The November 12, 2014 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Bibeau v. Sudick reversed the granting of summary judgment upholding the validity a 2000 prenuptial agreement, remanding the matter for a hearing on that issue.

In September 28, 2000, two days before their wedding, the 70-year old future husband and the 38-year old future wife executed a premarital agreement. It provided that in the event of a divorce, the wife would receive, in lieu of maintenance, support, and equitable distribution, the sum of $25,000 for each year of the marriage. The parties also agreed to waive their interest in the elective share of each other’s estate, and to make no claim to property titled in the other’s name.

According to financial statements attached to the premarital agreement, the future husband had assets of more than $10,000,000, while the future wife had assets of approximately $170,000. The agreement was signed in the office of the husband’s attorney, in the presence of another attorney who was purportedly representing the wife.

At the time of the marriage, the wife, who had a background in marketing works of fine art to corporations, had recently opened an art gallery in California. She closed this business and relocated to Pine Bush, New York, in order to reside with the husband in preparation for their marriage, and assist him in his business endeavors. These included real estate development, as well as breeding thoroughbred horses and managing polo ponies.

In October, 2010, within days of New York’s adoption of no-fault divorce, the husband commenced this action for divorce. There were no children of the marriage.


Continue Reading Another Prenup Bites the Dust, Maybe

In its October 30, 2014 decision in Hoffer-Adou v. Adou, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the granting of summary judgment awarding a no-fault divorce solely upon the plaintiff’s (here the wife) sworn statement. That award had been made below by Supreme Court, New York County Justice Deborah A. Kaplan.

In so holding the First Department joined the Fourth Department in holding that whether there has been an irretrievable breakdown is purely subjective. In a decision issued November 9, 2012 in Palermo v. Palermo, the Fourth Department (December 13, 2012 blog post) had affirmed a decision of Monroe County Supreme Court Justice Richard A. Dollinger (January 30, 2012 blog post) for the reasons stated in Justice Dollinger’s opinion: a party’s sworn statement of irretrievable breakdown is incontestable. It is not subject to attack at trial.

The First Department, here, held:

Contrary to the husband’s contention, the wife was entitled to a judgment of divorce under the no-fault provision of DRL § 170(7), since her statement under oath that the marriage was irretrievably broken for a period of six months was sufficient to establish her cause of action for divorce as a matter of law.

However, as noted in prior blog posts, the subject has not been without debate. Two decisions of the Nassau County Supreme Court, Townes v. Coker (relied upon by the First Department and discussed in the blog post of February, 20, 2012), and A.C. v. D.R. (discussed in the April 4, 2011 post), both held that New York’s new no-fault ground was purely subjective.


Continue Reading A Party’s Sworn Statement Of Irretrievable Breakdown Is Incontestable: The First Department Weighs In

The Second Department seems to have taken another bite out of prenuptial agreements. My March 25, 2013 post asked, Is it Open Season on Prenuptial Agreements? That post discussed the Second Department’s February, 2013 decision in Cioffi-Petrakis v. Petrakis and its December, 2012 decision in Petracca v. Petracca. Both cases affirmed Supreme Court Nassau County decisions setting aside the prenuptial agreements in issue,

Now, in an October 15, 2014 decision in McKenna v. McKenna, the Second Department modified an order of Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Margaret C. Reilly that had granted a husband summary judgment motion declaring the parties’ prenuptial agreement to be valid and enforceable. Justice Reilly had also denied the wife’s motion for an award of pendente lite maintenance and counsel fees.

Holding that summary judgment was not warranted, the appellate court may have increased or changed the burden needed to uphold a prenuptial agreement; changing the role of a contract’s “merger clause.” That clause declares that no factual representations not specifically referenced in the contract may later be used to claim the contract was fraudulently induced. Typically, it is a shield used to protect the agreement from attack.

In McKenna, the Second Department suggests a merger clause may be used as a sword: preventing a court from learning the wife’s actual knowledge of the husband’s finances at the time the prenuptial agreement was entered. As that knowledge could only have come from representations of the husband, the merger clause would bar proof of such representations not referenced by the agreement.


Continue Reading It Just Became Tougher To Validate Prenuptial Agreements

As noted in the previous blog, Gazzillo Ralph.jpgagreements which resolve marital rights and obligations are encouraged. They will be enforced absent demonstrable improprieties.

In his January 23, 2011 decision in Capone v. Capone (pdf), Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Ralph T. Gazzillo granted summary judgment dismissing a wife’s action to rescind and declare null and void a November, 2008 Separation Agreement.

In January, 2010 the husband commenced an action for divorce based on the parties living separate and apart pursuant to that agreement for a period in excess of one year (“grounds” for divorce under Domestic Relations Law §170[6]). The wife responded by bringing her own action in February, 2011 attacking the agreement on the grounds that it was the result of overreaching, coercion, and undue influence. She also alleged that it was manifestly unfair, unjust, inequitable and unconscionable.

The husband moved for summary judgment dismissing the wife’s action. Justice Gazzillo noted that summary judgment is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in the absence of any triable issues of fact. Justice Gazzillo held that the wife failed to demonstrate that the agreement was unfair when made or that there was overreaching in its execution. Quoting the 1977 decision of the Court of Appeals in Christian v.Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 396 NYS2d 817, Justice Gazzillo stated:

Judicial review of separation agreements is to be exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view to the encouragement of parties settling their own differences in connection with the negotiation of property settlement provisions.

Here, the parties’ Separation Agreement had been entered with the assistance of Divorce Mediation Professionals (Lenard Marlow, J.D.). The parties only entered their agreement following at least 10 conferences, letters between the parties and the mediator, revisions, a written suggestion by the mediator to the wife that she consult with her own attorney to discuss changes to the agreement, and the valuation of the husband’s pension.


Continue Reading Wife's Attack on 2-Year-Old Mediated Separation Agreement Summarily Dismissed

Falanga.jpgIn his March 28, 2011 decision in A.C. v. D.R., Supreme Court Nassau County Justice Anthony J. Falanga gave full effect to New York’s new no-fault divorce law and temporary financial relief amendments.

In this first blog of two parts, the Court’s joinder of the wife’s no-fault action with the husband’s pre-no-fault action will be considered, together with the denial of the the wife’s motion for partial summary judgment on her no-fault grounds.  Although holding there is no defense to a no-fault claim, the Court declared that summary judgment and bifurcation of grounds issues are inapproriate.

Wednesday’s blog will consder the financial awards granted under the recent D.R.L. amendments.

The parties were married in 1992 and have 3 children, ages 13, 10 and 7. The husband, 52, is a physician; the wife, 46, a homemaker.

The husband commenced his divorce action on July 27, 2010 on the grounds of constructive abandonment and/or cruelty, although the wife was not served until October 22, 2010 (well within the 120 days of filing needed for timely service). However, four days before such timely service, the wife filed her own Summons with Notice, commencing an irretrievable-breakdown divorce action under D.R.L. §170(7) [effective October 13, 2010].

Earlier in this case, Justice Falanga resolved by January 18 Order, the husband’s motion to consolidate the two actions. The wife opposed on the grounds that if her action was subsumed within the earlier action, she would be prejudiced by her inability to avail herself of the new financial statutes. Represented by Robert Broderick, Esq., the wife argued instead for joinder for trial under C.P.L.R. §602(a), leaving the two actions intact, yet bringing the two actions together in one venue for pretrial and trial proceedings.

Justice Falanga noted that by joining the cases, as opposed to consolidating them, the husband would preserve his earlier commencement date for Equitable Distribution purposes, yet the wife would be entitled to relief under the later-enacted amendments to D.R.L. §§236B(5-a) and 237. In its January 18 Order, the Court granted a joint trial and joint discovery, after a bifurcated immediate grounds trial.

However, before that trial, the wife moved for partial summary judgment to establish her no-fault grounds as well as for interim financial relief.

In its March 28 Order, the Court re-analyzed the issues addressed in its January 18Order, denied partial summary judgment and canceled the grounds trial. In doing so, Justice Falanga gave true meaning to the no-fault nature of New York’s new divorce ground.

. . . [A] plaintiff’s self-serving declaration about his or her state of mind is all that is required for the dissolution of a marriage on grounds that it is irretrievably broken. . . . In adopting no-fault divorce, the Legislature implicitly recognized that the parties to a marriage should be able to make personal and unavoidably subjective decisions about the continuation of their marriage partnership.

. . . .

Therefore, in this court’s view, the Legislature did not intend nor is there a defense to DRL § 170(7).

Denying partial summary judgment, Justice Falanga also gave full import to the second sentence of D.R.L. §170(7), which provides that “no judgment of divorce shall be granted” until the custody and financial issues have been resolved. Such, the Court held, precludes the granting of summary judgment.


Continue Reading Court Recognizes There Is No Defense to No-Fault Divorce, But Withholds Summary Judgment