Agreements and Stipulations

Subscribe to Agreements and Stipulations via RSS

A non-written agreement for cohabitants to share retirement benefits can be enforceable under a breach of contract claim, but will not support claims to impose a constructive trust, or for unjust enrichment or an accounting. Such was the holding of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its November 13, 2013 decision in Dee v. Rakower.

In the majority opinion written by Justice Leonard B. Austin, the appellate court relied heavily on the facts as pleaded in the complaint. The parties had lived together in a committed, same-sex relationship for nearly 18 years. Two children were born of this relationship; each party being the biological parent of one child, legally adopted by the other.

After the relationship ended in 2007 (before the passage of New York’s Marriage Equality Act [see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 10-a, 10-b]), Ms. Dee commenced this action seeking to enforce the alleged oral “joint venture/partnership” agreement. Under that agreement, Ms. Dee was to share in assets, including Ms. Rakower’s retirement contributions and earnings, in exchange for Ms. Dee leaving her full-time job to care for the parties’ children.

Before they had children, each party was employed full-time, earning a salary and retirement benefits. The parties pooled their respective salaries to meet their shared expenses. The parties purchased a house as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.

After the parties’ first child was born, the parties agreed, it was alleged, that given the cost of child care, Ms. Dee would eschew her full-time employment and work part-time so that she could be home with the children and perform other non-financial services for the benefit of the family and for the parties’ partnership and/or joint venture while Ms Rakower would continue to work full-time. Ms. Dee alleged that her decision to leave her full-time employment was based upon the parties’ specific agreement that Ms. Dee would be entitled to one half of Ms. Rakower’s retirement contributions and earnings for the period.

Ms. Rakower moved to dismiss Ms. Dee’s complaint. Kings County Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Lewis granted that motion, determining that the facts did not support causes of action for breach of contract, to impose a constructive trust, for unjust enrichment or for an accounting.Continue Reading Oral Cohabitation Contract Claim Withstands Motion To Dismiss

Where a divorce settlement agreement provides that the parties have agreed to deviate from the Child Support Standards Act formula in part because of the time the “non-custodial” parent is to spend with the children, a substantial reduction in that visitation may result in an increase in the child support obligation.

Such was the holding of the Fourth Department in its September 27, 2013 decision in Gallagher v. Gallagher.

That parties’ original child support obligation was fixed by their separation agreement. That separation agreement had been incorporated, but did not merge into the parties’ Judgment of Divorce. The agreement recited that the father’s obligation varied from the Child Support Standards Act formula due to several factors including the fact that the children were to spend a significant portion of time with the father pursuant to the visitation schedule set forth in the separation agreement. [We are not provided with the amount of the child support obligation, the incomes of the parties, nor the agreement’s visitation schedule.]

When the father’s relationship with the children broke down, the mother petitioned the Steuben County Family Court for an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation. She alleged that there was now only sporadic visitation with the children, as a result of which the mother claimed a concomitant increase in her child-rearing expenses.

The evidence presented before Family Court Judge Joseph W. Latham established that such a breakdown occurred. However, Judge Latham ruled that the mother failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of the father’s child support obligation.

The Fourth Department disagreed. Quoting the 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals in Gravlin v. Ruppert, 98 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 743 N.Y.S.2d 773 (2002), the Fourth Department stated:

The complete breakdown in the visitation arrangement, which effectively extinguished [the father’s] support obligation, constituted an unanticipated change in circumstances that created the need for modification of the child support obligations.

The Fourth Department  therefore reversed the order, reinstated the mother’s petition, and remitted the matter to the Family Court for a determination of the appropriate amount of support to be paid by the father, after a further hearing if necessary.Continue Reading Sporadic Visitation by Father is Basis to Increase Child Support

In its September 18, 2013 decision in Abramson v. Gavares, the Second Department briefly reviewed the interplay between prenuptial agreements and interim awards in divorce actions.

In this case, the parties were married in 2004 and hade one child, born in 2006. This divorce action was commenced in 2009 [before the 2010 laws on counsel fees and temporary maintenance].

On the wife’s motion for various relief pendente lite, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Margaret C. Reilly had awarded the wife $4,250 per month temporary child support, $1,000 per month in temporary maintenance, and a $15,000 interim counsel fee. The husband was also directed to pay 100% of the costs of the court-appointed forensic evaluator and the attorney for the parties’ child.

On appeal, the husband challenged certain parts of the award on the basis of the prenuptial agreement entered into by the parties. The Second Department upheld the awards of child support and counsel fees, but struck the award of temporary maintenance.Continue Reading Second Department Approves Interim Counsel Fee in Excess of Prenuptial Agreement’s Cap, But Reverses Award of Interim Spousal Maintenance

An ex-wife’s failure to obtain a Domestic Relations Order during her ex-husband’s lifetime did not bar relief after his death. The divorce settlement agreement provision that granted her the right to receive the ex-husband’s retirement plan death benefits could be enforced after his death more than seven years after the divorce judgment was entered.

Suchwas the holding of New York County Supreme Court Justice Debra A. James, in the August, 2013 decision in Paschall v. New York City Employees Retirement System.

After 20 years of marriage, Diana and Randy Paschall were divorced. Their 2004 divorce judgment incorporated the terms of their surviving 2003 Settlement Agreement.

By the time of his death in 2011, Mr. Paschall  had married again to Jewel Paschall. Jewel was issued letters of administration for Randy’s estate. She also exercised her personal right of election to take her elective share of her late husband’s estate pursuant to New York Estates, Powers & Trust Law 5-1.1-A.

During his  marriage to Diana, Mr. Paschall accrued benefits under the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS). Diana and Randy’s divorce Settlement Agreement provided that in the event of Randy’s death before Diana, Diana would be entitled to Randy’s survivor annuity. The Agreement required Randy to designate Diana as his death benefit beneficiary.

Randy never designated Diana as his death benefit beneficiary. No Domestic Relations Order was ever entered by which Diana’s entitlement was ordered, nor was NYCERS otherwise notified of Diana’s entitlement before Randy’s death. Indeed, in 2009, Randy had designated his children as beneficiaries of his death benefit.

Here, Diana had sued Jewell and NYCERS, itself, seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement insofar as it gave her rights to receive Randy’s retirement system death benefit.Continue Reading Ex-Wife's Failure to Obtain DRO Before Ex-Husband's Death Not a Bar to Recovery of Retirement Plan Death Benefits

The failure of the now-deceased wife to disclose that she was suffering from terminal cancer at the time the parties entered their divorce settlement agreement was not a basis to set aside that agreement. So held the Appellate Division Second Department in its August 28, 2013 decision in Petrozza v. Franzen.

Richmond County Supreme Court Justice John A. Fusco had granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the husband’s plenary action to rescind the agreement brought against the executors of the wife’s estate. The husband had alleged that his wife had fraudulently and actively concealed her illness. That illness resulted in the wife’s death after the execution of the settlement agreement, but before the entry of a final judgment of divorce.

Affirming that dismissal, the Second Department noted that to demonstrate fraud, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “knowingly misrepresented or concealed a material fact for the purpose of inducing [him] to rely upon it, and that [he] justifiably relied upon such misrepresentation or concealment to his . . . detriment.”Continue Reading Concealing Terminal Cancer Not Basis to Invalidate Divorce Settlement

A court’s reduction of a divorce judgment’s child support obligations, incorporated from a settlement agreement that survived the entry of that judgment, does not result in a modification of the agreement. The shortfall may still be collected through a separate action to enforce the contract.

As Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Leonard D. Steinman noted in his July 1, 2013 decision in N.S. v. A.S., N.Y.L.J. July 22, 2013, such has been the law of this State for over 70 years:

A modification of a divorce judgment or decree providing that a party is to pay a sum less than he agreed to pay does not relieve such party of any contractual obligation.

In this case, the parties entered a Stipulation of Settlement in January, 2003,resolving all issues stemming from their divorce proceedings. The parties agreed that the agreement would be incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce.

Among the issues resolved were custody and child support for their son, then 2½ years old. It was agreed that the wife  would receive child support from the husband in the amount of $34,000 per year ($2,833.33 per month) for 48 months and thereafter the sum of $39,146 per year ($3,262.16 per month) The increased amount coinciding with the cessation of  four years of maintenance payments to the wife at $3,833.33 per month.

The agreement reflected the ex-husband’s 2001 income was $312,121. The agreement, itself, provided that if the ex-husband’s income were to dip below $250,000, the parties would attempt to renegotiate the maintenance amount. If unsuccessful, the ex-husband could seek a downward modification of his maintenance obligation from the court. The agreement did not provide to the ex-husband with a concomitant right to seek a downward modification of his child support obligations in the event of a reduction in his income.

In April 2004, ex-husband became unemployed and subsequently took a position at the reduced salary of $150,000. In March 2006, the ex-husband moved for a downward modification of his child support and maintenance obligations (by that time, the ex-husband’s maintenance obligations had expired, but he claimed that there were arrears owed to his ex-wife based which he looked to cancel).Continue Reading Contract Enforcement Available Despite Successful Downward Modification of Child Support

It is common for a divorce settlement agreement to provide that a child will be emancipated if he or she leaves the residence of the custodial parent. The result is the stated reduction in child support payments to the custodial parent. However, if the child not only leaves the custodial parent, but moves in with the non-custodial parent, may that parent obtain child support from the former custodial parent? That will depend on the language, or more particularly, the lack of language of the parents’ agreement.

Such is the lesson of the July 10, 2013 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Samuelson v. Samuelson. In that case, the parties were divorced in January, 2011. The divorce judgment incorporated the parties’ 2009 surviving stipulation of settlement.

Under that agreement, the father agreed to pay the mother basic child support of $1,150 per month for the parties’ two children until the occurrence of an “emancipation event,” defined to include a “change in custody.” The stipulation further provided that in the event one child was emancipated, the father’s basic child support obligation would be reduced to $846 per month.

Two months after the divorce judgment was entered, the parties agreed to transfer custody of their son from the mother to the father. Several months later, the father moved for an award of child support from the mother, to be “credited against my child support payments re our minor daughter.” The father claimed he was on the verge of personal bankruptcy.

Supreme Court Queens County Justice William Harrington denied the father’s motion, accepting the mother’s argument, and finding that the parties’ obligations were set by their agreement. The father failed to establish an unanticipated and unreasonable change in circumstances, or that the child’s needs were not being met.

The Second Department affirmed. The parties’ agreement was binding. Since the stipulation set forth the plaintiff’s child support obligation in the event of a change of custody of one of the children, a change in custody of one of the children could not be considered unanticipated.Continue Reading Child Support: When One of the Children Switches Homes

The fact that a father set his daughter up with her own apartment when not away at college could not be used by the father as a basis to discontinue making child support payments to the mother.

Such was the holding in Trepel v. Trepel, a July 12, 2013 decision New York County Supreme Court Justice Lori S. Sattler.

At its heart, this decision was based upon the language of the parties’ surviving divorce stipulation of settlement. Under that stipulation, emancipation for child support purposes did include a change of full-time residence away from the Mother. Under the stipulation,  emancipation  included:

[The daughter’s] residing full-time away from the home of the Mother upon and after her 18th birthday, except that residence at boarding school, college or graduate school, or temporarily during summer camp or other organized summer program, shall not be deemed an Emancipation. The period, if any, from [the daughter’s] return to residence in the home of the Mother until the earliest of any other emancipation event shall be deemed a period prior to Emancipation for all purposes under this Agreement.

The father claimed that his daughter, who turned 18 in April, 2012, was emancipated under this clause as of November, 2012.

On an application by the mother to compel the father to continue paying child support, the father submitted his daughter’s affidavit. According to the daughter, in October, 2012 the mother had told her that she was going to move to Philadelphia to live with her boyfriend, which the mother did in November, 2012. The father then found an apartment for his daughter, sending her pictures of it while away at school at Emory College in Atlanta. The daughter signed a lease in November, 2012 and moved in over Christmas break from school after she and her father purchased furniture and household supplies.Continue Reading Child Support Continues: Full-Time College Student With Own Apartment When Not At School Does Not Reside "Full-Time Away From the Home of the Mother"

In its February 20, 2013 decision in Cioffi-Petrakis v. Petrakis, the Second Department affirmed the decision of former Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Anthony J. Falanga which set aside the parties’ prenuptial agreement. Indeed, decisions over the past year indicate that there may be a pendulum swinging towards easing the burden on the party (generally, the wife) attacking such agreements.

For example, in its December 5, 2012 decision in Petracca v. Petracca, the Second Department affirmed the decision of Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Brown that set aside a postnuptial agreement due to the husband’s overreaching at the time of signing some 16 years earlier (see the blog post of December 10, 2012: “Postnuptial Agreement Vacated for Overreachong 16 Years After Entry).

In Cioffi-Petrakis, the wife contended that her husband had reneged on his oral promise to tear up their prenuptial agreement once she had children made shortly before the pre-nuptial agreements’s execution (the parties now have two sons and a daughter). That promise was not referenced in the parties’ written agreement entered just four days before the parties’ marriage. Moreover, the parties had disclaimed reliance upon oral statements by either party, a relatively standard provision in the agreement, itself. Nevertheless, the Second Department agreed with Justice Falanga that the evidence supported the wife’s claim that she had been fraudulently induced to accept the deal.

Ironically, three years earlier (72 A.D.3d 868, 898 N.Y.S.2d 861), the Second Department affirmed Justice Falanga’s prior order dismissing the wife’s causes of action which attacked the very same agreement on the grounds of unconscionability. There, the Second Department was satisfied with the record’s demonstration that the wife was represented by independent counsel during the prenuptial agreement negotiations (her counsel signed the agreement as a witness). Moreover, the agreement itself recited that the wife entered into it “freely, voluntarily and with full knowledge of all circumstances having a bearing on this agreement.” At that time, the Second Department opined that the wife was provided with meaningful bargained-for benefits, including a one-third interest in one of the defendant’s businesses. The wife had advanced nothing but conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions insufficient to defeat the husband’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to set aside the parties’ prenuptial agreement on the ground of unconscionability.Continue Reading Is it Open Season on Prenuptial Agreements?

On the wife’s motion for temporary relief, Supreme Court, New York County Justice Deborah A. Kaplan in Lennox v. Weberman, awarded the wife tax-free maintenance of $38,000 per month, plus the wife’s unreimbursed medical expenses up to $2,000 per month, interim counsel fees of $50,000, and expert fees of $35,000.

By its February 26, 2013 decision, the First Department modified that order, on the facts, to provide that such pendente lite relief would be treated as an advance on the 50 percent of the parties’ joint funds to which the wife is entitled pursuant to the parties’ prenuptial agreement.

Notwithstanding that the wife had waived any claim to a final award of alimony or maintenance in the parties’ prenuptial agreement, Justice Kaplan was entitled, in her discretion, to award pendente lite relief in the absence of an express agreement to exclude an award of temporary maintenance.

As to the amount of the temporary maintenance award, the appellate court found that Justice Kaplan properly applied the new temporary maintenance formula set forth at Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5–a)(c)(2)(a). Specifically, Justice Kaplan had listed all 19 of the enumerated factors, explained how 7 of them supported an upward deviation to $38,000 per month from the $12,500 a month in guideline support, and found that $38,000 per month was not “unjust or inappropriate.”Continue Reading Pendente Lite Award Prospectively Charged as an Advance Against Wife’s Share of Marital Property