Cross World Express
41-61 Bowne St. 1st FL,  
Flushing, NY 11355

Once Xia gained the ability to drive, her business activities became significantly more frequent, resulting in increased sales and shipments. I expressed my concerns to her, highlighting that her failure to properly register the business and file tax returns could lead to legal consequences. I also emphasized the potential risk to my own position at the Department of Taxation and Finance.

Xia frequently worked late into the night and early morning hours because of the time-zone difference in China, engaging with customers on platforms such as WeChat and Taobao. During the daytime, her brother and/or sister in China would assume responsibility for customer service. In some instances, shipments were directed to her brother or other relatives for local redistribution, while at other times, the shipments were sent directly to customers in China. She was often awake late in the night when I had to work the following morning which caused disruption in both of our sleeping habits. She decided to move to another bedroom of the house.

Divorce Discussions

In 2019, Xia and I talked about pursuing a divorce once our son Max completed high school. We went back and forth and attempted reconciliation, but we just weren’t happy together. She felt that I didn’t communicate enough, I felt that she was earning more money than she was letting on, and that her contributions weren’t fair. Moving to Albany increased our financial burden quite a bit. Xia agreed to help out with the bills more since they were beginning to pile up. She contributed $35,000 to catch us up on our bills. On 2/26/2019 I deposited $35,000 cash into my account. This caught us up on many of our outstanding debts and we were able to reduce our mortgage bill from $1,300 to $1,100 per month. She will later make claims that I “took” this money from her and that she doesn’t know where it went. Shown below, it went directly to the mortgage company and to credit card companies. She will also later claim that this money was used for an affair. But has yet to admit that I was paying an unfair percentage of our bills over her small percentage contributions.

The contribution went directly toward the credit card bills and toward the reduction of our mortgage payment.

On 6/23/2019 there was an incident during a conversation about our upcoming divorce leading me to call 911. Below is a copy of the police report.

Police_ReportDownload

She will use this event in many arguments later saying that I forced her to hurt herself, and she will use these events also refer to this event when I disagree with her to pursuade me to agree with her.

Registration of Apollo Exports


After these discussions and events, and my discussion with her about how serious it can be if she didn’t register and file her taxes, she agreed to register her business.

Business Tax Return

In 2020, she agreed also to file taxes. Income for the business was reported based on the figures provided by Xia. She declared total sales of $128,655 and a gross income of $10,957. As you will see from our financial analysis based on financial statements provided to the court by me, and financial statements provided to the courts by Xia, that while Xia claimed $128,665 in Gross receipts, she only has $98,933 in total deposits to her U.S. Bank accounts.

Match.com

On 4/15/2020 I noticed some weird traffic on our network leading to Match.com. Thinking it was my underage son using the dating service I began to look at the service to see if I could find his profile. When I could not find his profile I suspected Xia might be using the service. I then found her profile, listed as “Amy”, who wanted to “live ‘out in the country’ and have horses”, and wasn’t there to “play”. I didn’t bring this up until much later in conversation. She would go out sometimes, including a time when she went to round lake to meet with one of her “friends”. A gentleman who lived at round lake that she would admit to visiting later who promised to divorce his wife but seemingly never did. She will later say that she had this account to find me on the account. It doesn’t seem plausible to use multiple pictures, and write a full profile on an account meant to find someone else.

Chen Xiang Xia aka Amy On Match.com

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Financial Discussions

During this time I did almost all of the grocery shopping (See Financial Statement). We each did our own laundry, she did Max’s mostly. See text messages. We each sort of did our own cooking while sometimes sharing the role. I did all outside and inside residential maintenance. I was responsible for paying all household and family related expenses. Between 2012 and 2019 Xia contributed cash or check payments contributing to our household expenses, but always argued over what was half and paid less than the agreed amount. After 2019 her contributions were steadily decreasing, even after a conversation agreeing that half was in fact $1,300. She continued to contribute various amounts ranging from $0 to $1,300. During this time I began to fall behind in credit card debt.

Around 2019, after a fight and another discussion of divorce, Xia began to express concerns to me regarding a decline in her business sales and indicated her intention to seek employment, and further her education in accounting. You will see that this expressed decline in her business activities is not reflected in her financial statements. It’s just better hidden. She planned to first obtain a certificate in accounting, followed by an associate’s degree. It is worth noting that Xia has previously pursued higher education, earning various certificates and degrees while residing in China.

In July 2020 Rocket Mortgage was offering more favorable interest rates, and with my credit card debt increasing I thought it was a very good time to refinance. Rocket Mortgage agreed to refinance with the new rates and take in the credit card debt that we had, but they were only willing to refinance if I added my car loan. Which I did. The following were included in the refinance. Xia contributed $10,000 to refinance, and signed the refinance papers agreeing to the terms.

An email received by me from Xia 8/19/2020, reconfirming plans to divorce and what she would do in the future.

Infidelity Discovery

On 10/1/2020 I was traveling for work when I left my computer at home unlocked. Xia discovered some images leading her to believe that I was having an affair. I had a friendship in 2017 that ultimately lead to an affair. My friend was there for me when I needed to talk. She was kind to me. We enjoyed time together, something that Xia and I did not. While Xia was texting me about the photos and these events, I asked Max to go turn off my computer.

I have programmed computers one way or another since I was around 9 years old. I received a Radio Shack Tandy 2000 and a bunch of books for Christmas from my parents. I spent countless hours typing binary code into my computer. There were no operating systems, no Windows, no mouse, no fancy images. Just a green screen, 1’s, and 0’s.

01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00001010

And from that time (1980’s) I kept up with each and every change. I’ve learned many computer lanaguages, and even to this day work with data, programming, and analytics. My point is. When a security feature is turned off my computer, there is a reason a security feature is turned off my computer. I know that. I know that I have 3 minutes before my PC times out and goes black. This is in case I walk away from the PC, the PC locks. But not this day. On this day I put a few images into my pictures folder and left for the night. I had a meeting early the next morning in White Plains. If the PC was on, it would not lock after 3 minutes. It would not lock at all until the PC was turned off, and turned back on.

Why would someone who knows about computer security turn off the thing that is meant to secure it? Around this time, Xia was being really hard on Max and his studies. Max loved to play PC games, and he loved to use his computer. And sometimes when she felt that he was not studying enough, or not trying hard enough she would complain, and yell at him, and dig into him. And this sometimes became habitual to the point that I thought she was negatively affecting his self-esteem. She was being really absolutely too hard on him. And when he didn’t listen she would ask me to back her up and also put pressure on him to study more. He had A’s in school. He had occasional B’s on papers. He was a perfect student and he knew what he had to do. But she made him feel bad. She shamed him. She guilted him. She yelled and screamed at him. I felt that she needed something else to focus on so that he could have some relief. So, I stacked my “Pictures” folder, a folder I would never normally use for pictures, with pictures about my affair so that when she saw my PC was on, and open, and I was not there, she could easily click into the “Pictures” folder and find something worth seeing. And after that day, she needed an ally, not a target. I don’t mean that she intentionally targeted Maximillian in a some evil way. I mean her mind tends to fixate on things, and once she is fixated on things it’s hard to get her move her attention away from that thing. She stopped over criticizing Max, and he was trusted to do the right thing.

An email received on 10/30/2020

She refers to her as “old lady” because that really bothered her. The fact that my friend was older than me, older than her. She once said to me, “It’s ok if you have a girlfriend, but find one that is younger than me”. It was never about love. It was when she got it into her mind that I spent money on her, that she started to complain. From the very beginning it’s been about money. That’s the saddest part of it. It was about money then, it is about money now. My friend, we went “dutch” on everything. There was never an imbalance. There was never exuberant spending. Nothing like that. It was about sharing happy times together.

I never considered Xia a bad person. It was true by this point that I hated to hear her yell at me and complain. I think we were both at the same point, we didn’t want to feel bad anymore. She wasn’t nice. But my behavior in this situation wasn’t nice either. I completely understand that.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

DBA Discontinuance

In December 2020, we purchased a 2021 Subaru Crosstrek for our son Max. We paid in cash with both of us contributing half, around $11,000 each.

We went back and forth between divorcing and not divorcing. We told our son that we were attempting to reconcile and Xia told Max that she had forgiven me for the affair and that he could too, and that everything was ok. And even though we attempted to live together, and try to make amends, other than sporadic visits to my bedroom she would continue to sleep in her own room. And when asked about it she said she didn’t want to keep me awake at night, which I appreciated. This sort of attempted reconciliation went back and forth all the way until late 2023.

During a discussion regarding alimony with Xia, I explained that her reported income would influence the amount of alimony I would be required to pay if we divorced. In response, Xia promptly terminated her DBA by filing a Certificate of Discontinuance with Albany County. Even though the expiration date noted below says 12/31/2022 Xia has maintained that she has had no business since 12/17/2021. The only tax year she filed for her business was money made during 2019, on the 2020 tax return.

An email to me from Xia 5/5/2021. This email in 2021 is what her message to me about money has been leading up to. Until 2019 she contributed normally. After 2019 she helped some. After 2020 she can help very little. And 2021, she states that she “has nothing” and contributed very little stating that her only income was her part-time job, and that she had to pay for college and her car payment. Again, you will see in the financial statements and analysis that this is simply not true. You will also see in her website analysis that this is not true.

While I don’t agree with the financial figures here, and don’t agree that she was a housewife for 16 years, or that she is saying that she is “poor”, which we can see later in the Financial Analysis. So far, total contributions are $45,000 + monthly contributions which are recorded here. And of course the discussion of pension, her share is her share in accordance with the laws of New York.

House Wife

Here are some examples of my thoughts on her being a housewife. Early on, when Max was very little, pre-school period, I would have agreed. But when she started to run her own business, I would vehemently disagree. She often relied on me, and Max to do things for her while either refusing to offer the same courtesy or simply not doing it. The cat, and chickens were hers. She didn’t cook every day. She didn’t do laundry every time. This set is from our group chat. Blue is me. Xia and Max are labeled with their names. And I’m not saying she didn’t do anything. I’m simply implying that she was not a full-time house wife or a stay at home mom as she has claimed. There was almost nothing asked of her in the household.

This statement, from her text above, is a statement that has morphed into many tales told to and by my family members.

“I saved some money, then you already took it (about $80,000). I have nothing Dan.”

This statement bothered me the most out of anything. And she has repeatedly told my family things along these lines. Saying that I basically stole from her and did something with the money and that she had nothing. In 2021 she had $127,839.04 worth of deposits. On 4/28/2021 she had $4,985 deposited into her account, on 5/14/2021 she had another $4,985 deposited to her account, and on on 6/3/2021 another $4,985 deposited to her account. Statements like these were desiged to make me feel bad, and designed to make me believe I had to pay more than the 75% I was already paying. She’ll likely state that this was money for her business, and not personal money. To show that is not the case, this is from her personal account around the same time, and this doesn’t look like someone who has nothing. It’s not that she has nothing. It’s that she just wanted me to pay for everything while she kept the money she earned as well.

4/5/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $2,591.00
4/5/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $2,591.00
4/6/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $1,169.22
4/16/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $1,169.22
5/6/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $990.00
5/19/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $1,365.00
6/7/2021 2021 ATM Cash Deposit $1,540.00
6/7/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $1,740.00
6/17/21 2021 Transfer from Business Account 3228 $1,064.00
6/18/21 2021 Zelle payment From Chen Hao Sun $99.73
6/28/21 2021 Zelle payment From Xu Cui $775.00

We’ll see below where she didn’t contribute her fair share to our household expenses and how bills built up, and then demonstrated above, she contributed lump sums. I also showed that when she did contribute lump sumps, that it was paid toward those bills. But then, as you will see in the Financial Analysis that she continued to not contribute her fair share. And while doing so she would often cite the fact that she contributed a lump sum, “last month”, “last year”, “3 years ago”,. etc. Which created a cycle of giving and withholding, and the building up of debt that she now claims she is not responsible for.

While she claimed to be a housewife on her divorce filings, there is ample evidence showing that she was not a housewife. She runs a successful business but claims to have no ties to the business. There is evidence that shows ties to the business all the way into 2024. And even if, in 2024 she ceased working with the company consideration should be given to these facts as a demonstration of her capability to and capacity to earn despite what she says. See A.R.-v.-A.R-(2025)

Jeep Wrangler

In 2021 Xia worked for Amazon part-time at night. She first began working during the day full-time. After the first couple of weeks she changed to early evening shift and worked part-time. She needed her night-time hours to continue operating her business.

On 2/14/2022 Xia purchased a new 2021 Jeep Wrangler worth about $30,000. She traded in her fully-paid 2018 Chevy Trax and currently has a monthly payment of around $250.00. The trade in value of her 2018 Chevy Trax would have been around $7,300 according to Kelly Bluebook.

Her current payments for her 2021 Jeep are around $250 per month. For her to purchase a $30,000 car, trade in $7,300 car she’d have had to pay around $8,500 as a down payment which is not reflected in her financial statements. Which means she paid cash.

In 2022 she continued to work for Amazon part-time at night.

2023 Our son Max graduated from High School and went to college. Xia completed her certificate in accounting at Hudson Valley Community College.

Hudson Valley Community College

A certificate at Hudson Valley Community College is a 33-credit program with tuition and fees of approximately $273.00 per credit hour with all fees The total for the certificate is $9,009.00. According to (Amazon Career Choice) literature found online since Xia worked part-time, she would be eligible for $2,625 per year compensation from Amazon.

An associate’s degree in accounting requires 62 credits which includes her already earned 33 credit certificate. The cost per credit hour is $273.00 as stated above for another $8,947 with $2,625 potentially paid by Amazon. Xia ended her certification program and associates degree with no student loans.

During the time that she studied at HVCC, when it was time to make a contribution toward our monthly expenses she would often give the excuse, “I have little income”, or “I have to pay for college.” In another context, when I ask how it is that I had to borrow to pay for college, and she owes nothing, she says “Amazon paid all my tuition.” And when I ask how I have credit card debt and she owes nothing, she says “Those are your bills”, because they are in my name.

Xia Files for Divorce

In 2024, Xia filed for divorce, finished her studies with an associate degree in accounting, and quit her part-time job at Amazon. She then proceeded to state how she had nothing, and tried to send outrageous settlement offers for various amounts to my attorney.

During this period, I actively assisted Xia in seeking employment, even while she was filing for divorce. Please refer to the email from 2/12/2024 chain below, which includes instances where I drafted email layouts for numerous job postings on her behalf, discussions regarding the divorce, and her notification about the broken heater.

Her direct response on 2/14/2024 was that I needed to be served divorce papers. And soon after, 2/14/2024, I need to come and repair the heater. I was living in my car, and with friends at the time, not with her at home. I did come and repair that heater the very next day by replacing a $300 blower motor over about 7 hours of work. She didn’t offer to help pay for it, or say thank you.

Having Nothing While Shopping at Coach

Additionally, during this period, she consistently expressed distress about having nothing, while emphasizing that I have a stable and well-paying job. Here she is referring to her job as a food delivery person part-time after quitting her job at amazon.

A note on this particular text regarding her spending and what she is saying here. This was sent to me on March 29th 2024. The imagine below shows what she used her credit card for during the month of March.

While she says to me, “Be responsible”, “Stop trying to take everything from the poorest me”, “I have been driving in the middle (of the) night to delivery food in Albany”, “Trying to pay my groceries” she is also spending $1,420.51 on things like Cheescake Factory, and Coach, and Five Guys, and wal-Mart, and McDonalds.

For the record, to answer her question, here is what I spent money on in March of 2024. Student loan. Max’s room and board at college. A mortgage payment for a house she lived in. Health Insurance for our family. Internet service that only she had access to.

She quit her job at Amazon. She was in a bind to get a job so that it didn’t appear to the court that she quit her job to get higher alimony payments. Which she did. She has lived in the United States for over 10 years, she has studied English for over 30 years while in China, and she has taken college level courses in the United States and has earned a certificate and a degree in accounting. All those classes were taught in English. And as far as me being responsible, and me helping my family, I have always been responsible, and I have always done the very best I could with everything which we’ll see in the financial analysis. It’s me with two or three jobs working consistently for 20 years for this family. All the way until the end, which you see in the financial analysis later.

Even during all of this, 4/10/2024, she asks me to help with her New York State interview questions. Which. I. Do.

On 7/19/2024 a settlement offer was given to my attorney by her attorney for me to pay $934 biweekly plus $50 for pet insurance for 9 years. In this settlement I would also have to give 1/2 of the proceeds from the sale of our house, 1/2 of the marital share of my NYS Pension and I would pay $5000 towards her counsel fees. This could only be possible, if she reported ONLY her part-time job and said nothing about her business.

On 9/20/2024 I was given an order to show cause why I couldn’t meet the demands of a temporary maintenance request. This request asked me for $7,500 for her attorney fees, as well as $2,147 per month. This ALSO is only possible if she isn’t being honest about her business.

Her Ongoing Business

In a conversation with Xia , I inquired about reporting income from her business. She stated that she did not have a business and that I could not provide evidence of any ongoing business activities. In her words, “You can’t prove it.”

I had previously raised this concern with my lawyer, expressing my belief that she might still be conducting business, although I lacked concrete evidence. Consequently, I began searching for documentation to substantiate the continuation of her business. She continued to state that she only had a part-time job, and couldn’t get a job.

On January 1, 2024, I photographed Xia’s computer in an attempt to capture the name of her shipping company from one of her shortcuts thinking she might try to say she didn’t do business. I reviewed this photograph on my phone in July of 2024 but did not find the name of the shipping company.

However, the image does display some background information related to her school courses, as well as a chat screen. On the chat screen, the username “Jazzmagine” and a product named “Vagisil” are visible. Additionally, the photograph shows our dining room table and curtains at 34 Stonybrook Dr Selkirk, NY. In a later Email Xia will say that her brother has never given her access to anything to do with the account. I’m going to walk you through how I got to her website, the website that has existed since 2014 in one form or another.

If you search for the screen name using a standard search engine, you may not find much information. However, I utilized Baidu, a search engine popular in China, to conduct a search for the screen name and terms related to “Vagisil.” The search results included “Jazzmagine” and “Azo,” which, although not identical, are similar and display listed prices.

Those links bring you to an aggregation site:

After clicking on several search results, I was directed to the Taobao website. Taobao operates similarly to Amazon or eBay, allowing sellers to establish online stores and market their products. Following a few additional clicks, I encountered a site that I recognized: https://shop36045372.world.taobao.com

The date at the bottom of the screenshot says 7/22/2024.

The header of Chen Xiang Xia’s shop features statistics that are aggregated and published by Taobao. This statistical information is automatically calculated and displayed by Taobao on the header of all active shops who have selected it to be shown to the public, that is, someone who hasn’t signed in. Additionally, the header included a picture of Chen Xiang Xia. The picture on the top left was a picture of Chen Xiang Xia at her graduation ceremony in 2024 wearing her Hudson Valley cap and gown.

Untranslated store header

Looking at the header left to right. On the left we can see Chen Xiang Xia’s picture with her graduation cap and gown from Hudson Valley Community College. She graduated from Hudson Valley Community College in 2024.

(See notes at the end of this document for updates made to her website after these screenshots were captured and a video of me going through the website)

By using Google Translate, we can interpret the details of the shop statistics displayed on the header by Taobao.com. This practice is standard across all shop headers and is intended to emphasize that these facts and figures are neither self-published nor controlled by the user in any way except for “display to public” or “display to members”, which she later changes.

Figure 8 Untranslated Store Header

  • Name of the Store: Mavericks USA Purchasing
  • Number of Followers: 18,917
  • Website Reputation: “Top 3 beauty and skin care stores recommended by experts”
    • It’s worth noting that these statements are written by the website service, not by the users of the website. “Top 3 beauty and skin care stores” on Taobao. A service that has a market of over a billion people.
  • More than 41% of people repurchase
  • Annual sales of over 30,000 pieces.
  • Over 3,000 positive reviews in half a year (from 7/22/2024)
  • “Average Delivery 22 hours”.

Without logging into the website, I was able to capture a segment of the product sales volumes and prices. The statistics published and controlled by Taobao.com display specific sales volume figures up to a quantity of 100. Beyond this threshold, sales volumes are represented with a whole number followed by a plus sign. For instance, “100+” could represent any number from 101 to 199. I approximated such figures to the nearest increment of 50, estimating “100+” as 150.

Based on this information, the following statistics can be gathered without logging into the site.

  • There are 30,000 pieces sold annually
  • There are 3,000 positive reviews in the last 6 months or “reviewed in half a year” when translated directly (from 7/22/2024)
  • There are 39 products currently listed and viewable from the front page without logging in.
  • The user can add and remove products at any time which change these statistics. Adding a new product won’t reduce stats, but removing a product will, which we’ll see in the updates.
  • The products range from feminine hygiene products to vitamins to pregnancy tests. The products appear to all be from the U.S. market.
  • The average price of the products analyzed was ¥130.85.
  • The average sales volume of each product was 212 units
  • The maximum sales volume displayed was 1000+ units.
  • 2 items display 1000+ units sold
  • 1 item displays 800+ units sold
  • 1 item displays 700+ units sold
  • 2 items display 300+ units sold
  • 2 items display 200+ units sold
  • The remaining items are 100+ units sold or fewer

If we used the displayed statistic of 30,000 units sold at average price of ¥268 with an exchange rate of ¥7.25 = $1 we can calculate:

30,000 x ¥131 = ¥3,930,000 / 7.25 = $542,068 in annual sales.

In 2019 she reported $100,000 in annual sales on her tax return. If there were really $542,068 in annual sales from 2019 to 2023 that’s $2,710,340 in sales over the 5 years.

If we use the same logic as her 2019 Tax Return which said approximately $100,000 = $10,000 in net profit, $542,068 would be $54,068 which is the number I used in my response to her temporary maintenance request. HOWEVER, in 2019 there were $98,933 worth of deposits made into her account, not $54,068. This implies two things. One, her tax return if incorrect. And Two, her income is much higher than original estimates. While they did not see this analysis yet in the court, they did hear a recording of her saying that the only money she receives is $800 per month from her parents as a gift. We can test that idea again when we look at her bank and credit card statements later.

Estimated $54,068 Net Profit Annually

After seeing this and figuring this stuff out I had a lot of questions. How did I not see 30,000 products sent out every year from our house? We’ll see how later in the logistics section, call log, and shipping.

I found the Link to Her Business Looking back through my emails. In June 2020, Xia requested my assistance in drafting a response letter to a company to seek reseller rights, as her limited proficiency in English hindered her ability to effectively communicate her business objectives. Here she gives me the link to the store:

https://ypus.taobao.com

This link resolves to resolves to https://ypus.world.taobao.com/ and leads to the same place as the website found in 2024. https://shop36045372.world.taobao.com/. To the best of my knowledge, she did not become a registered distributor but continued to distribute the products anyway. And if you are clicking this link in 2025, you’ll see some of the same products in that box from the 2014 image above.

Here is a video of me following the link at the time I rediscovered it in 2024.

As you can see, very similar products displayed from the 2014 picture taken at our house in Brewerton, NY. See the updated video here with changes made after informing her that I knew about her business in July of 2024.

CALL LOG

Xia would talk on the phone sometimes in Chinese talking about deliveries, and the fact that I have driven her to Queens in the past, so I started looking at phone records and emails. In emails she sent to me I found an email of her asking me to buy her a pair of shoes from Ebay and have them sent to the address she gave. In hindsight, this was probably a way for me to test the process of her buying online and sending it to a freight forwarder without her risking any loss.

Here is a call log taken from our call records from June 2020 to January 2024. In January 2024 Xia removed her phone number from our shared account so there is no data available after January 2024.

Here I analyzed calls made to US F Express, Albany Shipping Office XYNYC, XYNYC Shipping, and E-pharma Inc, who while they do sell vitamins, does share a close proximity and may be related to the shipping companies she works with. This data shows a continuation of behavior from 2020 to 2024. Xia’s DBA was registered in 2019 and closed in 2021.

MonthCall CountMonthCall Count
Jun-207Apr-221
Jul-2016May-2210
Aug-2034Jun-222
Sep-2069Jul-223
Oct-2044Aug-223
Nov-2063Sep-2210
Dec-2039Oct-2216
Jan-2130Nov-227
Feb-2130Dec-2214
Mar-2121Jan-237
Apr-2138Feb-232
May-2126Mar-233
Jun-2113Apr-233
Jul-2123May-237
Aug-2118Jun-2310
Sep-215Jul-234
Oct-2115Aug-2313
Nov-2110Sep-2346
Dec-2116Oct-236
Jan-2211Nov-2310
Feb-226Dec-2313
Mar-223Jan-2420

She reported income in 2019 but not during the entire time the company was registered 2019-2021 with an expiration date of 2022. After the business was closed, she continued to work with shipping companies in the same manner in which she did when she acknowledged that the business was open. There were 747 calls over the 4-year period.

If the business was closed in 2021, there shouldn’t be 747 calls made from 2020 to 2024 to shipping companies. Instead of having orders sent to our house, she’s having orders that she makes online sent directly to the freight forwarder so nobody can see the business activities.

For a full detailed call log download the Call Log Stats document.

Call_Log_StatsDownload

Receipts

When she manually purchased products and packed them at home, receipts would look like this:

While going through our basement I found shipping receipts. And those shipping company receipts for XYNYC and U Plus Express or affiliate with her signature, some with brands and product descriptions are those that match her product listings and some that match her online ordering suppliers, Walmart, Walgreens, etc. Also take note of the “To” address. They are not all the same person but there are repeated names. There is a $1.00 listing on her site, I believe that if someone chooses that along with the other items they purchased, they can have the items shipped to them directly. If not, it’s most likely being sent to her brother or sister or other relative spread out to avoid detection from Chinese Customs and always with an undervalued customs value to reduce likelihood of import tariffs.



Hidden Financial Transactions

How do financial transactions operate in this context? Taobao, the platform she uses to sell products, is linked to an account in China under her name, her brother’s name, her sister’s name, and others. Sales are conducted online with logistical support from her family in China, and payments are processed through WeChat or Taobao. The funds are either transferred to her via a bank card, which she uses to withdraw money at U.S. ATMs, or used to purchase gift cards online, or through an app called WeChat (Cited example in bottom image set translated saying “Wechat Paid”) . These gift cards are then employed to make purchases at U.S. stores for products and shipping payments to send items back to China. Any remaining funds, I believe, remain in China. When she travels to China or when visitors from China arrive, she can bring back a significant amount of money that is difficult to trace. Transferring U.S. dollars from China is challenging due to stringent banking restrictions that apply differently to individuals and businesses. Below is an image depicting various bank cards and numerous gift cards in her bedroom in 2024.

Here are some example withdrawal receipts from various ATMS around Albany from Chinese bank cards. Please note five points.

  • Xia only filed income tax for 2020 for money earned during 2019 so there should be no money coming in after 2020.
  • In 2024 she claimed to receive $800 in gift money per month from her parents so no transaction should exceed $800 per month.
  • For 2020 Xia reported $0.00 in income so no money should be coming in during 2020-2024 except for the $800 per month from her parents that she claims.
  • Xia claimed to have closed her business 12/17/2021 so no money should come in first because of her tax return reports, and 2 because her business was closed.
  • Xia also claimed in 2024 that she “helps her brother run his business”. This is the same business, same product mix, same transaction patterns, that was “hers” when she registered her DBA in 2019 and her when she developed it since 2012. It is only not hers in the context of a divorce.
This is a withdrawal on 12/29/19 at Crossgates Mall in Albany for $800.00 serial number 6931 from account ending 6929 again from a People Bank of China ATM debit card.Withdrawal on 9/5/2021 from “PBOC Debit” or Peoples Bank of China Debit serial number 7718 with card account ending in 6929 for $800.00 in Glenmont NY Bank of America ATM.
Withdrawal 9/5/2021 $800 Peoples Bank of China 7718.Here is a withdrawal from Peoples Bank of China 6969 on 2/1/2021 for $800.00. $800 is the limit for daily withdrawal from Bank of China accounts. The next receipt is on the same day, 1 minute later.
Here is a withdrawal for $800 using card ending 8068 for $800 on 2/21/2021.
Withdrawal 8/3/2021 Serial number 4158.

Here are some example deposit receipts to her U.S. bank accounts. These receipts match her submitted financial statements. However, the question remains, after closing her business on 12/17/2021, and her admission to receiving $800 per month from her parents, why are there receipts over $800 for cash deposits? She later said that she “helps her brother out” but also said that she uses his credit cards.

Cash deposit $2,500 on 3/1/2022. Account ending 7015.Cash deposit of $2,000 on 4/18/2022. Account ending 7015.
adf
Cash deposit of $2,000 on 7/19/2022. Account ending 7015.Cash deposit of $1140 on 3/8/2022. Account ending 7015.
Cash deposit of $450 on 3/25/2022. Account ending 7015.Cash deposit of $1000 on 8/19/2022. Account ending 7015.
Cash deposit of $1700 on 6/14/2022. Account ending 7015.Cash deposit on 12/24/2020 for $1300. Account ending 7015.

Financial Statement Analysis

After going through the bank statements submitted to my attorney from her attorney, and bank statements submitted to her attorney from my attorny, shown below are deposits and expenses that can be deemed as “shared” or expenses that can commonly be determined to be those that would require responsibility of both parties. What’s not included here are expenses like, convenience store purchases, personal clothing purchases, car payments, restaurant expenses for lunch in low dollar values, etc. These are available and are included in the full report. Please note. ATM Cash Deposits are all cash given to me from Xia and $25,000 of the check deposits are checks given to me from Xia.

DanXia
ATM Cash Deposit$63,505$64,225
Cash Reward$0$40
Check Deposit$31,146$18,079
Returned Bill Item$2,203$15,100
Wire Transfer From Personal Foreign Account$0$134,595
Wire Transfer From 3rd Party$0$114,655
Zelle Payment From 3rd Party$0$9,508
Wages$281,182$43,545
Yoga Wages$4,626$0
Star Rebate$4,810$539
Tax Refund$23,178$0
Transfer from savings$36,279$0
Total Deposits$446,930$400,286
* $63,505 cash deposits were from Xia, and $25,383 check deposits were from Xia to Dan.
Adjusted Deposits
Subtract cash given to Dan from Xia$63,505$63,505
Subtract Checks given to Dan from Xia$25,383$0
Total Individual Deposits$358,042$463,791
Household Contribution
Auto Insurance$13,426$0
Cell Phone$12,228$830
Clothing$20,340$1,730
Dental$1,165$379
Electricity and Gas$12,240$0
Family Restaurant$2,729$392
Garbage Service$1,522$0
Gift$1,400$510
Grocery Store$30,268$3,024
Gym Membership$2,313$0
Hair Salon$1,033$180
Health Insurance$42,081$0
Home Goods$22,947$3,210
Home Maintenance$14,947$2,191
Home Office Products$2,537$1
Internet$6,061$0
Lawn Service$2,110$0
Max Education$2,106$1,052
Max School Lunch$2,842$0
Medical$2,038$1,060
Mortgage$115,187$0
Outdoor Gear$5,632$27
Payment to Catheleen May$0$200
Payment To Max$1,335$601
Pet$2,264$5,043
School Photos$7,158$0
Shared Subscription$5,592$0
Skiing$2,872$250
Taxes$1,805$0
Travel$23,208$1,154
Water$3,680$0
Max’s Cards$14,405$0
Cash Contributions Toward Bills$0$63,505
Macys Payment$3,016$727
Check To Daniel May$0$25,383
Check to Xia$4,813$0
Total Household Contributions$387,300$111,449
Non-Household Contribution Expenses
Alcohol$2,432$0
Amazon$10,356$67,001
Attorney$2,650$0
Auto Maintenance$2,948$1,128
Books$1,055$0
Car Payment$26,965$5,393
Car Wash$201$0
Cash Withdrawal$7,728$10,509
Clothing Personal$2,852$4,111
Convenience Store$33,804$3,886
Convenience Store Business$0$22
Education$281$5,298
Entertainment$2,775$0
Grocery Store Business$0$66
Hobby$14,615$0
Home Goods Business$0$91,598
Home Goods Personal$4,065$1,336
Interest$7,512$0
Legal$129$0
Lodging$3,618$0
Music Education$300$851
Music Equipment$3,903$3
Nail Salon$0$17
Parking and Tolls$906$149
Payment to 3rd Party$0$979
Personal Student Loans$2,736$0
Plastic Surgery$0$617
Restaurant$8,304$2,390
Shipping$0$3,701
Subscription$7,704$49
Vending Machine$325$0
Vitamins Business$0$40,637
Yoga$10,184$642
Total Non-Household Spending$158,351$240,383
Total Individually Provided Deposits$358,042$463,791
Total Household Contribution$387,300$111,449
Total Non-Household Spending$158,350.60$240,383.21
Total Business Spending$10,184$135,958
Total Business Income$4,626$419,667
Total Net Business Income$-5,557$283,710
Total Net Business Income + Wages$275,625$327,255

While Xia has stated that she has nothing, and cannot get a good job. She has stated that I stole from her. She has stated that I didn’t contribute anything while she paid everything. She has said this, and similar stories to family and to the court. Here are the percentages calculated in a pie chart of our household contributions.

Household Contributions

And here is another chart showing our total deposits with mine including deposits from things such as Tax returns and Star rebate checks.

Adjusted Deposits

The financial analysis above shows all deposits and shared expenses paid.

Based on these ratios, I believe it must be considered equitable distribution of assets using the same value. If our incomes were similar and both of us had equal and fair rights to all assets while married while 1 party contributed significantly more than the other party it would follow the same logic to distribute all assets in the same manner with a proposed division of assets

Plaintiff 22%
Defendant 78%

In prior divorce cases in New York adjustements have been made simliar to these for simliar reasons.

Here is a view of year-to-year deposits and spending.

20192020202120222023
Dan
Sub Total Deposits$119,762.06$77,482.89$82,579.62$78,909.70$86,595.70
Checks Given to Dan From Xia$35.00$6,900.00$3,538.00$4,860.00$10,050.00
Cash Given to Dan From Xia$44,645.06$5,140.00$7,520.00$3,450.00$2,750.00
Total Earned Deposits (Sub Total – Cash and Checks from Xia)$75,082.00$65,442.89$71,521.62$70,599.70$73,795.70
Total Household Contributions$79,062.24$49,610.94$64,085.15$61,785.00$72,662.14
Total Non-household Spending$13,525.05$19,577.20$21,296.31$28,592.70$22,425.35
Total Spending$92,587.29$69,188.14$85,381.46$90,377.70$95,087.49
Xia
Sub Total Deposits$54,287.69$147,284.48$120,319.04$44,851.09$33,544.13
Cash Given to Dan From Xia $44,645.06$5,140.00$7,520.00$3,450.00$2,750.00
Total Earned Deposits (Sub Total + Cash)$98,932.75$152,424.48$127,839.04$48,301.09$36,294.13
Total Household Contributions$44,687.34$12,568.45$20,827.96$15,660.88$15,775.61
Sub Total Non-Household Spending$27,937.99$99,727.61$81,055.28$25,634.90$4,848.91
Unaccounted For Cash Examples
Dentist$7,112
Chevy Trax$18,000
Jeep Wrangler$8,500
Total Non-Household Spending$45,937.99$99,727.61$81,055.28$41,246.90$4,848.91
Total Spending$90,625.33$112,296.06$101,883.24$56,907.78$20,624.52

Please note the changes in 2022 and 2023 after Xia “closed her business”. These transaction totals are hidden by the use of Gift cards, where she takes cash from a Chinese debit card, purchases gift cards to be used online therefore removing the financial trail of the transaction. It also lines up with the September 12th recording of her saying that she purchases things using her brothers or mothers debit cards and credit cards. Purchashing online using foreign credit cards was not possible before because of the bank cards credit providor (UnionPay). unlike Visa or Mastercard, UnionPay was not accepted widely. However, after her visit to China in 2023, it’s possible she obtained new cards with new processor logos, or she is still relying on the cash-to-gift-card model.

This may also be an indicator that the documents our attorneys asked for were not provided in full. If that’s the case, and more documentation turns up through the subpeona process, I will certainly amend all financial statistics.

These deposits and spending also do not correlate with her annual sales, her phone log, or the $800 per month gift claim made in the September 12th recording. She has gone through great lengths to make it appear as if she had no money coming in from her business.

Impute Income

Using the totals from above Year-To-Year Deposits and Spending, we can get an idea of imputed income. The IRS uses common strategies to estimate income when income documentation isn’t clear, like all years, but specifically 2022 and 2023. One of the methods they use is the Expenditures method found in “Methods of Proof 9.5.9“. Using this method we can determine one of the values that can be used to impute income.

20192020202120222023
Dan
Total Earned Deposits$75,082.00$65,442.89$71,521.62$70,599.70$73,795.70
Total Household Contributions$79,062.24$49,610.94$64,085.15$61,785.00$72,662.14
Total Non-household Spending$13,525.05$19,577.20$21,296.31$28,592.70$22,425.35
Total Spending$92,587.29$69,188.14$85,381.46$90,377.70$95,087.49
Xia
Total Earned Deposits (Sub Total + Cash)$98,932.75$152,424.48$127,839.04$48,301.09$36,294.13
Total Household Contributions$44,687.34$12,568.45$20,827.96$15,660.88$15,775.61
Total Non-Household Spending$45,937.99$99,727.61$81,055.28$41,246.90$4,848.91
Total Spending$90,625.33$112,296.06$101,883.24$56,907.78$20,624.52
Business Spending$27,580.79$75,027.00$28,655.44$2,628.84$1,873.89
Wages$0.00$0.00$0.00$24,857.75$18,687.33

To estimate income using the expenditure method we can use the the following formula

Total Deposits – Total Business Spending = Expenditure method Net Income = $65,605

Shown below you can see using a straight expenditure average we’d impute $65,605. However from 2019 to 2021 she wasn’t employed. 2022 and 2023 she was employed. So if we used the Expenditure method for the business only we’d have

Total Deposits – Total Business Spending – Wages = Expenditure method Business Average Only = $56,896

20192020202120222023
Xia
Total Earned Deposits (Sub Total + Cash)$98,932.75$152,424.48$127,839.04$48,301.09$36,294.13
Total Household Contributions$44,687.34$12,568.45$20,827.96$15,660.88$15,775.61
Total Non-Household Spending$45,937.99$99,727.61$81,055.28$41,246.90$4,848.91
Total Spending$90,625.33$112,296.06$101,883.24$56,907.78$20,624.52
Business Spending$27,580.79$75,027.00$28,655.44$2,628.84$1,873.89
Wages$0.00$0.00$0.00$24,857.75$18,687.33
Expenditure Method71351.9677397.4899183.645672.2534420.24
Expenditure Method Business Only71351.9677397.4899183.620814.515732.91
Expenditure Straight Average65605.106
Expenditure Method Business Average Only56896.09
Current Income = $17.50 * 37.5 Hours * 52 weeks34125

We would then add that to Current Income $34,125 which is a sum of $56,896 + $34,125 = $91,021 per year for Alimony Maintenance calculations. Here is a New York State Alimony Worksheet with these calculations using the second method starting with gross values because I have already subtracted business expenses. Actual outcomes wouldn’t be far off from this. Maintenance Guideline Amount = $0.00

Other methods of imputed income could be used. The method used here is a rational method that makes sense given the evidence that we have in front of us. Another method however, could be used. If we used the statistics from her website we could base her side of Alimony on her gross sales, estimated to be over $500,000. Gross sales minus business spending is still over $400,000 per year. In this case, Maintenance would be due to me, not from me.

  • Maldonado v. Maldonado, 100 A.D.3d 448, 955 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1st Dep’t 2012)
    • imputed income despite tax return data
  • Kelley v. Kelley, 168 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
    • concealment of income
  • Kosovsky v. Zahl, 257 A.D.2d 522, 684 N.Y.S.2d 524 (1st Dep’t 1999)
    • impute manipulated business income
  • Krajewski v. Krajewski, 232 A.D.2d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
    • Wife hiding money.
  • Henderson v. Henderson, 347 N.W.2d 991 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
    • Concealment of assets
  • Chalmers v. Chalmers, 236 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
    • Concealing Business Income
  • Harris v. Harris, 171 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
    • Hiding Marital Assets
  • Isaacs v. Isaacs, 246 A.D.2d 428, 667 N.Y.S.2d 740 (1st Dep’t 1998)
    • impute income based on cash and perks received
  • Wesche v. Wesche, 77 A.D.3d 921, 909 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2d Dep’t 2010)
    • impute higher than claimed income
  • Rooney v. Rooney, 92 A.D.3d 1294, 938 N.Y.S.2d 724 (4th Dep’t 2012)
    • regular and systematic cash gifts
  • Baron v. Baron, 71 A.D.3d 807, 897 N.Y.S.2d 456 (2d Dep’t 2010)
  • false claims of closing business
  • Orlando v. Orlando, 222 A.D.2d 906, 635 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dep’t 1995)
    • impute income based on ability to earn
  • Brown v. Brown, 239 A.D.2d 535, 657 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2d Dep’t 1997)
    • impute income based on prior years evidence
  • Cymes v. Cymes, 235 A.D.2d 312, 653 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1st Dep’t 1997)
    • failure to disclose information
  • McGrath v. McGrath, 261 A.D.2d 369, 689 N.Y.S.2d 200 (2d Dep’t 1999)
    • impute income despite what is claimed
  • Goudreau v. Goudreau, 283 A.D.2d 684, 724 N.Y.S.2d 123 (3d Dep’t 2001)
    • impute income based on capacity

Deposit Patterns

It’s worth noting that the only record of the source “ATM Cash Deposit” is the deposit itself. This cash comes from Chinese bank cards and has been reported by Xia to not have information available to show the balances or transactions of the accounts. There are almost no cash withdrawals from her U.S. bank accounts which means 99.9% of all cash shown here, $127,730 is from a Chinese Bank Account with no record. It is my belief that fewer deposits were made after 2019 due to divorce discussions, and due to her unwillingness to contribute her share of our expenses. See Dentist Dispute, Apartment and Other Points Regarding Cash Flow

While my total spending is higher, including money from her contributions, my additional, non-household expenditures are lower than her non-household contributions. If there ever was an indication of priority, this would be it. She prioritized her business over everything else. I prioritized family over anything else. And to take note on a couple of points. First, her taxes.

Below is a copy of her 2020 reported taxes. From her 2020 tax return she reported $128,665 in sales, and $10,957 gross income. There was no other time period reported between 2019 and 2023.

And since there are no 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, or 2024 returns and the business was closed in 12/2021, what are all of those other deposits? And why are the deposits decreasing from 2020 to 2023? It’s certainly not a lack of sales. We’ve seen on her website at the beginning of 2024 she was selling over 30,000 products per year. With the gift cards listed above, evidence of ATM Cash Withdrawals, and a recording later saying that she uses her parents and brothers credit cards and debit cards, we can see how the transactions which were visible in 2019 and 2020 can be hidden using new methods in place of ACH deposits and direct ATM to Bank deposits.

Second, looking at the line items for car payments. My car payments from 2019 to 2023 are $26,965.03. This includes down payments as well as monthly installments. Her car payments are $5,393.45. She owned a 2019 Chevy Trax and a 2021 Jeep Wrangler. $18,000 + $30,000. She paid cash for the Chevy Trax, and had enough between her recently purchased Chevy trax and her down payment to make her Jeep payment around $250 per month. Again, because of non-transparent cash.

Another example. Music Equipment. $3,902.89 is what I have recorded purchasing music equipment. Which since has mostly all been sold back. She purchased a $1,700 electronic drum set for herself but has no record other than a $2.59 purchase from guitar center. Most likely again, she paid cash.

Here is another perspective of her financial statements showing an imbalance.

Income From WorkExpenditures
2021$0$50,155
2022$26,132 (- $4,683 contribution to 401k.)$48,330
2023$19,179 $26,992

While it appears to have reduced expenditures, her website is still selling 30,000 products per year. She has simply shifted from transparent financial processing to non-transparent financial processing. And here is a count of total deposits, not including direct deposit from here employer. Zelle Payments, 3rd Party Checks, Cash Deposits, ACH In (Business and Personal Accounts)

YearCount of Deposits
201911
202047
202142
202223
202317

Since we can only see cash deposits when she takes cash from the ATM using a Chinese Bank Card we can certainly assume that some money is being kept in China after the sales are made and some cash withdrawals are not deposited. And, as it was recorded, she’s directly using Chinese credit cards and debit cards. If you notice the patterns concerning all of her financial statistics, after 2019 there is a reduced cash flow. But with the statistics on her website, and other relevant information including her own tax filings we can assume with certainty, that there is money being kept in China. And we can also assume that there is money being withdrawn that is not deposited into her accounts.

Evasive Money Patterns

Here we can see ACH transactions from 2019 to 2021 before she closed her business account and moved from ACH transactions to using multiple ATM Debit Cards. Here we can see that from 2019 to 2020 the transactions were sent from Chen Xiang Xian. Chen Xiang Xian is the same person as Chen Xiang Xia. She translated it as Chen Xiang Xia in the United States, but the Chinese translation of her real name is Chen Xiang Xian. These foreign account holdings were never reported per U.S. foreign bank rules.

Also, you can see that after 10 transfers in 2020 the name changes to Jian Xiao Man. Then after 10 transfers the name changes to Mo Xiu Lian. Then at the beginning of 2021 the name changes back to Chen Xiang Xian. 陈向霰 And so on and so forth. There is a foreign exchange regulation in China that says more than $50,000 cannot be exchanged (sent to foreign country) per year, per person. You can see that they wanted to continue to sent money, so they gamed the system with names. Similar to smurfing techniques that our banking regulations identify.

This comes form a western union transaction. Money she sent from China when she was in China for deposit into her account.

ptroz

Which brings us to two more regulations. Smurfing and structuring. To avoid detection on the United States side they appear to be smurfing and structuring. Notice all payments are below $5,000 and all monthly payments are below $10,000. The perceived amount and duration for automatic notification to the Internal Revenue service. In aggregate it appears to be FBAR evasion, FinCEN evasion, and IRS evasion. See above, Chen Xiang Xian. See United States v. Linda Sun and Chris Hu, United States v. Charles M. Lieber, United-States-v.-Alexandru-Bittner, United-States-v.-Adrian-Paul-Baron

DateYearTransaction_TypeCategoryAccount_NameAccount_InfoAmount
8/27/192019Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/4/192019Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/16/192019Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/27/192019Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
11/19/192019Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
11/19/192019Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
12/5/192019Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
1/2/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
1/17/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
2/11/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
3/5/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
3/27/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
4/22/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
5/18/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
6/3/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
6/18/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
7/2/202020Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
7/16/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
7/23/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
8/10/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
8/24/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/4/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/17/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/29/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
10/14/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
10/28/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
11/16/202020Wire Transfer From Jian Xiao ManWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
11/25/202020Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
12/14/202020Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
12/28/202020Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
1/13/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
1/28/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
3/1/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
3/12/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
4/6/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
4/28/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
5/14/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
6/3/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
7/1/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
7/19/212021Wire Transfer From Chen Xiang XianWire Transfer From Personal Foreign AccountDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
8/2/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
8/27/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/9/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
9/27/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
10/12/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
10/26/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
11/5/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
11/18/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
12/15/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00
12/28/212021Wire Transfer From Mo Xiu LianWire Transfer From 3rd PartyDBA Apollo ExportsBOK 4830 7609 3228$4,985.00

Participants

She often says that her dad has to give permission for her to get money. This is her dad. I know her dad. Her dad is a nice person. Her dad is also a cigarette hawker at the docks. Her dad was not rich, before he retired he worked on shipping boats, and sold cigarettes at the docks. He does not command millions of dollars. He may be the holder of the purse strings in this venture, but only because of traditional Chinese hierarchy. Her dad’s name is Chen Ju. It doesn’t appear to be him sending this money.

From Xia’s DS11 Passport Application she filled out the name of her Father and Mother. Mothers name Mo Xiu Lian. Mo Xiu Lian sent 13 payments of $4,985.

广州黄埔区海员路138号大院1号502房

This leaves 1 more person identified here, Jian Xiao Man who sent 10 payments of $4,985.

Here is another example of how comingled their funds are. This is a physical bank book from China. This was in Xia’s possession when I took the photo on 9/20/2024. On the top you can see a name. Chen Xiang Di. This not Chen Xiang Xian or Chen Xiang Xia. This is her little sister, Chen Xiang Di. There were no ACH transfer records from Chen Xiang Di, but if Chen Xiang Xia, her sister, has in her possession the bank book required to remove money from an account that has a beginning record of $30,006.29, we can agree that they trust each other with large amounts of money, with their banking reputation, and with their banking information.

Other Participants making payments to Xia via Zelle:

Zelle payment From Chen Hao Sun $99.73
Zelle payment From Chen Hao Sun $36.00
Zelle payment From Gong Qiang $1,315.00
Zelle payment From Li Zi Had $500.00
Zelle payment From Nangraw Nding $60.00
Zelle payment From Xi Nuo Ran $499.00
Zelle payment From Xinyu Huang $8.00
Zelle payment From Xinyu Huang $674.52
Zelle payment From Xinyu Huang $4.00
Zelle payment From Xu Cui $501.00
Zelle payment From Xu Cui $775.00
Zelle payment from Xu Cui $2,000.00
Zelle payment from Xu Cui $416.00
Zelle payment from Xu Cui $347.00
Zelle payment from Xu Cui $800.00
Zelle payment From Zhang Yi $7.00
Zelle payment From Zhang Yi $52.83
Zelle payment From Zhang Yi $400.00
Zelle payment From Zhentao He $1,000.00
Zelle Transfer From Zhang Yi $13.00

Particpants Xia made payments to via Zelle:

Zelle payment to TXT GLOBAL LLC $29.73
Zelle Transfer To Nangraw Nding $100.58

Methods after ACH Payments

And this brings me back to three points. I did most of the grocery shopping, paid all telephones, cell service, insurance for 3 cars, health care, water, gas, electricity, internet, dental coverage, garbage service. I was responsible to keeping up-to-date with all of Max’s school events. I was responsible for keeping up-to-date and getting Max to sports practice, and Band practice before he drove. We agreed that Xia would pay half ($1,300) of our expenses since 2017. This would equate to $15,600 per year not including any additional purchase that was reimbursing me for. Since 2017 she did not. And as we got closer to our divorce date she contributed much less than the agreed amount contributing to the cause of our increased debt. We had between $3,500 and $4,600 in expenses each month. I earned between $3000 and $5000 most months. Her expected contribution of $1,300 was needed to pay everything, and as her contributions declined, debt went up.

And the second point is all of these payments would have to come 100% from her employer if she closed her business in 2021. But why is there no record of deposit from her employer and a corresponding cash withdrawal for all cash given to me during these time periods? It’s because the cash came form Chinese bank cards, from a business, that she still runs today. Cash that cannot be seen in her bank statements, because sometimes she deposits cash, and sometimes she doesn’t. And when she needs money she can, at any time, withdraw from her accounts in China, whether they are her in name, or her parents, or her brothers. It’s her money. Above is what she gave me. The two charts below show her income vs expenditures, and the second chart below shows the difference between deposits and expenditures taken from the bank statements that she provided.

In one recent explanation she attempted to say that for the past 4 years her only income was income from work. After evaluation of all her statements, and her known cash contributions to our bills the “Difference” is what cannot be explained using income from work. In 2021 she spent at least $57,675 more than she earned from work. In 2022 she spent $29,971 more than she earned from work, and she spent $10,563 in 2023 over what she earned from work.

Also around this time she started using gift cards, and other means of payment, for example making direct payments for purchases using Chinese credit cards, which she states in the recording from September 2024 which explains how she can sell 30,000 products a year, and still appear to have reduced cash in-flow. And due to jurisdiction regulations, we cannot subpoena Chinese banks or receive statements. Even if we could, the commingling of financials between her, and her family would most likely muddy the waters in interpretation.

I can’t stress this enough. There were Western Union payments, bank transfers, multiple bank accounts that we have no record of. The “total deposits” are taken from her statements and cash transactions are taken from my bank statements. There are times when cash was withdrawn from Chinese bank accounts, and not deposited into any bank. And the 2019 timeline, each time we got behind it became a serious discussion because she couldn’t understand why, she constantly argued that $1,300 wasn’t half, and contributed less than $1,300 and began to use various excuses why she couldn’t help more. Car payment, college payment, poor business, etc. However, looking at it as a whole, 30,000 products sold annually, top 3 beauty store on Taobao, thousands of individual statistics displayed on products she was selling. And so much invisible cash. Cash that is currently being explained as a “$800 a month gift” from her parents and “helping out with her brothers store”.

Here’s what she says about these matters. In a text message on Saturday, January 6th, 2024 Xia says:

“I registered a company in 2019. In 2020 I paid off your credit card debt and helped with refinancing the house, providing approximately $20,000 in cash. Additionally, I gave $30,000 in cash for changed the mortgage payments. However, I have no idea where all this money went. At the end of 2020, I discovered you were cheating, but I continued to give you $1300 per month. In 2021, I faced less income from selling stuff to China, closed the company, and worked at an Amazon warehouse as per your suggestion, sharing half of my hard-earned money with you each month. Despite your rising salary, you pretended to need my assistance and insisted I spend less from my salary, contributing all my earnings from physically demanding work to you. Did you know I even gave you money my dad gave me? The expenses for my trip to China with Max were covered entirely by my family; you didn’t contribute a cent. Now, your actions have caused me to suffer from depression, affecting my sleep and work. Do you still have a conscience? Who are you? When you need help I always help! and what get from you? Pain! Sometimes I want to kill myself! I ask myself I am married to a evil person. Please don’t push me to the death corner.”

I did not respond to the message received on January 6, 2024. However, she did confirm certain documented facts: she established the DBA in 2019 and closed the business in 2021. She led me to believe that her business had failed and was no longer operational, and that she had no income other than what she earned from Amazon, often expressing discontent and guilt regarding her employment with Amazon. If all of what she said in her text were true, working part-time at Amazon, contributing 20% of her salary to her 401k, would not give her the money to contribute what she claims to be $50,000 toward bills and expenses in a single year.

Video of New Face of Her Business

Since the middle of 2024 Xia’s website has changed quite a bit. The public view is much more locked down. There are some products removed, and some new products added. This video was summarized December, 2024 in the video after creating an account on the website.

Her Current Employment

Her current job and hours. Her hours don’t match the job description. She is taking time off. We need to see a copy of her LATS. Voluntarily taking time off does not reduce her income expectations.

Thoughts on Xia Claiming Abuse

Xia has stated that I abused her. There are a few types of allegations that she has stated to me and she herself classifies as abuse:

  • An Affair
  • Mental abuse
  • Financial Abuse
  • Not letting her work
  • Silent Mental Abuse

In my opinion Xia is probably one of the most unpleasant people for me to talk to. She’s loud, she’s not nice, she fights, she argues, she makes outrageous statements, and she will not let a topic go because she must be right. And when something doesn’t go her way, when someone disagrees with her, when someone proves her wrong, she will continue to fight because admitting she is wrong is embarrassing. That’s known in Chinese as “saving face”.

I do not like fighting, I do not like arguing, and I do not like having loud conversations. However when someone corners a person, and continues on and on, pressing, goading, poking, etc,. just about anyone has a breaking point. And she knows that. There are times when she would sit in my room and do this, for hours, until I finally broke and did respond to her, did yell back, and did say things that were opposed to what she was saying. She hated that more than anything. For an introverted person, silence is the best way, but even the most introverted of people have a point where someone presses them so much that they sort of just snap in rage. And when that happened, every word I said was meant to prove what she was saying wrong. A thing she hated most. Being proved wrong.

Let’s start with an affair. As I wrote earlier I did have an affair. The woman was much older than me, and she was smart, and kind, and we shared an introspective existence. It was a very nice friendship long before it was a sexual affair. For years we were just friends. We enjoyed time together. It was a person to be with that wouldn’t make me fight. That wouldn’t make me be loud. That wouldn’t make me argue. And I needed that. So yes, I did have an affair, and no I didn’t tell her about it directly.

Mental Abuse. There are times when I joked around and said things like, “Smart as a rock”, or “Not all there”, or things like that. There are times when I replaced the word bitch, with the word “witch”, and joked around like that. “What a witch”. But those phrases were never meant to harm. I admit, there is probably a better way to play than that, and had I known it would be taken as abuse I would have been more sensitive to it. However, Xia wasn’t the type of person who was overly sensitive. She understood humor. She understood when things were said in humor. For example, in a conversation she was having with my son and I in our group chat, he tells us about seeing Bidens Helicopter. Nobody called the secret service and implied she was serious about shooting down Bidens Helicopter. It was a joke. She understood it as a joke. Joking around with her was completely normal in the those moments. It wasn’t until later, when she wants to twist it around and make it appear to be more than it was.

Here’s are two more examples of her sense of humor. She isn’t senstive. She’s just using these examples against me beause people hear them with pity. Was she sensitive after Max spent time in the sun and she called him black? or when she smoked pot and made a joke about it? No. Not at all.

Financial abuse. I’m not sure what financial abuse means. In the context provided from her statements I believe it means I’m not signing her settlement offers of me paying her the $2000 per month + $50.00 for cat insurance that she requested. I believe it means I am not agreeing with her and am making counter claims against her signed, notarized statements where she says she has no income from the business she started in 2012. In this way, by not giving her what she wants, I am “abusing” her financially. I think this is what she is claiming. A divorce is like a negotiation, and for me not to protect myself against false claims would be crazy on my part. I will not sign anything that is a lie. And her financial statements are a lie. The statements about her closing her business are a lie. Her statements of not receiving any income from her business is a lie. Protecting myself is not abuse. It’s a reaction to her statements and alligations.

Not letting her work. The only time we talked about her getting a job was around 2012 and our neighbor worked at a gas station. Before that she never tried to get a job. The reason I disagreed with the gas station job was that the hours would have been extremely inconvenient. She didn’t speak English well at all and it would have been hard for her. And if our son Max was to be home from school and I was at work, the child care would cost more than she could have made there. It didn’t really make sense for her to have a job at a gas station being paid minimum wage. After discussing it, the same year, she started her online business. It wasn’t until years later when her online business was too big to not notice, and I begged her to register it, that I started suggesting a job outside. Her English was better, she gained a lot of experience in sales, logistics, and product management, and could find a better job, and most importantly stop her illegal income. She started working at Amazon during the day, but soon changed to the 5-11 shift so that she could continue to operate her business. China has a 12 hour difference so being home at before midnight would put her online at China’s noon, and allow her to sleep during the day when nobody was home. So, I don’t feel that I didn’t let her work. In fact, as aggressive as she is, I’m sure, if she really wanted to work, she would have fought her way to the gas station.

Silent mental abuse. Being an introvert coming home to someone who is aggressive, and loud, after being around people all day, is extremely challenging. Often times I would come home, and I would be silent. I needed some time to be “inside”. This will always be true of me. When someone is yelling at me, or accusing me of something, or complaining about something, very often my response is no response. It’s how I cope with anger. It’s how I deal with people who are confrontational. And so many times I told Xia that, “I don’t want to fight”. “I don’t want to argue.” “I don’t want to yell.” And so many times she would say I didn’t talk to her or I ignored her. And it wasn’t that I was ignoring her or didn’t want to talk to her, I just didn’t want to talk to her like that. I didn’t want to hear more accusations, more foul things about my family, more foul things about me, or more foul things about my son. So yes, I was often silent, I was often anti-confrontation, but that literally is my personality. I’m a data analyst computer programmer. One doesn’t become an analyst if they like to sit around and talk, or worse, sit around and yell back at someone yelling at them. There are times I yelled back, but it really takes a lot for me to be that upset.

She recently brought this up in an email talking about the early days of our marriage. She says in an email February 7th 2025,

“Blame everything on me stupid! That’s why you did not want to talk to me. ! Blame me beacuse I want a baby then didn’t talk to me for 6 years?”

I’ve heard similar complaints. In China, we had a pretty expensive living situation. And with the extra expenses of having a new child I had to work. And work I did. I had a full-time job at a university, I worked nights at an English training center, and I worked every Friday at a middle school. I worked at a lot. And when I came home I played with my son. When he woke up in the middle of the night at 3am and ran into our room ready to play, that is probably one of my happiest memories. But that doesn’t mean I wasn’t extremely tired. And before we had a child I was extremely nervous. I wasn’t ready to have a child, and while telling Xia I wasn’t ready to have a child she was getting fertility treatments. So there’s that. But, as soon as I met him, I vowed to myself, to love him, and be there for him, and care for him. And I did. I have. And I will continue to do so.

Herea are some emails where she claims abuse.

Wed, Sep 25, 2024 8:01 AM: “Don’t worry I will bring the account to the judge for what am I doing! You do need to say that to hurt me! You don’t need to hack my computer! And I will show the account to the IRS and the government! And seeing who’s the financial abuse!”

  • This was in response to me telling her that I know she still runs her business and to me rejecting her $2,000 + offer to settle for alimony for 9 years based on falsified statements she made in her filings. I wasn’t trying to hurt her, I was trying to warn her that I had to submit information that could potentially get her into trouble since it was my obligation to do so. Many times she labeled this as “abuse” and “threatening”. I was telling her what I found, and what I was obligated to do.

Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 8:21 PM: “I don’t know why you need to telling me about this? Am I a liar about: spent $90000 with your girlfriend from 2017-2020 then made me refinance the house? Spent another $80000 another 3 years! And you have income over $100000 ! And own $70000 car! Now you try to threaten me saying I am a liar? I am a criminal? And trying to scare and control me again? So I can give up the alimony? I already told you you don’t need to say those things to me! Just tell your lawyer! Don’t forget Financial abuse! Mental abuse! Your family knows who you are ! I even don’t need to tell them anything ! I should talk to them early! They are all knowing who are you! Do you want to talk about the criminal? Who’s selling the fake stuff from china to America for so many years? Oh my goodness! Every one can prove it! Do you want to threaten me more? Look at yourself Dan! Don’t talk to me anymore! I love you believe you and get used to letting you abuse me for so many years! Think about it!”

  • Here she is exaggerating my spending and my income. And I believe the information stated about telling the court what I have found with her active business, taken as a “threat” instead of a warning about what I would have to do if she kept lying became both “financial abuse”, and “mental abuse”.
  • While it’s not the topic in question here, yes, 20 years ago, when I was 24 years old, I sold some “knock-off” products. There are many manufacturers in China that make them, and they were easily accessible, and the market had a place for them. I sold them online while I lived in China.
  • Both of these topics seem to be in the conversation as a defense against being accused of not reporting business activities.

Wed, Sep 25, 2024 1:56 PM: “Wow another threatening! I will get fired by you! Great job! Mental abuse and financial abuse! Please don’t talk to me and far away from me! The people have eyes and see what you do to me!”

  • This is also in response to telling her that I would have to report what I’ve found not just to the court, but also to the Tax Department according to New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Code of Conduct and other statutes such as Public Officers Law § 74 – Code of Ethics. I believe she is using “Mental abuse and financial abuse” here as her defense to doing the wrong thing with her business.

Wed, Sep 25, 2024 7:53 AM: “Don’t worry I will show the judge! What am I doing ! I already told you I don’t have any income from what I helping him! You don’t have to believe it! I don’t need to lie about it! That’s why I am keeping all of the records and you use the financial abuse me too”

  • Again the mention of “financial abuse” when I tell her that I know she has more income than she’s telling her lawyer. The records I believe she’s referring to is the record of the $30,000 payment above. And then she changes her story from “my business” to “I am helping my brother run HIS business.”

Wed, Sep 25, 8:32 AM: Laughing at me ! Go ahead! Mental abuse me for 13 years and now too and the financial abuse.

  • I did poke fun a little right before this email because she said she was going to call the police.
    • “Hello, Police, my husband responded to my 50 emails and said things I’m trying to lie about. I’d like to make a complaint. He can’t use the truth, that’s abuse.”
  • Here are some of the 50 emails she sent me overnight on the 6th after I told her I had to report what I’ve found.

Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 12:04 PM: Wow silent mental abuse and yelling and threatening and controlling even now! Financial abuse! Haha who’s Frank? You mean that lady’s husband? you slept with her for 5 years? I still has your guys pictures and texts! Should I post it on the tax department email? See is truth? And you have another lady again that you bought a how to have different sex acting book lol ! Now live with your new lady who is from your Yoga place!

  • Silent mental abuse mentioned here because I didn’t respond to her many emails.
  • Frank is the owner of the phone number of one of the guys she talks to on the phone.. I’m not sure who he is. 518-461-3806.
  • Yelling and threatening and controlling. This was in response back to her:
    • “Your mean angry yelling attitude for 20 years, is the real abuse. Your lying about your income while I am responsible to pay every bill we have is abuse. Your lying about your friend Frank is abuse. Your making me do every single thing in our house without help is abuse. Your telling my family so many lies about me is abuse.”
  • And I followed it with:
    • A temporary employee shouldn’t cause trouble at work. You have no union. I’d recommend you keep your nose down and focus on your work. Our conversations are not productive and as I have said I don’t want to fight. I’ll drop off the check when it arrives  because half of the value of everything in the house is yours. Other than that, you have no reason to contact me again. The tools and paint are in the house. Since I cleaned everything else, arranged the sale of everything else, cleaned the basement, and got out a truck load of garbage, you can fix the holes in the wall. You can get a real estate agent or just let the bank take it. I don’t care any more. You’ve already cost us so much money waiting this long. I’m going to continue to fight all your lies forever because I have evidence to show that you’re lying. It is not fair for you to make as money as you do and for you to lie about it. Filing amended returns will tell the divorce judge that you lied about your income. Not filing amended returns will keep the whole lie going longer. An IRS audit will show both lies. A criminal investigation will show all lies. And when you undervalue your income, there is evidence to show additional lies. Even your customs forms all have lies. 
  • Here she is also threatening to send personal text screenshots to our work email to be distributed at work.

Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 1:08 AM: Do you know I don’t like you making those stories to me! Because you don’t want to pay me the alimony! It’s hurting me! You have been mentally abused me for a long time! I have been working hard and trying to live! When you try to record it and trying to make all of the numbers it makes you ugly! If I have money I don’t need to deliver the food! You never understand and you don’t want to! When I show all of the truths to the judge I am not a liar! and you the lair! I will kill myself because all of stuff you do to me and mentally abuse me! I don’t want to live anymore! Because you! You don’t need to pay me alimony anymore because I will not exist anymore! After selling the house I will sign the contract with lawyer that half of money is for max! Are you happy now! I told you many times I just want to live but you don’t want to believe! You spend all of my parents money and you try to make it to me saying I have money! I already have all of the stuff at my lawyer office! I will meet my lawyer tomorrow! And I will sign the offer with the house agent ! What ever how much for the house! I don’t want to think about what you did and do to me! I don’t want to live anymore! I married a evil! You will be happy when I gone! You will see! I just got a little confidence from my work now all destroyed by you!

  • This is a clear statement of what she considers mental abuse. I am disagreeing about how much money she makes and has made. I have evidence that makes me believe what I’m saying is true. But, because I don’t agree with her, it’s “mental abuse”.

Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 1:42 AM : “Could you please take care of my cat! Thank you! the half of the house my money has to for max! That’s I left for max! The life is so difficult for me to live in America! Special I am sick! Mentally abused it’s destroying my hope! I don’t want to think of how ugly people’s hearts! Every time I think about what you did for me it’s killing me! Even you are not living with me anymore but you want to get what you want and you will make the story to destroy me! I don’t want to think of it anymore what you want to do to me!”

  • And when I don’t agree with her, she resorts to self-harm, and threats of self-harm to get her way. I would gladly take care of our cat. I love that cat. The only reason I didn’t fight for that cat is because of words like this. And that is the same for our son. I’m writing this on Christmas Eve. My son will not see me. My son is with her. She has said flat out, if I try to take him, she will kill herself. I have not. I have told Maximillian that he is free to choose what he wants. And his mind is being filled with lies and he doesn’t know and he barely talks to me. And he is not to blame.

Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 11:44AM: “Could you please stop to say I lie about my income! If you don’t want to pay it just say no! Because I just paid for his school tuition for $2500! I have to pay my friend back for borrowed money for his tuition! And I have to pay his food when he comes home and his room every month even even he doesn’t hear! Once he comes home he will have a place to stay! Don’t email me anymore except about Max! I have been sick by you mentally abusing me even now! I am thinking about killing myself everyday I can’t stop thinking about it! Only thing I am worried about max and my mom and my dad!  Please don’t email me! Thanks!”

  • Again the same.

February 8th 2025: “Fuck you dan! You think everyone just like you think! If I was smart you wouldn’t treat me like a dog for so many years! You know I am stupid that you can abuse me! Even now still abuse me on different ways!”

  • I received this email after trying to explain what imputed income was, and how it might be attributed to her based on the income form her business.

So in summary. I do feel her pain. I know this stuff is hard. It’s hard for everyone. But being hard doesn’t mean you accuse someone of something. It doesn’t mean you defame people at work. It doesn’t mean that you lie about income to get more money for alimony. It doesn’t mean you attempt to coerce someone by saying you’ll kill yourself or that because you disagree it’s mental abuse, or abuse of any kind.

Xia’s AGE

On all documents Xia has written and signed her age as 10/6/1978 making her 45 years old. In a conversation about her lies I mentioned her lying about her age. I thought her birth year was 1974, not 1978, and she actually corrected me saying it was before 1974, but here is her email response to our conversation.

“If you think it’s illegal to change your name, age, or gender in some countries, you can challenge the government.”

They originally changed her age so she didn’t look as old as she was for a high school she was attending. I’m not entirely sure how her age was documented 2 to 3 years younger than she actually is, but it was. And it wasn’t a threat, it was a point I was trying to make about her not telling the truth about things. I believe she is between 48 and 50 years old in 2024.

Threatening Self-Harm

A strategy that Xia likes to use to get her way is to threaten suicide and death. And while this is a touchy subject that I always withdrew from when she mentioned it, it’s still a strategy she uses when I disagree with her, or make any point about her not being forthright in her business income statements.

This was after a conversation about selling our house. The email seems formatted incorrectly because sometimes Xia writes complete emails in the subject line. Here she is disputing the statements I made about her business income.

This was received on the same day. Here her “threaten me” was talking about me telling her that after I have found out everything about her business income, I am obligated to report it. I was not threatening her. I was informing her, warning her, that for me to protect myself I had to submit information that may get her into trouble. When being accused in the court of law a person had a right to defend themselves with the evidence they have.

This is also on the same date as the other two.

This was on September 5th 2024.

This was on September 5th as well. Her talking about what I told her about my obligation and her pretending that he only income is her job. When I discussed this with her, I told her that I could see how much she was making and that I had to submit it as part of my obligations working for the state, and that I believed the Judge in our divorce case would also be obligated to submit what they discovered. It was not a threat, it was a warning. And it was not a means to control her her get her to do something, it was a way to warn her so that she could do the right thing.

And this is also how she responds. Because I had information that she didn’t want known, she responds with a threat to put me in jail for what I did before 2019. What I did before 2019 was not tell her about an affair and what I did before 2003 was sold some products purchased from Chinese manufactures that weren’t registered products. Again, this is a response to me warning her of what she did, and her using various methods to try to make me not talk about her undisclosed income.

Xia’s Reference to Me Being a Criminal

Here she is also refering to a business transaction that I had when I had a disagreeent I had with a customer. I felt that I upheld my end of the agreement, they felt that I had not. The customer ultimately charged back their purchase to my credit card processor at the time, and that processor brought me to court in Madison County, NY. Around the time a local sheriff visited my Aunt to serve papers since that was my last known address. They satisfied their need to attempt to serve papers and had the trial in my absense. Once the judgement was filed I hired an attorney in New York City who was able to negotate a settlement for the judgement, removing the judgement from my credit history.

Retainer-MayDownload

The original court case information is listed below.

MONROE COUNTY REG
Identification Number:  I2005002711
Date Filed: May 13, 2005
Status: Civil claim judgment.
MONROE COUNTY REG
Address:
39 W MAIN ST STE 101
ROCHESTER, NY 14614
No phone number available
Identification Number:
I2005002711
Plaintiff: CARDSERVICE INTERNATIONAL.
Address Identification Number:    0027824204
Status: Civil claim judgment.
Status Details: This item is scheduled to continue on record until May 2012.
Date Filed: 05/2005
Date Resolved: N/A
Claim Amount: $12,203
Liability Amount: N/A
Responsibility: Individual

This was a civil case, and all personal obligation has been satisfied. There were no criminal charges filed as she suggested. It wasn’t about that. It was about a lost delivery that we had a contract for that stated all goods were to be delivered FOB (Freight on Board), which means once I handed it to the delivery agent, my obligation was complete. Since the credit card processor had internal policies the customer was able to use their internal policies to get their money back, and the I was left fighting with a credit card processor who I had no defence against.

There are a lot of accusations here. I “forced” her to drive by not wanting to take part in delivering her products to the post office. I “forced” her to register a company because she was operating illegally. The company didn’t make money but there are hundreds of thousand of dollars of transactions. I “made” her work at Amazon by suggesting she get a job instead of breaking the law. We were reconciling and not reconciling. I didn’t know we were going to divorce. And the debt we have is caused by an unfair contribution toward household expenses.

Abandoning Her

Her most recent claims are that I have abandoned her. On 2/9/2024 she filed for divorce. In or around that time she said, “I don’t want you here, I don’t feel comfortable with you here.” I began to stay with friends, and/or just sleep in my car, most nights. I showered at the YMCA, and sometimes would get a hotel room. During those months January, February, March, April, May of 2024 I paid all the bills for the house while she paid nothing on “her councils advice”. At the same time, she was earning money from her business, and “had” to get a job at Doordash so that it didn’t appear that she quit her job at Amazon to try to get more alimony. She also stayed in the house until the very last day of the sale. With her financial track record for the past 4 years, it’s safe to say that she didn’t have to get a job at doordash at all, and that this ploy was only kept, and talked about to “prove” she was trying to get a job where she could be better self-sustained.

Shady Cash Flow

When you submit an application for an apartment you are required to show proof of income and job history. Here are two emails from December 2024. The top section of the email is Xia complaining about her new apartment. The second email says that she attempted to get my Aunt to cosign for an apartment, but the apartment management wouldn’t agree. Why would someone try to get an apartment where it looks like on paper you don’t qualify? Because she knows she has the money to pay it. On paper, due to her not submitting taxes on earned income, she cannot prove it. And since she’s self-employed, she can’t rely on normal pay stubs.

June 29th 2022. Between December 9th 2021 and June 29th 2022 Xia was driving back and forth between Albany and Buffalo to visit the dentist my sister works for. They had a dispute between the agreed upon price after Xia found out that she paid a discount cash/family rate and they kept the refund from our out-of-network dental insurance provider. She didn’t agree with the price and didn’t think he should have kept the reimbursement from the insurance provider. I’m not sure where they landed, but the receipt on the bottom left says that the total amount due was $7,112 after insurance. I’m not sure if this was the final bill because she says that the price was changed form $3200 to $4900 which may have been a bill for one visit only while she made multiple visits to Buffalo for this. This is both an example of unaccounted for cash and to treat people in a way that says she is being tricked or cheated in some way. This cash withdrawal was not visible in her bank statements in the Financial Analysis Section.

January 26 2025 I received an email from my lawyer with her lawyer threatening me because I haven’t paid temporary maintenance in full. I paid the last one, $700 because I literally could not afford another cent. Very early next month I have to pay Max’s school bill so I can’t afford to pay an extra $1,170 right now either. The email I received was around 5:00 PM. At 6:00 PM I received an email from the YMCA saying that Xia just renewed her account. $65.00 per month. You don’t contact your lawyer and plead for money, then, turn around an immediately drive to the gym and agree to a $65.00 per month gym membership if you are in need of money.

2/28/2025 I have sent multiple requests to Xia to release money for temporary maintenance and to cover Max’s room and board this semester. Xia has refused numerous attempts. Here is what I asked her to do. Release $6,871.75 to each person from our escro account. We have over $200,000 in the account. The account is a shared marital asset. I asked that we each pay $1,821.75 towards Max’s room and board (Total $3,643.50). This leaves $5,050 to each of us. I asked that she receive both portion $5,050 + $5,050 to cover her temporary alimony until May, 2025. She refuses. I would see $0 from this money upon release. It would benefit me because I could remain in good standing. It would benefit her because she pleaded her case time and time again about needing money. Xia gives us examples of how her only intention is to hoard money, and her behavior shows that she doesn’t need money at all. She only needs my money. It is not easy to cover additional expenses for attorneys, Max’s College, as well as Temporary Maintenance.

On 3/3/2025 I received an email asking if this is what we agreed on. “Release of $6,872 to each party from escrowed proceeds”. Most likely this agreement happend because of conversation with my son. Where this is the X time she has denied this sort of request and there are actual court cases (below) showing where this isn’t such a strange idea. And, also pointing out that by refusing this she is again stating, indirectly, that she doesn’t really need the money.

This happened also on December 11th 2024. On December 11th 2024 I asked her to agree to release $10,000. Some to be used toward Max’s room and board, and some to be used by me at least, toward her temporary maintenance payments. She denied it with a counter offer that was agreed on for $4,000 each but my portion would have to be used on tuition and car tires. I responded and forced her to agree to use the money only on tuition.

“She will agree to the $8,000 if he pays their Son’s tuition and car tires”

She didn’t agree on the temporary maintenance portion. Instead she complained to her lawyer and he threatened litigation. See YMCA. She made 1 payment after December 11th 2024 in the amount of $1,200. And then on Wednesday February 4th she said she made 3 payments toward his room and board. She had only made 1 payment after December 11th 2024. That payment was made 1/25/25. If she could somehow count our agreemen in the past, then all of the payments I made also count toward this agreement. Either way, I’m happy his room and board is being paid. This is just another example of double standards that exist because she wants to keep her money and money too. See Mayo v. Mayo; Rosenshein v. Rosenshein

Max’s Safety And Well-being

Due to current circumstances and conditions I am reluctant to say that her original statement of Maximillian being assigned to her custody may not be in his best interest.

November 10th 2024 Email “And the stupid fuck owner they control the heat! They said they will turn the heat to 60 degrees at the daytime! My cat will be sick for the cold environment! He will be freezing for 60 degrees! I have to rent a room for max so when he comes back he can stay with me!”

February 8th 2024 “My landlord stood at my door in the middle of the night, asking me to chat with him. I said no and then he told me to move out!

She also is the type of person who threatens self harm very often, and has had a history of self-harm. She uses psychological tactics when things aren’t going her way to try to persuade and guilt someone into doing what she wants. I do not beleive this is healthy for Max to be around either. If she needs professional help, if she suffers from depression, anxiety, or other ailments, Max being around her is not the healthiest environment to be around.

Anger and Trust

I have a large list of experiences of Xia exploding in anger, and expressing distrust toward me, my son, family members, and others and toward herself. Below are some examples.

This is a photo of our coffee table. In the center is a picture of a ring. The ring is caused from her getting angry, yelling, and throwing a bowl down at the table when it flew off and hit the wall, the floor, and broke. She then proceeded to yell at me, throw herself against a wall while saying, “oh no, don’t do this to me”, before she fell onto the floor hitting herself against the floor until I restrained her.

These next two email messages are from Xia, about our real estate agent. She chose the real estate agent because the agent spoke Chinese. After she put the house on the market she started receiving offers. And one of the offers was pretty high and the agent said it was one of her friends.

The bottom paragraph she says she thinks the agent is trying to manipulate the sale. And then a couple of days later she self confirms her own statements.

In the end, she wasn’t able to sell to either of the buyers. We got $440 for the house, which was much higher than either of us ever expected.

There were always things like this. Her friends deceived her and cut her out of activities. She didn’t trust people at work. Her boss at Amazon just “want to have sex with me”. A student at school really loves her but she didn’t trust him. A guy she met wanted to have sex with her but didn’t want to divorce his wife. People online were trying to trick her. People in China “trick her money”. She didn’t trust Max and would always look through his belongings. She didn’t trust my mom. And of course she didn’t trust me.

Here is another example. We installed our fence before our neighbor. After reviewing the installation there was some discrepency between the land border documented with the county for our yard and our neighbors yard, and the angle in which our contractor installed our fence cut about 6 inches off of our neighbors yard on one end of the fence for about 20 feet. As the fence came closer to our house, again, because of the angle, we left about 6 inches of space on the outside of the fence again, for about 20 feet. When our neighbor was going to install a fence they came over and we compared files, and discussed it, and agreed, that if he just uses our fence as his left fence then it works out and we were both in agreement. About 3 years later Xia sends me this:

When we sold our house, there were never any questions about the fence or it’s position on the land even after a site inspector came in with county drawings of the land boundaries.

Temporary Spousal Maintenance

OTSC (proposed)Download

Received September 19th 2024. This was notarized and signed by Xia on September 18th, 2024.

Here Xia’s attorney was trying to force me to pay $2,147.14 monthly for temporary spousal maintenance. Our defense at the time boiled down to a recording where Xia stated she received $800 per month from her parents. Which ultimately reduced my required maintenance to $1,170. And she was also attempting to get a lump sum payment of $7,500.00 toward legal fees. I believe that her attorney made a processing error which prevented me from having to pay this fee.

However, looking at closer detail, we can see that there are many more holes in the claims that she is making here. First the document says that they are basing my income on $106,341 per our 2022 Tax Return.

“according to the website “SeeThroughNY” he earned an annual income in 2023 of approximately $96,716, which is more accurate, as our 2022 tax returns reflected total income of $106,341.00.”

However, they fail to recognize that Chen Xian Xia’s income from Amazon was also on that tax return in the amount of $28,725 which makes my total income for the period $106,341 – $28,725 = $77,616 since she did not report income from her business in 2022.

And with the unreported “$800 per month” gift from her parents, which is in all actuality money from running her business, we must add $9,600 based on the recording submitted at that point in time where she said that she received $800 per month when asked about her ATM transactions.

She continues to make other false alligations. She says:

“My Husband has access to all of our past tax returns and refuses to provide me access to same. “

Besides the fact that she had access to all documents in the boxes in our basement. Here is an email to her on April 2nd 2024 with all tax documents. I received the aformementioned OTSC on September 19th, 2024.

Continuing with the false alligations they say:

Copies of the Defendant’s Statement of Net Worth, a screenshot of “SeeThroughNY”, and the only 2022 tax documentation provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are attached hereto, and made a part hereof, respectively, as Exhibit “A”, Exhibit “B”, and Exhibit “C”.

On May 10th 2024 I provided clear documentation along with all check stubs, banking statements with direct deposits, and every requested document, thousands of copies of all accounts, totaling over $464.00 that was delivered to her attorneys.

She also states in the OTSC:

“My Husband has always been the sole income earner of the family. He Husband has always controlled the marital purse strings and will often withhold funds from me as a form of punishment and control.”

Which is a complete fabrication and lie. We know this from the Financial Statement Analysis, years of checks written to me contributing to our household expenses, and endless cash deposits of cash given to me as contribution to our household expenses. And, through the trending seen in the financial analysis, we can see that from 2019 to 2024, it is not me contributing less, but her contributing less toward our household expenses. These statements are being made to make it appear to the court, that she deserves more in alimony payments. And in the very next statement she says:

“I have held various side jobs during our marriage”

Semantics or not the two statements, “My husband has always been the sole income earner” and “I have held various side jobs” cannot both be true. And is not true. 2012-2025 she ran an export business. 2022-2023 she worked at Amazon. 2024 she delivered food for Grub hub for 1 month. 2025 she worked at New York State Departement of Taxation and Finance.

She continues to say:

“In 2019 I started a small business with my brother”

While it is true that she has always worked with her brother since he’s in China and she is here, it is not true that the business started in 2019. As we can see from the start of her business 1 and account histories, it is true that she registered here business in 2019 in Albany. 2 But it is not true that is when she started her business.

She goes on to say:

“However, during COVID, the business began to fail, and at my Husband’s urgence and advice, I ended my ties with the business in December 2021.”

I did advise her to register the business because she was operating illegally. And it is true that I did advise her to close the business and get a job, because I could see that she was still not operating legally. However, it is not true that I advised her to close the business because it was failing, and it is not true that she ended her ties with the business in December 2021. As we can see in the Financial Statement Analysis, the Call Log Analysis, her recorded statements, her emails, and her 7-22-2024-Website capture with annual sales of over 30,000 products and the evidence showing that the 7/22/2024 website is the same website as the 2020 website we can assume that this statement is also fabricated.

She goes on to say:

I began to work at an Amazon warehouse in January 2022. Unfortunately, the objects in the warehouse were too heavy for me to lift and triggered my urinary incontinence. As a result, I switched to working part-time with Amazon.

However her explanation is misleading. She changed from a day shift to a 7 to 11 shift so that she could continue making sales online at night. If she was home by 11:30 she could start working on Chinese sales at (China Noon) since there was a 11 or 12 hour difference depending on daylight savings time. If she worked early in the morning she would not be able to cover her sales schedule because she would have had to go to sleep in order to wake up in the morning.

In # 8 Xia explains her job situation.

“Due to my limited English, I have struggled to find substantial and longstanding employment. I have attended several interviews, only to be turned down due to my language limitations. Fortunately, I was just recently able to secure a temporary position with the New York State Taxation and Finance, but only earn $17.75 per hour for approximately thirty-seven (37) hours per week. I anticipate an annual income for 2024 of approximately $19,500.00.

One may argue that her failure to pass an interview was based on her English level. However, Xia has taken college level courses in English, has had over 15 years of formal English training, has lived in an English speaking country since 2010, and has a son who only speaks English.

As far as her job is concerned. She runs a successful export business. Before she filed for divorce she had a “substantial and longstanding employment” with Amazon. She worked there for two years but when we finalized our plans for divorce she voluntarily quit her job seeking alimony. She was most likely informed that she couldn’t do that in the eyes of the court, so she started working part-time as a driver. A position that requires no experience. She then moved on to state jobs, often citing jobs that she was not qualified for. And finally she applied at the Tax Department where I work. And was given a chance in the form of a temporary job. Very often a stepping stone to Civil Service exams, permanent positions, and a career in Tax and other departments. She has probably not yet taken a civil service exam, even though there are have been countless exams announced since the time she started working for the tax department.

Her Calculation citing around 37 hours in in fact a full time job at the Tax Department. 37.5 hours to be exact. And making 17.75 per hour for 37.5 hours a week for 52 weeks is $34,612.50 not, $19,500. For her calculations above for my income she included her salary and used my gross income. For her calculations for her own salary it appears that she down played the hours, and called it a part-time job. It is a full-time job. Her current position.

“My Husband and I presently reside together at the marital residence, located at 34 Stony Brooke Drive, Selkirk, New York 12158.”

I moved out at her request in early February 2024. In September, 2024 I had not lived there for nearly 8 months.

“However, my Husband has refused to pay the mortgage on the residence, which he historically paid during the marriage, since around April 2024, and we are now receiving foreclosure notices. I am fearful that my Husband is willfully risking foreclosure as a way to further control me and force me into an unfair settlement of this divorce action.“

She lived there for free and as much as I tried to keep up with her Electricity and Gas, Internet, Phone Bill, Car Insurance, Health Insurance, Dental Insurance, and maintenance on the house, I could no longer keep up. Prior to our divorce Xia contributed to our household expenses. For the year of 2024, she did not. To characterize this as me “willfully risking foreclosure” as a way to control or in her words, “further control” her is the furthest from the truth that is could possibly be. I begged and pleaded with her to help out, and I told her I could not keep up, and she told me her lawyer told her not to contribute toward household expenses.

She continues to explain why she needs this temporary maintenance.

As a result of his untoward behavior, and refusal to pay the mortgage, I would like to move out of the home, to escape his verbal/emotional abuse and strife, and list the house for sale to preserve the asset. For this to happen, I would need funds to survive. My current income is not enough to live on, and I would need continued financial assistance from my Husband to live.

Here I will just let her financial transactions, and financial analysis, the state of her business selling 30,000 items a year, and ability to have cash available to her at any time, and her citation of receiving $800 per month speak for itself. She had money. She has money. She is making sales. She is hiding it behind the guise of a temporary job while mischaracterizing my actions.

Here are the erroneous calculations they used:

Here she says she believes that I will “strong-arm” her into an unreasonable settlement while I am the only party who has suggested a reasonable settlement divided equally between both parties. Even after learning about her financial affairs.

“My Attorney also informs me that Domestic Relations Law§ 237 may require my Husband to contribute toward my counsel fees. I do not have the funds to afford litigation and my Husband knows this, which leads me to believe he will stretch this matter out and strongarm me into unreasonable settlement.”

And here she asks me for money that she borrowed from Max for his school which caused me to pay his school bills when he already had the money for his school bills.

“I respectfully request that my Husband pay my interim counsel fees in the amount of $7,500.00 to account for the initial retainer that I paid to my Attorney to prosecute this matter. A copy of my initial retainer is attached hereto, and made a part hereof, as Exhibit “E”.“

This is my notarized response:

notarizedresponseDownload

And the outcome from the court was, they set a hearing date so a judge could decide.

May – Letter from J. Platkin 10-22-24Download

Along with my response was a September 12th recording of her words concerning some of financial activities. This is a transcript of that audio file.

Audio_Transcript_Business_ExplanationDownload

November 1st 2024 we received his decision on the temporary alimony.

901524_24_Xiangxia_Chen_v_Daniel_May_DECISION___ORDER_ON_39Download

With limited evidence submitted, and a short hearing, and a fast decision a portion of the available evidence was weighed. I would have to pay $1,170 per month temporary maintenance, not $2,147. And I would not be responsible for her attorney fees. I feel this is a safe decision under the circumstances with limited evidence and time at a pre-trial phase, however, do not feel ultimately, that this maintenance level is warranted, and know empirically that it’s not sustainable on my part given my other financial obligations to Maximillian.

Xia’s Business – In Her Own Words

This is taken in order order from multiple sources, emails, texts, and recordings in context of the timeline of our divorce, concerning her business and how she presents her business. To recap the beginning of her business from 2014 please see the section “Start of Business“. All quotations following are Xia’s words.

October 31, 2022 Email: “Dan we are going to divorce next year.”

January 28th 2023 Email “Because I believed you then just gave it to you but I never know where’s the money go”

This is in reference to the 2019 $35,000 lump sum payment to help us catch up on our bills and to lower our monthly mortgage payment. Please see Financial Statement Analysis.

January 28, 2023 Email “Dan can you give me the thirsty thousands dollars receipts for me please that’s I gave you to pay for the house few years ago”

January 28, 2023 Email “I just feel bad for that because It is difficult to make money now”

Please note that up until now she had $35,000 available, she contributed it to our household expenses, and now that she has decided that we will divorce, she is taking account of the money to later claim that I somehow tricked her out of this money. Please also note that she is saying “difficult to make money” because she will also claim later to have no involvement in this business, and earn nothing from it, and also claim that the entire business is her brothers. Even though she started it, funded it, developed it, and made sales online for the business. Please see Financial Statement Analysis which shows from her accounts and mine, that since 2019, the periods measured by this case, I have paid 75% of all household expenses while she paid 25%. From 2014 to 2019 there was a gradual increase from 0% to half in 2019, then a drop in percentage up until now.

March 27th 2023 Email “Dan can you don’t keep saying the Taobao money that for long time ago. I don’t like you using that money to threaten me, and you already used it, When you say that it’s hurting me. The divorce is none of those business anymore it already gone, the divorce is only about 3 years taxes return, bank savings ,house , retirement savings…what ever.”

I was not mentioning the money to threaten her. I was mentioning the money she earned from her business because somehow before the decision was made to get a divorce she had a thriving business, and after the decision was made, she had a failing business, and then no business at all according to her statements. Here she also tries to assert that none of her business income will be taken into account because since she decided to get a divorce the year before, she has made financial maneuvers to make business transactions less transparent such as using foreign credit cards and debit cards and other potential means.

January 6th 2024 Text “In 2021, I faced less income from the selling stuff to China. closed the company”

Here she states that in 2021 she made sales to China. “Selling stuff to China”. And then closed her company. If this were true, there would be no financial transactions after 2021. Please see Financial Statement Analysis which clearly shows financial transactions after 2021. Also, if her business activity ceased we can assume there would be no phone calls to shipping companies, or suppliers. Please see Call Log that shows 747 phone calls to Shipping Companies between 2019 and 2024. We cannot rely on her Albany County DBA Registration dates as an accurate estimate of when she opened the business (See Business Start) and when she closed the business. (See Discontinuance of DBA)

April 3rd 2024 Email “i borrowed money from my parents to do business, i have to pay them back!”

This is the first account of her explaining the financial transactions in her accounts as “borrowing money”. This statement implies that all the money she received and spent, whether on business expenses or personal expenses would need to be paid back. I assume attempting to set up some claim toward our assets in the future. Please see Business Start section and Financial Statement Analysis.

April 3rd 2024 Email “you forced me to learn to drive and even made me register a company. The company didn’t make any money, and you made me work at the Amazon factory. I have urinary incontinence and can’t lift heavy objects. During the period from 2017 to 2024, you kept spending recklessly so you could accumulate more debt to no pay for my alimony”

I didn’t force her, as in I made her drive. I was increasingly less willing to drive her to the store to purchase things to sell to China because I wanted her to do it legally. This is why I suggested a job, and how she decided on her own, to get a drivers license. In this context however, I’m interested in the statement, “The company didn’t make any money.” Please see Financial Statement Analysis for an account of all the money her business made. And, this again, mid-2024, as her story evolves, is her attempting to say she didn’t make as much money as I was claiming to her that it did make before I was able to analyze her financial statements. And the second part of this, as far as me spending recklessly. It’s hard to spend recklessly when your spouse, who has agreed to pay half of our bills, is only paying 25% of our bills, the real cause of our debt. Which, in comparison, is relatively low compared to how much money we made during these years.

September 5th 2024 “go ahead! stupid, see how much i made, see if i have a business! see if i lied about it!“

Please see Financial Statement Analysis , her Current Employment, Adjusted Household Contributions, Refinance, Bill Adjustment, Jeep Wrangler, Receipts, Evasive Money Patterns, Annual Sales Estimates and Total Spending for years 2019 to 2023. With the information given, she made between $228,575.57 (actual spending accounting for all business expenses) and $4.4 Million dollars (Estimated Sales). If her tax return logic is true, then she made $484,000 between 2019 and 2023 or $96,000 per year.

September 5th 2024 Email “ i already told them all of true, i did not made any money since the covid! and close the business as you gave me the advice.”

If we consider Covid to be the end of 2019 and 2020, then she made $96.000 that year.

September 5th 2024 Email “anyway after 2019 -2021 business close”

Since her business transactions are before, and after her Albany County registration dates, we cannot assume her own account of when the business “closed” means she stopped doing business. See Albany County DBA Registration and Discontinuance of DBA, and also definition of doing business in NYS 20-CRR-NY-16-2.7.

September 5th 2024 Email “wow, order the stupid AZO that my brother selling”

Here she indirectly agrees that she is still ordering products to sell in China. Products found in the original business concept (Business Start) and products sold today.

September 5th 2024 Email “i had money go out of the ATM from my mom’s account that my dad gave it to me and i gave it to you!”

Here she claims that (all) ATM transactions are money given to her by her parents. She makes a similar claim in the recording from September 12th stating that she receives $800 per month form her parents. And we can see from the Financial Statement Analysis that most payments she received expressed in the category “ATM Cash Deposits” did not come to me. And at the same time there is nothing that can make us assume that all ATM Cash Withdrawn was deposited into any account.

September 6th 2024 Email “I know how much I make after I close the business and I did trying to make up the tax but not enough money to report to the tax!”

Here she states that 1st she closed the business and second, that she made money after closing the business. She also states that she was going to, she had the intention of correcting our taxes, but since the amount she made was lower than some imaginary threshold, she didn’t report it. We were both employed and had already met the minimum threshold for reporting.

October 11 2024 Email “I asked the EA he said I don’t need to report what I spent! That’s not a business!”

October 11th, 2024, based on some description given to someone, she now states that everything she has done from 2014 to 2024 was “not a business”.

November 10th 2024 Email “I don’t do anything business anymore you know I am dumb and I don’t like to lie!

I don’t believe she’s dumb. I believe when it comes to money, and business, and money management that she is very creative in the way she conducts herself. I also believe she doesn’t like to lie. But I believe these two values, the need to hoard and retain money, and the need to not lie are competing in these accounts.

November 20th 2024 Email “I don’t have any income I don’t do business anymore!”

I believe this is what all of these statements, and her hidden business, and her hidden income, and her shift in how she conducts business is all to attempt to reinforce this statement and statements like these.

November 20th 2024 Email “That Tuobao  store is my brother’s running I don’t get any money from him anymore since 2022! “

First, I’d like to point out that her counterpart business, the business in China is not registered to her brother. It’s registered to her mom. Her mom who’s card she claims to be using at the ATM machines. And while she claims her brother is running it alone now, it’s American products being sold. The same American products we have from 2014, and 2019 when she openly ran the business, using the same shipping companies she has always used. See Receipts, Business Start, Adjusted Household Contributions, Evasive Money Patterns, and Call Log.

November 20th 2024 Email “if you don’t believe it we will spend all of the money for the lawyer from the house! And at the end you still need to pay for my alimony!”

And this statement, like the one made earlier on November 20th, is the second reason for all of her behavior.

November 23rd 2024 Email “Open your eyes see am I doing a business or not! “

Please see Call Log, Financial Statement Analysis , her Current Employment, Adjusted Household Contributions, Refinance, Bill Adjustment, Jeep Wrangler, Receipts, Evasive Money Patterns, Annual Sales Estimates and Total Spending for years 2019 to 2023.

November 23rd 2024 Email “I don’t do business anymore and I don’t have that income you can not make it up! “

She is correct. I would never attempt to make it up. I have used financial documents provided to the court, phone records, her emails, her online information, and other supporting evidence.

November 25th 2024 Email “That money my brother transferred to my business account was not an income! It was a joint fund money to Oder products!”

Please see Financial Statement Analysis, Adjusted Household Contributions, Total Spending, and Annual Sales Estimates . Please also see Evasive Money Patterns to see where the money is coming from.

November 25th 2024 Email “They can see my  income! They can see how much I spend on the ordered from before! they can see the money came from my brother to my business account and my personal account before! Non of my money! After ordered  product! What ever left in my account was my income! “

November 28th 2024 Email “I did not have a business in china! “

This is her attempts to use semantics. She is correct. She had a business in the United States. And that business sold products to China with her counterpart family members who have a business in China. This is common due to Chinese business law.

November 28th 2024 Email “I did not have any opening business account or any money went to my Chinese bank account in china ! All fucking things was mistake I should amend the tax! I did not need to pay taxes or you should not get the refund ! Only thing I need to report it to the IRS ! Let them know that it was not my money and not an income! “

This is in an email of her saying that she now changes her whole stance on her business and that since this version of her story says that she “just bought things and sent them to China” for someone else and benefited in no way, then she didn’t need to register the business in the first place or file taxes. There is plenty of evidence in her personal spending to show that she did make money from the business so this story wouldn’t really hold up. And somehow, she believes that earned money in a business without prepayments towards income tax, is going to result in a higher refund.

November 28th 2024 Email “I only bought products from here! And never sale anything here too! Only thing I have business account here to buy products! That money was from my brother and sent to my business account or personal account to buy stuff then shipped to china!”

Please see Bori Cap email where she is trying to create an agreement to sell their products to China. Also, please see comment on January 6th where she says “I faced less income from the selling stuff to China“. Also please see the PC Photo above of her screen on the selling platform. And later when she refers to this as “Customer Service”.

December 6th 2024 Email “That money not mine it was sent from china from my brother to order stuff! How much it sent in and how many stuff was ordered and shipped to china! Thank you for you get all of the informations! That is I need do to! I need to show the judge how much the money came in and how much it spent on the order and shipped out to china! Prove it I was not selling stuff in USA and the money it’s not mine! And it wasn’t came from my account! Yes how much we had it before all gone by you spend it! I do not want to lie about this either! Before money all went to your pockets you can tell the IRS if you want! I don’t have business anymore! It doesn’t matter! Since 2022 -2023 how  much money I spent on order I am not going to lie about it! but it fail No more business!”

We can see from Financial Statement Analysis that “how much it sent in and how many stuff was ordered and shipped to China” is incorrect. See also Adjusted Household Contributions, Total Spending. And it’s interesting that she focused on 2022 and 2023 in her response, after she had already changed over from an ACH transaction system to a ATM Cash transaction system, and started using Chinese credit cards and debit cards directly.

December 6th 2024 Email “Don’t forget I used my personal account to order stuff too! It all came from my brother for order stuff, not an income! You have to use came in money to minus the cost of goods sales  how much left it will be income!  That Chinese store Special it wasn’t mine ! I couldn’t control it! What ever my brother make it was not mine business and he is not sending money for me to order stuff anymore and what ever he use the same shipping company is not my business anymore! He doesn’t gave me any penny anymore ! You can ask him you want! I have my job I tried hard to work on it even I got I little money! If you keep saying I do business I can prove my income! “

Please see Financial Statement Analysis , her Current Employment, Adjusted Household Contributions, Refinance, Bill Adjustment, Jeep Wrangler, Receipts, Evasive Money Patterns, Annual Sales Estimates and Total Spending for years 2019 to 2023. With the information given, she made between $228,575.57 (actual spending accounting for all business expenses) and $4.4 Million dollars (Estimated Sales). If her tax return logic is true, then she made $484,000 between 2019 and 2023 or $96,000 per year.

December 6th 2024 Email “I am happy you looking for the shipping company! I did say I did not do business before i did! How much come in and how much I ordered stuff I have it! “

While her USPS and other shipping company accounts have not been made available, please see Please see Financial Statement Analysis , her Current Employment, Adjusted Household Contributions, Refinance, Bill Adjustment, Jeep Wrangler, Receipts, Evasive Money Patterns, Annual Sales Estimates and Total Spending for years 2019 to 2023. With the information given, she made between $228,575.57 (actual spending accounting for all business expenses) and $4.4 Million dollars (Estimated Sales). If her tax return logic is true, then she made $484,000 between 2019 and 2023 or $96,000 per year.

December 6th 2024 Email “I mean I did business before! I never said I didn’t! I did! “

Please see above statements where she said she didn’t do business.

December 7th 2024 Email “You have not right to check my brother’s account! You are a thief! How many stuffs he sold it’s not my business it was not my store and I even did not have an access to go to his account and he never let me went in there! I only thing to do was did the customer! And ordered and shipped! I don’t need to lied about it!”

Please see Video 1, PC Photo, and Header 1.

December 7th 2024 Email “What ever you said about my brother’s online store that wasn’t mine! You have no right to touch his stuff to make it to mine. Me either! And I don’t do business anymore you can’t just force me to accept it!”

I am not sure what she is referring to here, but take note that she says this store is not hers, and that she had no access. Please see Video 1, PC Photo, and Header 1.

December 9th 2024 Email “I don’t have money and you keep saying I have business and making money now! And you know that is my fucking brother’s online store! And you accessed to his store! And he even never allowed me to access it before except for customer service and you know that and I fought with him before many many times! And he sold stuffs from someone else too! I had no right to his store ! I don’t care! What ever you saying to me! “

She says this in lieu of Video 1, PC Photo, and Header 1.

December 18th 2024 Email “The little shit business made nothing! I didn’t own any business in china! proved it, only thing i bought stuff from USA, and sent it to China to my brother. My brother sent his money to me to buy it! and we borrow them a lot of money too! we have to pay them back! they told me!”

She asserts that she did indeed purchase products in the United States, and send it to China to sell. This is the second mention after October of the same year that this is somehow borrowed money. I suppose she is trying say that all the money she used to purchase products was her brothers, and all the money she spent for personal expenses was borrowed. This seems like a ploy so that she can claim a higher percentage of our assets during this divorce.

December 18th 2024 Email Me: I also have pictures of you using the sales chat. With dates on it. Xia: That is not a lie! That is customer service! off course i have to be a customer service in the chat! just as the same every one! you so stupid, you can hire customer service! Nothing wrong to say for  customer service! i am not the owner! it’s not me! its my brother! he is the owner! i not hire anybody! i know you just wants me to say it! and use the email to proved to the court! too bad, i am not the owner! i was help! 

Earlier when she said she didn’t make sales, she now claims as “customer service”. See PC Photo, Bori Cap email, and November 28th Comment. She also uses the word “hire” making it sound like it’s a paid service, that according to her December 18th comment above she borrowed money to do.

Threatening My Job

These statements were in my emails from Xia talking about distributing the images and texts she found on my computer in October 1st 2021. I have already opening admited wrongdoing in this matter. That does not justify defemation at work, in the community, or any where else. These matters will not be tolerated at work and her current position is not union protected. I have not openly reported this behavior hoping that it’s just words.

September 8th 2024 Email “I have so much to let the tax department know! What you did to me!”

September 25th 2024 Email “I still has your guys pictures and texts! Should I post it on the tax department email? See is truth? “

October 11 2024 Email “When I gone before that picture should be all over the tax department from email. Sorry I have to!”

October 11 2024 Email “I will send the picture to your tax department before I gone”

December 18 2024 Email “you and your boss love words and pictures should be on the public soon”

Recording Offer to Settle for House

In this recording, Xia is offering to sell the house, pay off the debt, and receive $100,000 for her alimony and offering to make me pay nothing else for alimony. She wants me to take all the debt that we have, and also, give her $100,000 for alimony without any expectation for payments after that. This recording was taken on 9/24/2024. Fast forward to 2/17/2025, she has asked me for more than $2,000 a month, and refuses to release any of the $218,000 that we have in escrow with her attorney because she wants to keep all of it, force me to keep all the debt, while she contributed to less than 25% of our household expenses, causing the debt.

2.Xia.Trying.gethouseDownload

Impersonating Me to Gain Access to My Bank

Around 9/25/2024 I received a voice mail from Rocket Mortgage stating that Xia was calling in, impersonating me, and trying to gain access to my account.

And along with that there are other things. Times when she’s asked for my ID, my birth city, etc. She had my social security card in her jewelry box for years.

Gift or Income?


In New York State Tax Law, a gift is a voluntary transfer of property without compensation, as per federal regulations under the Internal Revenue Code § 2501 and § 2511, while income encompasses earnings like wages and business profits, detailed in NY Tax Law § 601 and § 612. Auditors determine the nature of a transaction by examining multiple factors, including the intent of the donor, the existence of consideration (e.g., value exchanged), documentation supporting the transfer’s purpose, the relationship between parties involved, the frequency and pattern of transactions, the nature of the payment, and how the transaction is reported in tax filings as per NY Tax Law § 681. These criteria help establish whether a transfer qualifies as a gift and is not subject to income tax, or as income and therefore taxable.

In the context of New York State Tax Law, income is generally considered to be any monetary compensation or benefit received that is derived from the provision of services, business activities, or other income-generating sources. This includes, but is not limited to, wages, salaries, tips, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and profits from business operations. Specifically, as outlined in NY Tax Law § 601 and § 612, income encompasses compensation for services rendered as well as other forms of earnings that are not associated with a gift’s voluntary transfer nature. Transactions characterized by an exchange of value—where consideration is involved—are classified as income rather than gifts, as gifts are defined by their gratuitous nature and lack of reciprocal exchange. Additionally, regular payments for services or payments indicative of a contractual agreement further affirm that such transactions are treated as income, subject to taxation. Key indicators include the intent behind the transaction, the relationship between parties, and the manner of reporting on tax filings, all of which help differentiate taxable income from non-taxable gifts.

One notable case is N.Y. State Tax Commission v. Heller, where the court held that regular transfers of money from a parent to a child, which were intended to support the child’s living expenses, were considered income rather than gifts due to the ongoing nature of the transactions and evidence of intent to compensate for services.

In Matter of Tenzer v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, the court analyzed whether certain payments that were characterized as gifts were actually income from services rendered, ultimately determining that the payments resulted from the taxpayer’s actions and therefore constituted taxable income rather than non-taxable gifts.

These cases highlight the importance of intent, the nature of the transactions, and the context in which payments were made when determining whether a transaction is classified as a gift or income. Courts generally consider all relevant factors, including regularity, expectation of return, and the relationship between the parties, to arrive at a decision.

These cases highlight the importance of intent, the nature of the transactions, and the context in which payments were made when determining whether a transaction is classified as a gift or income. Courts generally consider all relevant factors, including regularity, expectation of return, and the relationship between the parties, to arrive at a decision.

Criteria for Determining Income vs. Gift in New York State:

  1. Intent of the Giver:
    • For something to be considered a gift, there must be an intention on the part of the giver to provide the item or money without expecting anything in return. If the giver intends to receive something in exchange, it may be classified as income.
      • Xia purchases products online. She sends the products to China either directly or indirectly through freight forwarders. Her, and her family members sell those products online through applications such as We Chat, Taobao, and other means of communication. Some money is kept there, and some money is sent back to the United States to repurchase inventory.
      • Without having all of the ATM and Chinese bank account records, we can estimate that she received $404,567 via wire transfers, checks (not wages), and cash deposits. She also spent another $33,612 using cash that was never deposited into her accounts which means this cash was also received and was most likely received through a debit card ATM transaction or Western Union. I do not know what I do not know and assume there to be more, even though I have no proof of such an assumption.
      • Of the $438,179 total known received, she spent $135,958 on products and shipping to be sent back to China to continue making sales, the rest was spent on purchases and contributions that are personal in nature.
      • If the intent of this money was, as she says, only to help her family obtain products, then there would be a 1 for 1 exchange with nonthing remaining.
      • I suggest the intent to be two-fold. To purchase goods to be resold, and distribution of profit, which would imply income.
      • See Financial Statement Analysis, Year to Year Analysis
  2. Nature of the Transaction:
    • Income usually stems from a contractual relationship or a service provided. This can include wages from employment, interest from investments, or rental payments. Gifts, on the other hand, are transfers of wealth that do not involve these expectations.
      • See above where the final conclusion suggests the nature of the transaction. Commercial transactions between family members that are profit and reinvenstment.
  3. Documentation:
    • Gifts often come with less formal documentation compared to income. For instance, a gift may be accompanied by a note or informal communication stating it is a gift, while income-generating activities tend to have contracts, pay stubs, and tax forms.
      • Commercial transactions between family members need not be formal in nature, have contracts, or any other form of documentation, especially in examples like this where the intention of the user is to avoid banking regulations, tax regulations, and documentable income. See evasive-money-patterns, total-spending, annual-sales, and year-to-year analysis
  4. Frequency and Regularity:
    • Regular payments received from a person can be seen as income (such as monthly support payments), while a one-time transfer of funds is more likely to be perceived as a gift.
      • See evasive-money-patterns which shows a consistent bi-weekly pattern.
      • See Despoit Patterns, which show various consistent deposits made to her accounts which are not wage sourced. ACH Payments, Cash deposits from cash withdrawn from Chinese ATMs, transfers, and checks.
  5. Tax Implications:
    • Gifts are generally not subject to income tax for the recipient, while income is. The IRS allows annual exclusions for gifts; amounts above this exclusion may have tax implications for the giver, but the recipient does not report gifts as income.
  6. Purpose of the Transfer:
    • If funds or items are given to support basic needs (such as housing or education) without expectation of repayment or services, they are more likely classified as gifts.
      • Purpose of the funds were obviosly commercial in nature.
  7. Determining whether a transfer of money or property is income or a gift hinges on the context, intent, and specific characteristics of the transaction.

See Duberstein-v.-Commissioner, Talcott-v.-Commissioner-of-Taxation, Matter-of-Kauffman-v.-New-York-State-Tax-Appeals-Tribunal, Bring-v.-New-York-State-Tax-Appeals-Tribunal, Baker-v.-New-York-State-Tax-Appeals-Tribunal, Erdmann-v.-Commissioner-of-Taxation-and-Finance, Goldschmidt-v.-New-York-State-Tax-Appeals-Tribunal, Matter-of-Grinnell-v.-New-York-State-Tax-Appeals-Tribunal, Matter-of-Grunewald, Wolff-v.-New-York-State-Tax-Appeals-Tribunal, Matter-of-Lutz,-Tax-Appeals-Tribunal

2024 Taxes

Regarding 2024 Taxes. Xia automatically assumed she would claim Max as a dependent and filed separately. I have no issue with that. However, Xia has yet again made false statements to me, to Max, and on her Federal and State Tax Returns. Xia stated to me that she was going to claim 50% of the payments made toward Max’s room and board. In 2024 we paid $7,247.72. I paid $4,758.50 in 2024 and Xia paid $2,489.22. I’m noting it here as one more example where Xia complains about her responsibilities, accuses me of not keeping up my end of the arrangment, and then turns around and upon closer inspection, we find that she has shorted the bill. This theme, has happend time and time again and continues to happen. 3/10/2025. Xia also claimed 50% of the sales of the house, which she did not contribute 50% to, and doesn’t agree that the proceeds should be divided 50%.

Original Demands

From the beginning I have offered to Xia that we split everything equally, and agreed to the divorce. Xia, on the other hand, since the beginning, has taken every attempt to try to gain as much as she possibly can regardless of how unequal it turns out. In her original divorce filing that was delivered to me on 2/7/2024

  1. Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
    • Divorcing the parties and dissolving the marital relationship which has heretofore existed;
    • Awarding Plaintiff (Xia) child support, including, but not limited to, a periodic payment, and where appropriate, a child care allowance, health care allowance, and allowance for private and/or college educational expenses.
    • Directing Defendant to obtain medical and dental insurance coverage for the benefit of the emancipated child of the marraige.
    • Granting Plaintiff, a person not in receipt of aid to a dependent child, child support enforcement services, upon submission of a formal request for same in the manner specicied in Section 111-g of the Social Services Law.
    • Awarding Plaintiff exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence.
    • Awarding Plaintiff exclusive use and occupancy of the contents of the marital residence.
    • Awarding Plaintiff equitable distribution of marital property, including a distributive award to Plaintiff if required or appropriate to effect such distribution.
    • Declaring Plaintiff’s separate property.
    • Awarding Plaintiff Maintenance.
    • Directing Defendent (Me) to maintain medical and dental insurance coverage for the benefit of the Plaintiff.
    • Directly Defendent to pay any and all uninsured medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff.
    • Directing Defendent to maintain life insurance coverage on Defendent’s life with Plaintiff to be designated as irrevocable beneficiary.
    • Awarding Plaintiff counsel fees, expert fees, and other litigation expenses.
    • Granting each party the right to resume the use of any maident name or other premarriage surname.
    • Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper, together with costs and disbursements of this action.

See Factor 1 for where this went from here.

Sanctions and Discipline for Frivolous Conduct in Matrimonial Actions

By Joel R. Brandes

Frivolous conduct is defined as, among other things, conduct completely without merit in law or fact and which cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. (22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c) (1).)

Attorneys should be are aware of the fact that Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”) covers the same ground as 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c) and is applicable to proceedings in all court. It provides, in part: (a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous. …(b) A lawyer’s conduct is “frivolous” for purposes of this Rule if: (1) the lawyer knowingly advances a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; (2) the conduct has no reasonable purpose other than to delay or prolong the resolution of litigation, in violation of Rule 3.2, or serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) the lawyer knowingly asserts material factual statements that are false.

Attorneys have been disciplined for engaging in frivolous conduct. In Matter of Gurvey, (102 AD3d 197 (1st Dept 2012)) a lawyer was suspended for six months for, among other things, frivolous litigation. In Matter of Rosenberg, (97 AD3d 189 (1st Dept 2012)) a lawyer was suspended for one year for the pursuit of fraudulent and meritless litigation.

Conduct is also frivolous if it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another. 12 In Borstein v. Henneberry, (132 A.D.3d 447, 17 N.Y.S.3d 414 (1st Dep’t 2015) the Plaintiff husband, an experienced matrimonial lawyer, who represented himself in the divorce proceeding was sanctioned twice during that action. In his post-trial memoranda, he claimed that he loaned the wife “$27,000 during the years after the filing for divorce” to allow her to finance a business venture. The decision did not specifically address the $27,000 loan, but stated that “[a]ny arguments raised by the parties which have not been expressly addressed in this decision are rejected.” The husband then commenced an action against the wife seeking the same $27,000. The wife’s counsel sent the husband a letter asking him to discontinue the action voluntarily because the divorce action had determined the issue of the loan. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the loan was “fully and actively litigated by [the husband]” in the divorce action. The wife’s subsequent motion for sanctions based was denied. The Appellate Division reversed and imposed sanctions. It found that res judicata barred the subsequent plenary action for repayment of the loan. The Appellate Division observed that the husband, an experienced divorce lawyer, ignored a long-standing principle of matrimonial jurisprudence. Thus, his decision to commence an action that he knew, or should have known, was futile from its inception, weighed heavily in favor of a finding that his conduct was intended solely to harass the wife. Aside from the blatant lack of merit to the complaint, other factors justifying sanctions and attorneys’ fees were present. First, the wife expressly informed the husband that she considered the action barred by res judicata and urged him to discontinue it, but he pressed on, forcing her to expend unnecessary resources. And, this was not the first instance in which the husband had taken a position that was not legally tenable. Coupled with the earlier incidents, the commencement of this action exhibited a “broad pattern … of delay, harassment and obfuscation” that warranted the imposition of sanctions.

Conduct is frivolous if it asserts material factual statements that are false. (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c] [3]). Sanctions have granted for frivolous conduct based on a party’s’ false testimony at trial as to a material issue. (Sanders v. Copley, 194 A.D.2d 85, 605 N.Y.S.2d 281 (1st Dep’t 1993).

In Capetola v. Capetola, (96 A.D.3d 612, 947 N.Y.S.2d 94 (1st Dep’t 2012)) the Appellate Division affirmed an order which, imposed sanctions upon the defendant and his lawyer in the amount of $10,000 each. Defendant, a lawyer involved in his divorce proceedings, submitted an affidavit to the court that was intentionally misleading in that he stated that he opposed renting out an apartment that was a disputed marital asset because he needed to use it at times for work purposes. He failed to disclose that, at that time, he was renting the apartment to the daughter of his lawyer for an amount that was substantially below market rate. This deliberately misleading representation concerning marital assets was properly found to be sanctionable, as it related to material facts on a pending motion.

Frivolous conduct includes the making of a frivolous motion for costs or sanctions. (22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c)). In Tercjak v. Tercjak, (49 A.D.3d 773, 854 N.Y.S.2d 454 (2d Dep’t 2008) the Appellate Division held that it was proper to impose costs upon counsel for the mother, for making frivolous motions to impose sanctions and costs upon the Law Guardian and the father’s counsel. In support of the motions, the attorney submitted, inter alia, affidavits from a doctor that were rife with unfounded, gratuitously offensive, and utterly unacceptable attacks upon counsel for the father, the Law Guardian, and the Family Court. The record supported the determination that the motions were completely without merit in law or fact, and were made primarily to harass or maliciously injure another.

The Appellate Divisions have imposed sanctions upon attorneys and their clients for pursuing frivolous appeals. 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). Like the Supreme Court rules, 22 NYCRR §1250.1(h) of the practice rules of the appellate division provide, inter alia, for the imposition of sanctions and costs upon motion or upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard. (22 NYCRR §1250.1(h) effective September 17, 2018.)

In McMurray v. McMurray, (163 A.D.2d 280, 557 N.Y.S.2d 149 (2d Dep’t 1990)) counsel was sanctioned by the Appellate Division for pursuing “patently frivolous” appeals in an action by a wife to obtain equitable ownership of the marital residence, which had been awarded to her former husband in their prior divorce action. In imposing sanctions, the court characterized counsel’s conduct as “inexcusable” since, as evidenced by his appellate brief, the plaintiff’s position ran counter to all established precedent.
Sanctions have also been imposed by the Appellate Division for failure to promptly notify it that the primary issues raised on the appeal had been settled (Trank v. Trank, 212 A.D.2d 777, 622 N.Y.S.2d 971 (2d Dep’t 1995) or rendered academic. (Leggio v. Leggio 183 A.D.2d 815, 584 N.Y.S.2d 68 (2d Dep’t 1992) In Belsky v. Belsky, (172 A.D.2d 576, 568 N.Y.S.2d 627 (2d Dep’t 1991)) an attorney was sanctioned for perfecting a custody appeal which was moot at the time it was filed because the child had attained the age of 18 years.

What happens when you lie to the court?

  1. Reduction of equitable distribution
  2. Reduction of spousal support
  3. Loss of custody
  4. Pay legal fees
  5. Pay back earlier awarded money
  6. Pay penalties and fines
  1. Harris v. Harris
    • In the Harris case, one spouse was found to have deliberately misrepresented financial information regarding income and assets during the divorce proceedings. The court uncovered the discrepancies through forensic accounting. As a result, the spouse who lied faced sanctions, including a reduction in their claim for equitable distribution of marital assets. The court determined that dishonesty would not be rewarded, which significantly impacted the final rulings on asset division and spousal support.
  2. Koutsourelis v. Koutsourelis
    • In the DeLeon case, one party attempted to minimize their reported income to avoid paying higher spousal support. The court later found that the party had concealed substantial income from investments and business activities. As a result, the court ruled against them, ordering them to pay back support and imposing penalties for their attempts to mislead the court.
  3. DeLeon v. DeLeon
    • In this case, the wife made false claims regarding alleged abuse and presented fabricated evidence to support her claims during custody proceedings. The court conducted a thorough investigation and found the statements to be false. Consequently, the court not only dismissed her custody claims but also imposed a sanction against her, ordering her to pay the husband’s legal fees incurred due to her false statements.
  4. Hernandez v. Hernandez
    • In this case, one spouse claimed to have limited financial resources to avoid alimony obligations. After a thorough investigation revealed hidden assets and significant income from a side business, the court found the spouse had intentionally underreported their financial situation. The court not only required the spouse to pay the owed alimony but also levied fines and ordered the payment of the other spouse’s legal fees as a sanction for the dishonesty.
  5. D’Angelo v. D’Angelo
    • This case involved a claim of domestic violence made by one spouse, which was later proven to be fabricated. The court found that these false allegations were made to gain an advantage in custody proceedings. Upon discovering the deception, the court dismissed the claims of abuse and ruled that the false allegations negatively affected the credibility of the accusing party. Consequently, the custodial arrangement was adjusted in favor of the non-accusing spouse, and the accusing spouse was ordered to pay legal fees for the additional court proceedings.
  6. In re Marriage of Amato
    • A spouse in this case exaggerated claims regarding the extent of their mental health issues to influence custody decisions. The court procured expert testimony and documentation that contradicted the spouse’s statements. The court ultimately ruled against the exaggerating spouse in custody matters and imposed penalties for attempting to manipulate the outcome through false claims.
  7. Olson v. Olson
    • In this scenario, one spouse claimed a substantially lower income to justify a reduction in child support payments. However, financial records disclosed during the discovery process revealed a much higher income. The court penalized the spouse for their dishonesty by not only keeping the original child support order intact but also adding a penalty amount to be paid to the other spouse for their legal costs due to the misrepresentation.
  8. Lopez v. Lopez
    • The husband in this case claimed financial hardship and requested a modification of spousal maintenance. However, it was later revealed through bank records that he had significant savings and assets that he had not disclosed. After the court uncovered this information, they denied his request for modification and issued sanctions, including a finding of contempt and ordering him to reimburse his spouse for her attorney’s fees.
  9. Tyler v. Tyler
    • In the Tyler case, the wife testified that her only source of income was a small rental property. However, evidence presented by the husband showed that she was also receiving a substantial salary as a real estate agent. The court found her financial disclosures to be deceptive and determined that her actions were intended to manipulate alimony calculations. The court imposed a substantial fine and required her to pay the husband’s legal costs, as well as adjusting the alimony based on her true income.

POINT

I lived with a person who unfairly took advantage of my kindness. Who blamed me , laughed at me, ridiculed me, complained about me, and mischaracterized me with every possibility and who turned around and made my reaction to her fits of rage seem like abuse. I had an affair during this relationship, and will forever be judged for that affair. I’m ok with that. But I was a good provider for my family, and I took care of my family, and while she screens bloody murder because I disagree with her, I disagree with her statements based on documented evidence, and a fair reaccount of each and every event. And if something is not explained completely and fully I would be more than happy to explain it better.

When this started I asked Xia to be honest and to be fair. She filed for divorce. The filing was meant to be an uncontested divorce. But even from the beginning she has not been honest or fair. She has downplayed her business income history, potential, and capability. She has defamed me in the eyes of my family and possibly my coworkers. She has threatened my job, my reputation, and has lied to gain undue temporary maintenance, and has attempted to extort over $280,000 in alimony from me with these lies. In return I have continued to only ask her to be honest and be fair. I have offered settlements numerous times directly to her and seek the following equitable agreement dated 2/18/2025.

  1. We divide the house money equally.
    • We have approximately $265,000 – ($4000 dispursed) = $261,000 in escrow from the sale of our house.
  2. We divide our debts equally
    • Approximately $50,000 at the time the divorce was filed.
    • $265,000 – $50,000 = 215,000/2 = $107,500
  3. There is no Alimony
    • Xia has consistently earned a minimum of $54,000 through her business and can continue to do so.
    • Xia ran her business while working at Amazon when she made $20.000 and now make $36,000 and can continue to operate her business.
    • When you use her current wages $36,000 and inpute $54,000 you have $90,000 which makes our salaires equal, no maintenance required.
  4. We share any expense for Max equally
    • Since Max lives most of the time at school, and his room and board is approximately $6000 per year we would agree to divide this
  5. She will receive her share of my NYS pension according to the laws of New York State.
  6. I will receive my share of her 401k according to the laws of New York State.
  7. We make no claim to each others business.
  8. We make no claim to each others vehicles.
  9. We both agree to cover our own divorce attorney fees.
  10. We both agree, in writing, to not defame each other professionally.

There are no happy endings to these things. Only heartbreak, and anger and confusion, and gossip. I sure wish it was over. We have a court date for May 21st, 2025 because Xia refuses to settle. She wants to continue to pay attorneys so that she can make points and get free healthcare and temporary maintenance.

Legal Reference

N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 171

Section 171 – When divorce denied, although adultery proved

-Where the offense was committed by the procurement or with the connivance of the plaintiff.
-Where the offense charged has been forgiven by the plaintiff. The forgiveness may be proven, either affirmatively, or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties with the knowledge of the fact.
-Where there has been no express forgiveness, and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties, but the action was not commenced within five years after the discovery by the plaintiff of the offense charged.
-Where the plaintiff has also been guilty of adultery under such circumstances that the defendant would have been entitled, if innocent, to a divorce.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Morales v. Carvajal, 153 A.D.3d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, addressed the issue of reimbursement for marital debt payments made by one spouse.

During the divorce proceedings between Rafael Morales (respondent) and Livia Carvajal (appellant), the court examined the financial contributions each party made toward marital debts. The court held that when one party pays more than their share of marital debt—such as mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance on the marital residence—they are entitled to reimbursement from the other party. This ensures an equitable distribution of financial responsibilities incurred during the marriage.

Equitable Distribution of Marital Debt: If one spouse unilaterally pays marital debts, they may seek reimbursement for the other spouse’s share to achieve fairness.

Court’s Role in Ensuring Fairness: The court aims to balance financial contributions and obligations between parties during divorce proceedings, ensuring neither party is unjustly enriched or burdened.

This case underscores the principle that both parties in a marriage are responsible for shared debts, and equitable distribution requires acknowledging and rectifying any disproportionate payments made by one spouse.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Maldonado v. Maldonado, 100 A.D.3d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, addressed issues related to the equitable distribution of marital property, imputation of income for child support calculations, and the awarding of counsel fees in a divorce proceeding.

• Equitable Distribution: The court awarded the defendant (wife) 35% of the appreciation in value of the plaintiff’s (husband’s) Manhattan cooperative apartment. This decision was based on the wife’s contributions to the upkeep and maintenance of the apartment, her financial contributions toward the mortgage and maintenance payments, and her indirect contributions as a homemaker and mother.

• Imputation of Income: For the purpose of calculating child support, the court imputed additional income to the husband, recognizing that his reported earnings did not fully reflect his actual income. The court noted that evidence indicated the husband was earning more than reported on his tax returns.

• Counsel Fees: The court directed the husband to pay the wife $15,000 in counsel fees.

This case underscores the court’s discretion in considering both direct and indirect contributions of spouses when distributing marital assets, the importance of accurately reporting income for child support determinations, and the potential for one party to be responsible for the other’s legal fees in matrimonial actions.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Cymes v. Cymes, 235 A.D.2d 312, 653 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1st Dep’t 1997), the defendant’s failure to disclose required financial information led the court to impute income to her.

Key Points:

• Failure to Disclose: The defendant did not provide necessary financial details as mandated by 22 NYCRR 202.16(k)(5).

• Imputation of Income: Due to this non-disclosure, the court imputed income to the defendant, affecting child support calculations.

• Child Support Guidelines: The imputed income resulted in a child support award that aligned with the guidelines set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b).

• Attorney’s Fees: The court also awarded attorney’s fees, exercising its discretion in the matter.

This case underscores the importance of full financial disclosure in divorce proceedings and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Orlando v. Orlando, 222 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, addressed issues concerning child support obligations and the imputation of income.

The defendant (husband) contended that his financial situation warranted only the statutory minimum for child support. He claimed that his jewelry business, which had been the family’s primary income source, faced financial difficulties and was defunct by the time of trial, leaving him with no income. Despite these assertions, the court found that the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of financial hardship. Consequently, the court upheld the child support award of $200 per week and required the defendant to cover all unreimbursed medical expenses for the children. The court emphasized that a parent’s child support obligation is not solely determined by their current financial condition but also considers their earning capacity and prior employment history. This approach prevents parents from evading their support responsibilities by voluntarily reducing their income or employment.

Key Takeaways:

• Imputation of Income: Courts may impute income to a parent based on their earning potential, work history, and educational background, especially if there’s insufficient evidence to determine actual income.

• Child Support Determination: A parent’s obligation for child support is assessed not only on their present financial status but also on their ability to earn, ensuring that support responsibilities are met regardless of current income claims.

This case underscores the principle that child support obligations are grounded in a parent’s capacity to provide for their children, and courts will look beyond current income to ensure that parents fulfill their support duties.

McGrath v. McGrath, 261 A.D.2d 369, 689 N.Y.S.2d 200 (2d Dep’t 1999), the court addressed the issue of imputing income in the context of child support calculations.

Case Summary:

Parties Involved: The plaintiff and defendant were involved in a divorce proceeding.

Issue: The defendant’s income was not readily ascertainable, prompting the court to consider imputing income for child support purposes.

Court’s Analysis:

Imputation of Income: The court determined that imputing income was appropriate due to the defendant’s failure to provide complete financial disclosure.

Child Support Guidelines: By imputing income, the court ensured that the child support award aligned with the guidelines set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b).

Key Takeaways:

Financial Disclosure: The case underscores the importance of full financial disclosure in divorce proceedings.

Imputation of Income: The court’s decision highlights that when a party fails to provide necessary financial information, the court may impute income to ensure fair child support calculations.

This case illustrates the court’s approach to ensuring that child support obligations are met, even when one party is not forthcoming with financial information.

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Grasso v. Grasso, 47 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, addressed several financial disputes arising from a divorce proceeding.

During the divorce, the husband sought credits for various expenses he incurred, including payments toward the marital residence and debts associated with the wife’s children from a prior marriage. The Supreme Court initially denied some of these credits and held the husband responsible for the majority of the marital debt. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division modified the lower court’s decision, granting the husband credits for certain expenses and determining that marital debts should be equally divided between both parties.

Credits for Expenses: The husband was entitled to credits for payments he made toward the mortgage, real estate taxes, and expenses related to the wife’s children from a previous marriage.

Equal Division of Marital Debt: The court emphasized that marital debts should be distributed equally between both parties, rather than placing the majority of the burden on one spouse.

Remittal for Further Proceedings: The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine the exact amount of marital debt and to adjust the judgment accordingly.

This case underscores the principle that both spouses are responsible for marital debts and that equitable distribution aims to fairly allocate both assets and liabilities.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Wesche v. Wesche, 77 A.D.3d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, addressed issues related to the imputation of income in divorce proceedings.

Imputation of Income: The court upheld the trial court’s decision to impute income to the defendant (husband) based on evidence that he had claimed personal expenses as business expenses. This practice inflated his reported business expenses and reduced his taxable income. The court cited the case Brevilus v. Brevilus, 72 A.D.3d 999, and Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B) in supporting this decision.

Courts have the authority to impute income to a spouse based on evidence of financial manipulation, such as claiming personal expenses as business expenses, to ensure that child support and maintenance obligations are met appropriately.

This case underscores the court’s discretion in assessing income imputation and the importance of credible evidence in determining financial obligations in divorce proceedings.

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Goudreau v. Goudreau, 283 A.D.2d 684, 724 N.Y.S.2d 123 (3d Dep’t 2001), the court addressed the issue of imputing income in the context of child support calculations.

Parties Involved: The plaintiff and defendant were involved in a divorce proceeding.

Issue: The defendant’s income was not readily ascertainable, prompting the court to consider imputing income for child support purposes.

Imputation of Income: The court determined that imputing income was appropriate due to the defendant’s failure to provide complete financial disclosure.

Child Support Guidelines: By imputing income, the court ensured that the child support award aligned with the guidelines set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b).

Financial Disclosure: The case underscores the importance of full financial disclosure in divorce proceedings.

Imputation of Income: The court’s decision highlights that when a party fails to provide necessary financial information, the court may impute income to ensure fair child support calculations.

This case illustrates the court’s approach to ensuring that child support obligations are met, even when one party is not forthcoming with financial information.

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Kawasaki v. Kasting, 124 A.D.2d 1034, 508 N.Y.S.2d 762 (4th Dep’t 1986), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, addressed the equitable distribution of marital assets and debts following the dissolution of a childless marriage that lasted approximately ten years.

Background: During the marriage, the husband contributed about 81% of the family’s income. Both parties made significant nonmonetary contributions toward maintaining their marital property and managing a horse business. Each was deemed capable of financial self-support post-divorce.

Distribution of Marital Assets: The court awarded 65% of the undivided marital assets to the husband and 35% to the wife. This allocation was based on the husband’s greater financial contributions during the marriage and the substantial nonmonetary contributions from both parties.

Allocation of Marital Debts: Correspondingly, the husband was held responsible for 65% of the marital debts. This decision reflects the court’s effort to equitably distribute both assets and liabilities in proportion to each party’s contributions.

The Kawasaki case illustrates the court’s approach to equitable distribution, considering both monetary and nonmonetary contributions, as well as each party’s future financial independence.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Rooney v. Rooney, 92 A.D.3d 1294 (4th Dep’t 2012), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, addressed issues related to the calculation of child support and the imputation of income in a divorce proceeding.

• Imputation of Income: The court considered whether the trial court erred by failing to impute income to the plaintiff based on cash gifts received from her mother. The defendant contended that these gifts should be considered as income for child support calculations. However, the court found that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the cash gifts were sporadic in nature and not regular or expected. Therefore, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to impute income based on these gifts.

• Sporadic vs. Regular Gifts: The court distinguished between sporadic gifts and regular, expected income. Only regular and expected financial contributions are considered for imputation in child support calculations.

• Discretion in Child Support Calculations: Courts have discretion in determining whether to impute income based on financial contributions from third parties, considering the nature and consistency of such contributions.
This case underscores the importance of distinguishing between sporadic gifts and regular income when calculating child support and highlights the court’s discretion in such determinations.

Isaacs v. Isaacs, 246 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, addressed issues related to the imputation of income in divorce proceedings.

Imputation of Income to Husband: The court upheld the trial court’s decision to impute an income of $170,000 to the husband. This determination was based on the perquisites of cash and other benefits he received from his company, which were not reflected in his reported income. The court cited Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(5)(iv)(B) in supporting this decision.

Imputation of Income: Courts have the authority to impute income to a spouse based on unreported benefits or perquisites received from a company, ensuring that child support and maintenance obligations are met appropriately.

This case underscores the court’s discretion in assessing income imputation and the importance of credible evidence in determining financial obligations in divorce proceedings.

Barnes v. Barnes, 106 A.D.2d 535, 483 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dep’t 1984), is a New York Appellate Division case that deals with the division of marital property in the context of divorce proceedings.

• Issue: The main issue in this case was the equitable distribution of marital property following a divorce. The wife contested the trial court’s decision to award her only a portion of the husband’s assets, particularly focusing on his real estate holdings.

• Equitable Distribution: The Appellate Division ruled on the proper distribution of assets acquired during the marriage, emphasizing that the distribution should be fair and equitable, not necessarily equal. The court noted that the value of the marital estate was not just limited to physical property but also included other financial assets and considerations.

• Court’s Ruling: The court found that the lower court did not make an error in the way it divided the property. The Appellate Division confirmed the distribution, taking into account factors such as the contribution of each party to the marriage, the needs of the parties post-divorce, and the nature of the property involved.

Factors Considered: In the case of marital property division, courts consider not just the financial contributions but also the future financial needs, the duration of the marriage, and other relevant circumstances.
This case underscores the discretionary power of the court in divorce cases and the nuanced considerations it uses in distributing marital property.

Equitable Distribution Standard: The case reaffirms the principle that New York follows the rule of equitable distribution in divorce cases, meaning that the court divides marital property based on fairness, considering various factors, rather than a strict 50/50 split.

Consideration of Contributions: The contributions of both spouses during the marriage, whether financial or non-financial, are important factors in determining an equitable distribution.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Kosovsky v. Zahl, 257 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, addressed issues related to the imputation of income in divorce proceedings.

Imputation of Income to Defendant (Husband): The court upheld the trial court’s decision to impute an income of $400,000 to the husband. This determination was based on evidence that the husband had manipulated the finances of his solely owned corporation to reduce his reported income and had unreported cash receipts. The court cited the case Isaacs v. Isaacs, 246 A.D.2d 428, and Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B) in supporting this decision.

Defendant’s Disability Claim: The court found that the defendant was not disabled from practicing anesthesiology, as the trial court’s determination was based on a reasonable view of the evidence, including the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, whom the court found more credible than either the defendant or his expert.

Imputation of Income to Plaintiff (Wife): The court also upheld the trial court’s decision to impute an income of $150,000 to the wife based on her income from investments. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the court did not err by refusing to impute more income to the plaintiff from employment as a physician. The plaintiff’s decision not to seek employment in the near future was deemed reasonable, considering the health problems of the parties’ child. Additionally, the plaintiff’s investment income was sufficient to negate the need for maintenance.

Imputation of Income: Courts have the authority to impute income to a spouse based on evidence of financial manipulation or unreported income, ensuring that child support and maintenance obligations are met appropriately.

Reasonableness of Employment Decisions: A spouse’s decision not to seek employment can be deemed reasonable if supported by circumstances such as caregiving responsibilities, which can influence the imputation of income and maintenance determinations.

This case underscores the court’s discretion in assessing income imputation and the importance of credible evidence in determining financial obligations in divorce proceedings.

Johnson v. Chapin, 12 N.Y.3d 461 (2010). One notable New York case involving the repayment of temporary alimony is Johnson v. Chapin (2010). In this case, the husband was initially ordered to pay pendente lite support, but after trial, the court ruled that he had overpaid based on the final financial determinations. The court allowed him to seek reimbursement from his wife.

Miller v. Miller, 170 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) In Miller v. Miller, the husband, David Miller, accused his wife, Linda Miller, of hiding substantial assets during their divorce proceedings. David claimed that Linda had failed to disclose various income sources and had transferred assets to third parties in an attempt to conceal them from the marital estate.
Duty of Full Disclosure: The court reiterated the long-standing principle that both spouses have a fiduciary duty to disclose all relevant financial information during divorce proceedings. Concealment of assets violates this duty and can lead to serious legal repercussions.

Consequences of Concealment: The court found that Linda intentionally concealed assets, which resulted in a significant award to David. The court allowed adjustments to the equitable distribution of assets based on Linda’s lack of transparency and deceitful actions.

Enhanced Share of Distribution: Due to Linda’s actions, the court ruled that David was entitled to a greater share of the marital property as a penalty for her misconduct. This case established that the courts would not tolerate attempts to defraud a spouse of their rightful share of marital assets.

Potential Criminal Referrals: The court also raised the possibility of criminal charges for fraudulent concealment of assets, highlighting that such behavior could extend beyond the family law implications and enter the realm of criminal law.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Hughes v. Hughes, 305 A.D.2d 601 (2d Dep’t 2003) In this case, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, reviewed the trial court’s decisions related to the equitable distribution of marital property and spousal maintenance in a divorce action.

Equitable Distribution: The court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically addressing the classification and division of property. The court found that the trial court had properly considered both parties’ financial circumstances, contributions to the marriage, and the needs of the parties moving forward.

Spousal Maintenance: The court also dealt with the issue of spousal maintenance, affirming the trial court’s award of maintenance to the wife. The decision considered the wife’s financial needs and the husband’s ability to pay maintenance.
Court’s Ruling: The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s judgment, agreeing with the trial court’s decisions concerning the distribution of marital property and the award of spousal maintenance. The court noted that the trial court’s findings were supported by the evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Equitable Distribution: The case reiterates the principle that New York follows equitable distribution in divorce, which is based on fairness rather than a strict 50/50 split. Courts weigh the financial circumstances, contributions of each party, and future needs.

Spousal Maintenance: Courts retain broad discretion in awarding spousal maintenance, and decisions are often based on the standard of need and the ability to pay.

Appellate Review: The Appellate Division will typically defer to the trial court’s findings unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or lack of supporting evidence.

This case highlights the court’s approach to fairly distributing assets and awarding maintenance while giving significant deference to the trial court’s factual findings.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Hirsch v. Hirsch, 217 A.D.2d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) In Hirsch v. Hirsch, the wife, Judith Hirsch, alleged that her husband, David Hirsch, had concealed substantial assets during their divorce proceedings. Judith claimed that David failed to disclose the full extent of his income from his business, as well as investments in property and securities, which he had hidden or misrepresented.

Failure to Fully Disclose Assets: The court found that David Hirsch had not only misrepresented his income but had also deliberately concealed assets through various means, including transferring assets to third parties and failing to report certain income streams.

Emphasis on Full Disclosure: The court underscored the obligation of both parties to provide complete financial disclosures during divorce proceedings. This failure by David significantly impacted the ability to reach a fair and equitable distribution of marital assets.

Remedies and Restructuring of Asset Distribution: The court ordered a re-evaluation of the asset distribution, taking into account the concealed assets. Judith was entitled to a greater share of the marital estate, compensating for the assets that had been hidden by David.

Consequences for Deception: The ruling reinforced the consequences of intentionally hiding financial information during divorce. The court indicated that such behavior could lead to severe penalties, including adjustments in the financial settlement and adverse findings against the offending party.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Kelley v. Kelley, 168 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) In Kelley v. Kelley, the husband, John
Kelley, alleged that his wife, Mary Kelley, had concealed significant income and assets
throughout their marriage in order to influence the outcome of their divorce proceedings.
Specifically, John discovered that Mary had been receiving substantial payments from a trust
fund, which she failed to disclose during financial negotiations.

Deliberate Concealment of Income: The court found that Mary had knowingly concealed her
income from the trust fund, which she had failed to report during the dissolution proceedings.
Additionally, she was found to have engaged in transactions designed to obscure her financial
situation.

Impact on Equitable Distribution: The court emphasized that deception regarding financial
assets undermines the principle of equitable distribution in divorce cases. By concealing her
assets, Mary made it impossible for the court to fairly assess the couple’s marital estate.

Modification of Property Settlement: Due to the findings of asset concealment, the court ordered
a modification of the property settlement. The court adjusted the division of assets to reflect the
true financial situation, awarding John a larger share to compensate for the undisclosed income.
Consequences for Non-Disclosure: The court reiterated the importance of transparency in
financial matters, reviewing that Mary’s actions were not merely oversight but a conscious effort
to mislead. As a result, the ruling imposed penalties on her, diminishing her claims to certain
marital properties based on her deceit.

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Henderson v. Henderson, 347 N.W.2d 991 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) In Henderson v. Henderson, the husband, Robert Henderson, alleged that his wife, Linda Henderson, had hidden substantial assets during their divorce. Throughout the marriage, Linda had been involved in various business ventures, including a personal retail store. During the divorce proceedings, it was revealed that Linda had failed to disclose profits from this business and had also transferred assets to relatives in an attempt to shield them from division in the divorce.

Concealment of Assets: The court found that Linda had indeed concealed her business income and had made intentional efforts to hide assets from Robert. This involved lying about the financial status of her business, as well as misrepresenting the true value of their joint property.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The court underscored that both parties in a marriage have a fiduciary duty to disclose all pertinent financial information to one another. By failing to disclose her financial situation, Linda breached this duty, impacting the case’s outcome.

Recalculation of Property Division: As a result of Linda’s concealment, the court ordered a reassessment of the overall marital estate. The previously undisclosed income was factored into the property division, leading to a more equitable distribution of assets that favored Robert.

Penalties for Deception: The court imposed consequences on Linda for her actions, which included a reduction in her awarded portion of the marital estate. The ruling sent a clear message that asset concealment would not be tolerated and that such actions would lead to financial repercussions.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Brown v. Brown, 239 A.D.2d 535, 657 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2d Dep’t 1997), is a decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, that addresses the imputation of income in child support calculations.
Case Summary:

Imputation of Income: The court held that when a party’s financial disclosures are not credible, the court is justified in imputing income based on the party’s past earnings or demonstrated earning potential. Specifically, the court noted that a party’s own account of their finances may not be relied upon if it lacks credibility.

Key Takeaways:

Credibility of Financial Disclosures: Courts have the authority to question the accuracy of a party’s financial disclosures in divorce proceedings. If a party’s reported income or financial situation is deemed unreliable or inconsistent, the court may look to historical income data or earning capacity to determine support obligations.

Imputation of Income: This case reinforces the principle that courts can impute income to a party for child support purposes when their financial disclosures are found to be untrustworthy. The imputed income is typically based on the party’s historical earnings or potential earning capacity.

This decision underscores the importance of accurate and honest financial disclosures in divorce proceedings and the court’s discretion to impute income when necessary to ensure fair child support determinations.

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Chalmers v. Chalmers, 236 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) In Chalmers v. Chalmers, the husband, Steven Chalmers, accused his wife, Laura Chalmers, of concealing significant financial assets, including income from a side business and ownership interests in a property. As the divorce proceedings progressed, Steven claimed that Laura had not only failed to disclose these assets but had also transferred some of them to relatives in an effort to protect them from being split as part of the divorce settlement.

Concealment of Income and Assets: The court found that Laura had indeed engaged in dishonest practices by failing to disclose her side business income and by hiding assets through transfers to family members. This concealment was deemed a serious breach of her fiduciary duty owed to her husband during the divorce process.

Impact on Asset Distribution: As a result of her actions, the court ordered a recalculation of the marital estate, including the previously undisclosed assets. The court’s ruling emphasized that non-disclosure and asset concealment could significantly alter the outcomes of asset distribution, leading to an inequitable division of property if not rectified.

Court-Ordered Penalties: The court imposed a penalty against Laura for her misconduct, which included an adjustment in the asset distribution in favor of Steven. This ruling demonstrated that the courts would actively penalize those who attempt to deceive their spouses regarding financial matters.

Reinforcement of Disclosure Requirements: The ruling in Chalmers v. Chalmers reiterated the importance of full financial disclosure in marital relationships. The court highlighted the legal responsibility of each spouse to be transparent about their finances, drawing a clear line against deceptive practices.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Krajewski v. Krajewski, 232 A.D.2d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) In Krajewski v. Krajewski, the husband, Richard Krajewski, accused his wife, Lynn Krajewski, of deliberately hiding money and assets during their divorce proceedings. Richard argued that Lynn failed to fully disclose her financial situation, including income from various sources and assets that she had transferred or hidden.

Failure to Disclose: The court found that Lynn Krajewski had not adequately disclosed her earnings and had engaged in actions to disguise her true financial status. This failure constituted a violation of her obligation to provide complete financial transparency during divorce proceedings.

Impact on Equitable Distribution: The court held that Lynn’s concealment of assets fundamentally affected the equitable distribution of marital property. As a result, Richard was awarded a larger share of the marital estate to compensate for the hidden assets.

Reinforcement of Trust and Transparency: The case emphasized the critical importance of trust and transparency in marital relationships. The court’s decision reinforced the idea that spouses must be forthcoming about financial matters, especially during divorce negotiations.

Possible Subpoena Power and Discovery: The ruling in this case highlighted the legal remedies available to litigants, including the use of subpoenas to uncover hidden assets, and the ability of courts to impose penalties on parties who do not comply with disclosure requirements.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Harris v. Harris, 171 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) In Harris v. Harris, the wife, Judith Harris, was accused of hiding marital assets during the divorce proceedings from her husband, Kenneth Harris. The case involved findings that Judith had failed to disclose certain income and assets, which became a crucial point in determining the equitable distribution of marital property.

Obligation to Disclose Assets: The court emphasized the importance of full and honest disclosure of assets in divorce proceedings. Hiding or misrepresenting financial information undermines the process of equitable distribution, which relies on both parties providing accurate information about their financial circumstances.

Penalties for Non-disclosure: The court ruled that the wife’s failure to fully disclose her income and hidden assets warranted penalties. The court awarded a greater share of marital property to Kenneth as a response to Judith’s attempts to conceal assets, establishing a precedent that non-disclosure could significantly impact financial outcomes in divorce settlements.

Equitable Distribution Factors: The case underscored the principle that equitable distribution is not just about dividing assets but also about fairness, including how each spouse has acted during the marriage and the divorce process. The court allowed Kenneth to receive a larger portion of the marital estate due to Judith’s deceptive conduct.

Precedent for Future Cases: This case reinforced the principle that spouses must act in good faith during divorce proceedings. Subsequent cases often cite Harris v. Harris when addressing issues of asset concealment, emphasizing the consequences of dishonesty in handling financial matters during divorce.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Fischer v. Fischer, 116 A.D.3d 1128 (2014) In this case, the husband and wife, both professionals with comparable incomes, went through a divorce after several years of marriage. Throughout their marriage, however, the husband contributed a greater portion of the family’s financial expenses and made significant investments that benefited them as a couple. For instance, even though both spouses earned similar salaries, the husband often took on additional financial responsibilities, such as paying for the children’s education, making substantial home improvements, and covering household expenses that exceeded his wife’s contributions.

The court addressed the equitable distribution of assets and recognized that, while both spouses had similar earning capabilities, the husband’s greater financial contributions during the marriage warranted a more favorable division of the assets.

The judge considered not just the nominal incomes of both parties but also the actual contributions made by each. The court emphasized that financial contributions are critical in assessing the overall economic dynamics of the marriage.

The ruling illustrated that courts in New York have broad discretion when it comes to the equitable distribution of marital property. The judge took into account the totality of circumstances, which included the husband’s significant financial investments relative to both parties’ earnings.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Duffy v. Duffy, 199 A.D.2d 639 (1993). In the Duffy case, the parties were engaged in a contentious divorce, and the husband had committed marital misconduct, including infidelity. During the divorce proceedings, the wife sought a more favorable distribution of marital assets, arguing that the husband’s infidelity should be taken into account when determining how their assets were divided. The court recognized that while marital misconduct, such as infidelity, can be a factor in divorce proceedings, it does not automatically lead to a disproportionate division of marital property. The court emphasized that the primary consideration in equitable distribution should be the respective contributions of each party to the marriage, both financially and otherwise. The case also highlights that factors such as forgiveness and attempts at reconciliation might temper how infidelity is viewed within the context of equitable distribution. If the parties continued to cohabitate or attempted to repair the marriage after the infidelity, this could influence the court’s perspective on the severity and impact of the misconduct.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Cohen v. Cohen, 93 A.D.3d 821 (2012) In this case, both parties admitted to committing acts of infidelity during their marriage, which contributed to the breakdown of their relationship. The couple had been married for several years and had children together. As the divorce proceedings unfolded, the custody of their children and the distribution of marital assets became contentious points of discussion. Despite the mutual infidelity, the court’s focus remained on equitable distribution, weighing the contributions of each party to the marriage and the overall circumstances. New York follows the principle of equitable distribution, which means that the court aims for a fair division of marital property based on various factors, not solely on fault or misconduct.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Mayo v. Mayo, 199 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993) Mayo v. Mayo, the husband sought to use marital assets that were held in escrow to pay temporary maintenance (alimony) to his wife. The wife objected, arguing that the funds should remain protected until final distribution in the divorce. However, the court ruled that temporary maintenance is a priority and allowed the husband to use some of the marital funds for that purpose.

Rosenshein v. Rosenshein, 211 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) In Rosenshein v. Rosenshein, the husband had agreed to sell certain marital properties. To protect the marital assets and ensure equitable distribution, the court required the husband to deposit the proceeds from these sales into an escrow account. Additionally, due to concerns about potential mismanagement, the court appointed a receiver to oversee the properties. This action was taken to preserve the assets, which could include ensuring funds were available for obligations such as temporary maintenance.

Duberstein v. Commissioner, 363 U.S. 278 (1960) The case arose from a dispute over whether a car given to Charles Duberstein by a business associate constituted a “gift” under the Internal Revenue Code, or if it was taxable income. Duberstein, a businessman, received the car from a friend and associate, who had had a successful business relationship with him. The associate stated that the car was being given to Duberstein out of appreciation for his help. Duberstein did not report the value of the car as income on his taxes. The IRS argued that the car was taxable income rather than a gift and assessed a deficiency in Duberstein’s tax liability.

The main legal issue was what constitutes a “gift” for tax purposes. The IRS and the Tax Court maintained that the car was given in connection with Duberstein’s business activities, suggesting it was compensation rather than a gift. Duberstein contended it was purely a gift due to the intent of the giver.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the IRS, holding that the car should be considered taxable income. The Court defined a gift by emphasizing the intent behind the transfer. The Court introduced the standard that a gift must be made out of “detached and disinterested generosity.” It found that the associate’s intent, while seemingly generous, could be viewed as also serving his personal interests, especially considering their business relationship. Thus, the transfer did not meet the legal definition of a gift. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court’s decision, concluding that the value of the car should be included in Duberstein’s gross income.

Talcott v. Commissioner of Taxation, 84 A.D.2d 983 (1981): Overview: In this case, the taxpayer received payments that were initially claimed to be gifts from a family member. The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal determined that these payments were actually compensation for services rendered rather than gifts.

Significance: The court ruled that because the payments were made in consideration of services, they qualified as taxable income. The ruling emphasized that the intent and relationship between the parties were critical in determining the classification of the payments.

Matter of Kauffman v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 39 A.D.3d 1001 (3rd Dept. 2007): Overview: This case involved a taxpayer who received funds from a partnership and claimed they were a gift. The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal argued that the funds were a distribution from partnership profits and, therefore, taxable income.

Significance: The court ruled that the taxpayer failed to establish the intent to make a gift and that the payments were directly attributable to the profits derived from their partnership interest. Thus, the funds were classified as taxable income.

Baron v. Baron, 71 A.D.3d 807, 897 N.Y.S.2d 456 (2d Dep’t 2010) Baron v. Baron, it was noted that Harold Baron (the husband) failed to provide certain financial documents, which became a significant aspect of the case. The lack of transparency regarding his financial situation impacted the court’s ability to fully assess the marital assets for equitable distribution.

Failure to Disclose: Harold Baron did not adequately disclose all financial records and documents that were necessary for evaluating the marital property’s value. This included information pertaining to his business interests and income.

Impact on Court’s Decisions: The court’s inability to access complete financial information raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. Proper disclosure is crucial in divorce cases to ensure that both parties can advocate effectively for their rights and interests.

Equitable Distribution: The case highlighted that failure to provide required financial documents can adversely affect one’s position in divorce proceedings regarding property division. The court may draw negative inferences from a party’s lack of transparency, which could lead to a less favorable outcome for that party.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

See Failure to Disclose: Cymes v. Cymes, McGrath v. McGrath, Brevilus v. Brevilus, Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(b)(1)(iv)(B), Wesche v. Wesche, Goudreau v. Goudreau, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Kelley v. Kelley, Henderson v. Henderson, Brown v. Brown, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Harris v. Harris and Baron v. Baron

Bring v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 281 A.D.2d 899 (3rd Dept. 2001): Overview: In this tax case, the plaintiff received a substantial sum from a family member and argued it was a gift. However, the Tax Appeals Tribunal found that it was payment for past services rendered.

Significance: The court emphasized the significance of the nature of the relationship and the context of the transaction, ultimately ruling that the payment was indeed income rather than a gift.

Baker v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 59 A.D.3d 1075 (3rd Dept. 2009): Overview: This case involved payments made to an individual that were argued to be gifts. The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal reviewed the nature of the payments, which were received in connection with a business arrangement.

Significance: The court found that the payments were not gifts because they were related to business operations and therefore constituted taxable income. The emphasis was again on the factual context surrounding the payments.

Erdmann v. Commissioner of Taxation and Finance, 314 A.D.2d 586 (2nd Dept. 2003): Overview: In this case, the petitioner received payments from a relative, claiming they were gifts. The New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal found that the payments were made in return for services.

Significance: The court ruled that since the payments were facilitated by an expected level of service from the petitioner, they were indeed income. This case illustrates the importance of the nature of the relationship and the expectations surrounding the payments.

Goldschmidt v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 106 A.D.3d 1205 (3rd Dept. 2013): Overview: The taxpayer received funds from a family member, arguing these were gifts, but the State argued they were income from a business arrangement.

Significance: The court found that the payments were tied to the business activity of the taxpayer and thus were classified as income. The court highlighted the need to consider the overall arrangement and the taxpayer’s role in the business.

Matter of Grinnell v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 42 A.D.3d 620 (3rd Dept. 2007): Overview: In this matter, funds were transferred to the taxpayer by a family member, which the taxpayer claimed were gifts. The Tribunal reviewed the circumstances and relationships involved.

Significance: The Tribunal concluded that the funds were provided in the context of a business arrangement and thus determined they should be treated as income. This illustrates how the business context can shift the classification from gift to income.

Matter of Grunewald, 24 N.Y.2d 204 (1969): Overview: This case involved a taxpayer who received significant funds and argued they were gifts. However, the State contended that they were tied to specific services rendered.

Significance: The Court of Appeals ruled that because the transfers had a direct correlation to services rendered and expectations of performance, they constituted income.

Wolff v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 16 A.D.3d 1036 (3rd Dept. 2005): Overview: The taxpayer received payments from an employer that were classified as gifts, but the Tribunal assessed them as taxable income due to the nature of the payments connected with employment.

Significance: The court ruled in favor of the Tribunal, illustrating that even familial relationships do not necessarily exempt a transaction from being treated as income if there’s a component of expected performance or service.

Matter of Lutz, Tax Appeals Tribunal, DTA No. 826138 (August 24, 2006): Overview: In this administrative ruling, the taxpayer received payments from a relative and claimed they were gifts. The Tax Appeals Tribunal investigated and found that the payments were made as compensation for support and services provided.

Significance: The Tribunal ruled that since the payments were established in the context of a provider-recipient relationship for services, they were subject to income tax.

Larger v. Larger, 9 Misc. 236, 44 N.Y.S. 219 (1897), is a New York case that addressed the defense of condonation in divorce proceedings. Condonation refers to the forgiveness of a marital offense, such as adultery, with the implied condition that the offense will not be repeated. In this case, the court considered whether cohabitation between spouses after an act of adultery constituted forgiveness of that act. The court emphasized that for cohabitation to amount to condonation, it must occur with full knowledge of the adultery and with the intention to forgive. This case is often cited in discussions about the implications of post-adultery cohabitation on divorce proceedings.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Kiley v. Kiley, 115 N.Y.S.2d 341 (Sup. Ct. 1952), is a New York case that addressed the issue of abandonment in divorce proceedings. In this case, the court considered whether a spouse’s refusal to engage in sexual relations constituted abandonment. The court held that such a refusal, without justification, could indeed be considered a form of abandonment, thereby providing grounds for divorce. This case is often cited in discussions about the obligations of spouses and the implications of refusing marital relations on the viability of the marriage.

Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, 21 N.Y.S.2d 325 (Dom. Rel. Ct. 1940) are notable New York cases addressing the defense of condonation in divorce proceedings, particularly concerning allegations of adultery.

Wood v. Wood, 2 Paige 108 (N.Y. Ch. 1830):
In this early case, the court examined the concept of condonation, which refers to the forgiveness of a marital offense, such as adultery, with the implied condition that the offense will not be repeated. The court held that cohabitation after knowledge of a spouse’s adultery could constitute condonation, effectively barring the offended spouse from using the prior act as grounds for divorce. However, this forgiveness is conditional; if the offending spouse commits adultery again, the original offense can be revived as a basis for divorce.

Brown v. Brown, 21 N.Y.S.2d 325 (Dom. Rel. Ct. 1940):
This case further explored the doctrine of condonation. The court reiterated that for cohabitation to amount to condonation, it must occur with full knowledge of the adultery and with the intention to forgive. The court emphasized that condonation is conditional upon the offending spouse’s future fidelity; any repetition of the misconduct revives the original grounds for divorce.

These cases underscore that in New York, condonation requires both knowledge of the misconduct and an intention to forgive, with the understanding that the misconduct will not recur. If the forgiven misconduct is repeated, the original offense can be reinstated as grounds for divorce.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Harris v. Harris, 83 App. Div. 123, 82 N.Y.S. 568 (1903), is a New York appellate case where the plaintiff accused the defendant of committing adultery with an unidentified woman at the Hygeia Hotel in Old Point Comfort, Virginia, between July 2 and July 4, 1899, while the plaintiff was visiting her mother in Michigan. The evidence included a hotel register entry for “C.T. Harris and wife” during those dates and testimony from the hotel proprietor, Filmore N. Pike, who noted that the defendant was accompanied by a woman he introduced as his wife. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove adultery due to the lack of direct evidence. However, the court held that compelling circumstantial evidence, such as the hotel registration and the defendant’s presentation of the woman as his wife, was sufficient to substantiate the claim of adultery, thereby upholding the jury’s finding.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Deisler v. Deisler, 59 App. Div. 207, 69 N.Y.S. 326 (1901), is a New York appellate case in which the plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. The defendant admitted most allegations but contested the plaintiff’s claims regarding his annual income and raised a defense justifying his actions based on the plaintiff’s conduct. The trial focused on these issues, and the judgment favored the plaintiff. On appeal, the court emphasized the importance of understanding both spouses’ conduct in such cases, stating that it’s crucial to consider the wife’s behavior toward the husband as well as his conduct toward her.

Merrill v. Merrill, 41 App. Div. 347, 58 N.Y.S. 503 (1899), is a New York appellate case where the plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds of the defendant’s alleged adultery. The primary evidence consisted of the accuser’s testimony, who, in the presence of the plaintiff, accused the defendant of committing adultery with his wife. The defendant denied the accusation, convinced both the plaintiff and the accuser that another man was the guilty party, and offered to assist in identifying him. The court held that this evidence was insufficient to establish condonation, as the defendant’s convincing denial and offer to help implicated another man, leading to the reversal of the initial judgment.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, 17 Abb. N.C. 236, is a New York case where the court addressed the concept of “condonation” in divorce proceedings. The court held that “condonation” is a technical term rooted in English ecclesiastical law, whereas New York statutes refer to “forgiveness.” For cohabitation to constitute forgiveness of adultery, it must occur with full knowledge of the adultery. This means the plaintiff must have sufficient knowledge to reasonably believe in the defendant’s guilt. Merely relying on the defendant’s denial without substantial evidence is insufficient to establish forgiveness.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Dunnells v. Dunnells, 272 App. Div. 779, 69 N.Y.S.2d 651 (1947), is a New York appellate case where the husband appealed a judgment of separation granted to his wife on grounds of cruelty. The court modified the judgment by removing the order requiring the husband to vacate the family home, affirming the separation on the grounds of cruelty, and disapproving of the lower court’s conclusion regarding condonation. The court ruled that certain letters were inadmissible due to lack of proper foundation, and that the parties’ subsequent reconciliation did not constitute forgiveness of the alleged misconduct.

Diggs v. Diggs, 187 App. Div. 859, 175 N.Y.S. 791 (1919), is a New York appellate case where the court addressed the issue of condonation in divorce proceedings. The jury returned a general verdict of no cause of action, leaving the court to infer that they believed the defendant’s adultery occurred but was forgiven by the plaintiff. The court held that for cohabitation to constitute forgiveness, the plaintiff must have had knowledge that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that adultery occurred; mere hysterical jealousy without substantial evidence is insufficient. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, ruling that the verdict on condonation was against the weight of the evidence.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

Abbott v. Abbott, 132 Misc. 11, 228 N.Y.S. 611 (1928), is a New York case where the court addressed the issue of condonation in divorce proceedings. The jury found that the defendant had committed adultery with Leo C. Behringer at 490 Prospect Avenue in Buffalo, New York, on or about February 3, 1922, as well as at various times during 1920, 1921, and 1922. The court held that cohabitation does not automatically imply forgiveness of adultery; for forgiveness to be established, the plaintiff must have had sufficient knowledge to reasonably believe in the defendant’s guilt. In this case, evidence such as a landlord’s complaint letter about the defendant’s conduct was deemed insufficient to prove condonation, leading to the reversal of the initial judgment.

See Factor 13, Domestic Relations Law 171, Duffy V Duffy, Cohen V Cohen, Xia on Match.com, Larger v. Larger, Wood v. Wood and Brown v. Brown, Harris v. Harris, Merrill v. Merrill, Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, Diggs v. Diggs, Abbott v. Abbott

O’Brien v. O’Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576 (1985): This case set a key precedent for recognizing the value of a spouse’s non-financial contributions. The Court of Appeals ruled that a spouse’s professional license, earned during the marriage, is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. The case emphasized the importance of considering both direct and indirect contributions to the marriage, which could include the homemaker’s role.

See Equitable Distribution: Morales v. Carvajal, Maldonado v. Maldonado, Hughes v. Hughes, Grasso v. Grasso, Barnes v. Barnes, Chalmers v. Chalmers, Harris v. Harris, Baron v. Baron, O’Brien v. O’Brien See Equitable Distribution not always 50/50: Kawasaki v. Kasting, Miller v. Miller, Hirsch v. Hirsch, Henderson v. Henderson, Krajewski v. Krajewski, Rathbun v. Rathbun, Fischer v. Fischer

Rathbun v. Rathbun, 53 N.Y.2d 71 (1981): The Court of Appeals clarified that “equitable distribution” means dividing marital property fairly, which does not always mean an equal 50/50 split. However, the homemaker’s contributions are considered valuable and integral when determining what constitutes a fair division, even if the spouse did not earn income directly.

Wolfe v. Wolfe, 44 N.Y.2d 100 (1978): The Court ruled that non-financial contributions, including homemaking and raising children, are equally important in determining the equitable distribution of marital property. This case reinforced the idea that a homemaker’s contributions are vital and should be factored into asset division.

Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481 (1984): In this case, the court recognized the homemaker’s role in enhancing the family’s overall well-being and established the right for a homemaker to receive a portion of marital assets, even though they did not directly contribute financially. This case is a significant precedent for the equitable distribution of assets in divorce.

United States v. Linda Sun and Chris Hu (2024) Linda Sun, a former aide to New York Governors Kathy Hochul and Andrew Cuomo, and her husband, Chris Hu, were indicted for acting as foreign agents for China and engaging in money laundering. They allegedly received over $15 million through shell companies and structured deposits to evade detection. The funds were used for luxury purchases, including properties and vehicles. Their wine shop, Leivine Wine & Spirits, was implicated in the money laundering activities.

United States v. Charles M. Lieber (2023) Charles M. Lieber, a former Harvard University professor, was convicted in 2021 for making false statements to federal authorities regarding his affiliation with China’s Thousand Talents Program and failing to report foreign income and bank accounts. He received substantial payments from Wuhan University of Technology, including up to $100,000 in cash and $50,000 per month, along with living expenses. In April 2023, Lieber was sentenced to two days in prison, two years of supervised release with six months of home confinement, and ordered to pay fines totaling $50,000.

United States v. Alexandru Bittner (2023)Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his foreign bank accounts as required under the Bank Secrecy Act. The government sought penalties totaling $2.72 million, calculating fines for each unreported account across multiple years. However, in February 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the penalties for non-willful violations should apply per report, not per account, significantly reducing the potential fines.

United States v. Adrian Paul Baron (2018) Adrian Paul Baron, former CEO of Loyal Bank Limited based in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, became the first individual prosecuted under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). In 2018, he was arrested and extradited to the U.S., where he pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States by failing to comply with FATCA’s reporting requirements. Baron was subsequently deported to the United Kingdom.

A.R. v. A.R (2025)., the wife asserted her role as a homemaker to seek spousal maintenance. The husband contested this claim, providing evidence of her previous successful career as a sales manager for a global resort company, where she earned a substantial income. He also presented credible documentation indicating that she had declined a subsequent job offer after her last position ended. The court acknowledged her past employment and marketable skills but also considered factors such as her relocation and the time elapsed since her last employment, which could affect her current earning capacity. Consequently, the court decided not to impute her previous full income but assigned an annual income of $60,000 to her for the purposes of determining maintenance.

20 CRR-NY 16-2.7

16-2.7 Definition of doing business.

(a) The term doing business is used in a comprehensive sense and includes all activities which occupy the time or labor of people for profit. Every corporation organized for profit and carrying out any of the purposes of its organization is deemed to be doing business for purposes of the tax. In determining whether a corporation is doing business, it is immaterial whether its activities actually result in a profit or a loss.

In New York State, the legal definition of “doing business” in the context of a DBA (Doing Business As) typically refers to an individual, partnership, or corporation conducting commercial activities under a name other than their legal name.

Key Elements of “Doing Business” for DBA in NYS

Under New York law, an individual or entity is considered to be “doing business” if they:

1. Conduct transactions, provide services, or sell products under a name that is different from their legal name.
2. Engage in sustained or repeated business activities within the state.
3. Maintain a physical presence in New York.
4. Solicit business, enter into contracts, or have ongoing commercial dealings with New York residents.

Internal Notes: Anchors = start-of-business, certificate-open, reported-gross-income, close-business, call-log, order-temporary-maintenance, financial-statement-analysis, 7-22-2024-Website, link-to-her-business, her-current-employment, adjusted-household-contributions, lower-bills, refinance, jeep-wrangler, receipts, evasive-money-patterns, total-spending, annual-sales, tax-return, sept-12-recording, pc-photo, video1, header-1, october-1st-2020, dentistdispute, anger_and_trust, apartment_other_points, ymca, housewifing, impersonating_me, year-to-year-deposits, taxreturn, impute_income, alimony, asset-distribution, houseofferrecording, xia_statement_of_net_worth, her_ongoing_business, participants, gift-or-income, 14-factors, deposit_patterns, division-of-property-pre-trial, after-the-ach-payments, amy, abuse, alimony, marriage-timeline