Settlement

Subscribe to Settlement via RSS

In its October 22, 2014 decision, the Appellate Division Second Department in Ebel v. Ebel  upheld an open-court divorce settlement stipulation against the attack of the wife.

In his June, 2012 determination of the lower court, then Supreme Court Suffolk County Justice Hector D. LaSalle (now himself an Associate Justice on the Appellate Division Second Department) had rejected the argument of the wife that her emotional state prevented her from entering that May, 2011 settlement stipulation knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.

On appeal, the Second Department first noted that the wife’s contention that the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement were unconscionable was not properly raised on appeal, as it was not raised at the trial level.

The wife’s additional contention on appeal that the stipulation should have been vacated because it did not address, and she did not waive her claims regarding, certain financial issues was also found to be without without merit.

The Second Department noted that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside, particularly when the parties are represented by attorneys.

Where, as here, the record demonstrates that the parties validly entered into a comprehensive open-court stipulation by which the plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to be bound, the agreement will not be set aside.

Here, the terms of the parties’ agreement, including issues of financial support and equitable distribution of the marital residence, were placed on the record in what the Justice LaSalle characterized as a “global stipulation of settlement.” Moreover, the wife’s counsel affirmatively waived all other equitable distribution matters and withdrew all outstanding requests for relief.Continue Reading Attacking Open-Court Divorce Stipulations: Is There a Double Standard?

In his January 7, 2013 decision in Gluck v. Gluck, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Daniel R. Palmieri, determined that the wife pay 80% of the counsel fees incurred by the husband, as such reflected the wife’s pro rata share of the parties’ total income.

Following a 13-day trial, the parties agreed that the Court would consider the legal fee applications of  both parties on submitted papers. The defendant-husband (the less-monied spouse) sought $125,000.00 in counsel fees under Domestic Relations Law §237 for services rendered by the two law firms that had represented him consecutively in this action.

Justice Palmieri noted that earlier, and after the Court issued its Decision and Order on the issues of custody and parental access, the parties had entered into a stipulation regarding child support and certain holidays. Certain child care expenses were apportioned 80% to the wife and 20% to the husband. The Court adopted those proportions as appropriately based on the incomes of the parties (approximately $360,000.00 and $90,000.00, respectively).

In opposition to the husband’s application, the wife contended that the husband’s obstructionist tactics and unreasonable demands unnecessarily prolonged and delayed the action, going to trial and unreasonably refusing to settle. This, the wife claimed, unnecessarily added to her own counsel fees which were in excess of $200,000.00.

Neither party claimed that the bills of opposing counsel were excessive or not reflective of work performed.

Mary Ann Aiello, Esq., the husband’s latter attorney, conducted the trial and negotiated stipulations in March 2012 regarding the sale of the marital residence and in August 2012 on the issues of equitable distribution and maintenance. After the trial of the remaining issues, the parties settled the issue of child support and certain holiday visitation.Continue Reading Divorce Counsel Fee Awards: Beware Formulaic Approaches