Opinion
Index No. 365010/2023
09-03-2024
M.B.P., Plaintiff, v. M.P., Defendant.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan LLP By: Liza S. Camellerie, Esq. Counsel for Defendant: The Law Offices of Daniel B. Nottes PLLC By: Daniel B. Nottes, Esq.
Unpublished Opinion
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan LLP
By: Liza S. Camellerie, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant:
The Law Offices of Daniel B. Nottes PLLC
By: Daniel B. Nottes, Esq.
Ariel D. Chesler, J.
The parties were married in 2010. Five years into their marriage, the parties entered into a comprehensive postnuptial agreement on or about August of 2015 (the postnuptial agreement). Plaintiff-Wife (the Wife), then commenced this action for divorce pursuant to DRL § 170(7) against Defendant-Husband, (the Husband), on or about January of 2023, by filing a Summons and Verified Complaint.
DISCUSSION
The Wife moves under this Order to Show Cause for various points of relief; however, important here is her request for a summary judgment for a judgment of divorce pursuant to DRL § 170(7) based upon the argument that all issues of ancillary relief are resolved by the terms of the parties' postnuptial agreement. She also moves for counsel fees based on the Husband's alleged breach/non-compliance with the postnuptial agreement. (Wife's Order to Show Cause MSN 003 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 72]).
The Husband cross-moves and argues for, inter alia, denial of the Wife's Order to Show Cause, sanctions, and counsel fees. The Court heard extensive oral arguments on motion sequence.
I. The Postnuptial Agreement Resolves All Ancillary Relief Required Under DRL § 170(7) Entitling the Wife to Summary Judgment
This Court is tasked with determining whether the Wife is entitled to summary judgment for a divorce under DRL § 170(7) based upon the language of the parties' postnuptial agreement.
As a starting point, the Court notes that the parties do not dispute the validity or enforceability of the post-nuptial agreement. Indeed, they entered a "So-Ordered" stipulation to such effect. Likewise, there is no issue of grounds as they are resolved by the pleadings.
Domestic Relations Law section 170 subsection 7, commonly known as the "no-fault" provision, provides,
An action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or a wife to procure a judgment divorcing the parties and dissolving the marriage on any of the following grounds: [...] The relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath. No judgment of divorce shall be granted under this subdivision unless and until the economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of child support, the payment of counsel and expert's fees and expenses [...] have been resolved by the parties or determined by the court and incorporated into the judgment of divorce. (Id. [internal emphasis supplied]).
The "black letter standard" for summary judgment is clearly stated in CPLR § 3212 as,
(Piccareto v Mura, 51 Misc.3d 1230[A] [Sup Ct, Monroe Cnty 2016][Dollinger, J.]).
The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. [...] the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact. (CPLR § 3212[b]).
To resolve the Wife's request, the Court must determine if the pleadings and papers before this court and this postnuptial agreement "resolve[s]" all the ancillary issues required under the DRL § 170(7). Here, under the Statute, the only relevant points of relief are: (1) equitable distribution of marital property; (2) spousal support; and (3) counsel and expert's fees. It is undisputed that the parties share no unemancipated children; thus, there are no issues of custody, visitation, or child support unresolved. Put simply, the Court must determine if there is a genuine dispute as to any material issue of fact on any of those statutory three issues.
Arguing against this, the Father argues broadly that there remains "issues unresolved" that prevent summary judgment of divorce. He fails to specify any issue; instead, he argues that judgment is "premature" as there are issues related to interpretation, modification, and reformation. Notably, these issues do not prevent judgment as the Husband they are all not related to the validity of the agreement. The Husband's claims for modification and interpretation do not actually implicate the ability of the Wife to obtain judgment, but rather are arguments for why the existing agreement should be modified. As it is, however, there is an agreement that resolves these issues.
A. Equitable Distribution is resolved by the postnuptial agreement
The Wife argues that the agreement clearly resolves the issue of equitable distribution and that accordingly should be granted a divorce. The Husband generally denies this issue is resolved but does not do so with any specificity. The Husband's general denial is insufficient to avoid the Court's award of summary judgment if the post-nuptial agreement properly accords for such relief. (See S.J. Capelin Associates, Inc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 343 [1974][Non-movant has the burden to produce "[s]ome evidentiary facts."]). The parties' postnuptial agreement provides,
Except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, each party hereby waives all rights in the property of the other including dower, curtesy, community property, and equitable distribution or a distributive award of marital property. Except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, each Party forever waives and relinquishes any right to equitable distribution.
Here, as the parties have already stipulated to the validity and enforceability of the postnuptial agreement, this provision clearly resolves the issue of equitable distribution in that it sets forth clear waivers and articulates that all property issues were contemplated and ordered within the postnuptial agreement. Accordingly, as the Husband has not offered a triable issue of fact and the Wife has supported her summary judgment claim on equitable distribution with undisputed proof entitling her to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of equitable distribution. She is entitled to summary judgment on equitable distribution. (See CPLR § 3212[b]).
B. Spousal Support is resolved by the postnuptial agreement
The Wife argues that she is entitled to summary judgment because the spousal support ancillary issue is also resolved in the postnuptial agreement. She buttresses this argument with the language of the postnuptial agreement. Specifically, she cites the Husband's maintenance waiver. The Wife's maintenance award is set forth as well. Notably, included in maintenance is the Husband's obligation to provide long term care for the Wife. This waiver specifically waives "permanent support, alimony, maintenance, necessaries fees upon a Termination Event." The "Termination Event" indisputably occurred upon the Wife's commencement of this action. Thus, the maintenance award and waiver became effective. And, again, the parties have stipulated that this waiver and the Wife's award are valid and enforceable; thus, the Husband has not presented a triable issue of fact as to spousal support.
While there must not be a triable issue of fact, the proponent for summary judgment likewise must show they are entitled to judgment "as a matter of law." (CPLR § 32123[b]). Here, the Husband argues that there is no entitlement to judgment as matter of law as the Husband is lodging a modification and reformation request.
This argument raised by the Husband is incompatible with the plain meaning of the Domestic Relations Law and the parties' agreement. Domestic Relations Law section 170(7) requires issues be "resolved" prior to the entry of a judgment of divorce. Here, his request for a modification does not "unresolve" the issue. The issue is resolved by the plain text of the maintenance provisions in paragraphs 60, 61 and 69 of the postnuptial agreement. Likewise, this waiver and award to the Wife are valid and enforceable pursuant to the So-Ordered Stipulation entered into by the Husband. Accordingly, this provision resolves the issue of maintenance as contemplated in the Statute.
To be clear, the Husband's after-the-fact modification request does not impede entry of judgment because the issue was already resolved by the postnuptial agreement. The request to modify such provisions can be brought in a post-judgment posture and does not negate both the validity and enforceability of the postnuptial provisions that entitles the Wife to summary judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Husband has failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact and the Wife has shown she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and is thus entitled to summary judgment on the issue of spousal support.
C. Counsel & Expert's Fees are resolved by the postnuptial agreement
The postnuptial agreement provides,
[E]ach Party expressly waives any and all right to seek or obtain any award of legal, counsel, expert, accounting or other fees, expenses or costs incurred in connection with a dissolution of the marriage or any litigation between the Parties, including, without limitation, interim or pendente lite awards of legal, counsel, expert accounting or other fees, expenses, or costs.
Again, the parties ratified the enforceability and validity of this provision in the So-Ordered Stipulation. Accordingly, the issue of counsel and expert fees was resolved by the plain terms of the postnuptial agreement. The parties' respective requests for counsel fees in the underlying motion sequence are thoroughly addressed below; however, neither prevents the entry of judgment. The Father moves for fees under a theory of sanctions - sanctions are not relief that needs to be resolved to enter a divorce judgment pursuant to DRL § 170(7). Likewise, the Wife is seeking relief under theories of breach and non-compliance. However, this does not impede a divorce judgment under DRL § 170(7) - as specifically cited by the Wife. (See Hoffer-Adou v Adou, 121 A.D.3d 618, 619 [1st Dept 2014]["'Noncompliance with, or enforcement of, the separation agreement is not an element of Domestic Relations Law § 170[7].'"] citing, Burger v Burger, 36 Misc.3d 752, 755 [Sup Ct, Nassau Cnty 2012]).
Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact on the issue of counsel fees and the Wife is entitled to judgment on that issue as a matter of law entitling her to summary judgment.
D. Summary Judgment on the Divorce Complaint is required
Accordingly, as the Wife has shown all ancillary relief under section 170(7) to have been resolved by the postnuptial agreement, the Wife's request for summary judgment for a judgment of divorce pursuant to DLR § 170(7) is GRANTED. (See CPLR § 3212[b]).
II. The Husband's Request for Sanctions is Denied
Sanctions are only appropriate where conduct is frivolous. (See 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). In reviewing the circumstances, the arguments raised by the Wife, the numerosity of the Father's requests, and the outcome of this motion, the Husband has failed to demonstrate the Wife, or her counsel engaged in frivolous conduct. The Court also notes the Husband's only theory of sanctions was the Wife's arguments under the agreement for counsel fees. (Husband's aff. ¶ 62 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 102]). While the Court does not prejudge such requests as they are denied without prejudice herein, they are certainly not frivolous. Accordingly, the Husband's request for sanctions is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
In light of these determinations, the Court denies - without prejudice - all other points of relief in both the Husband's Cross-Motion and the Wife's underlying motion because the instant divorce action is now resolved by granting the Wife's suit for divorce via summary judgment. All unresolved relief raised in this sequence can still be sought in a post-judgment posture and does not prevent the entry of a divorce judgment under the black letters of DRL § 170(7). Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Wife's request for summary judgment for a judgment of divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170(7) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the parties' are to submit a judgment of divorce packet as directed by a separate sixty (60) day order issued simultaneously herewith; and it is further
ORDERED that the Husband's request for sanctions is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that all other relief requested herein is DENIED without prejudice.