Postnuptial Pact Challenge Goes Forward

Janine and Eugene Petracca signed the disputed postnuptial agreement in March 1996, three months after they married.

Ms. Petracca initiated divorce proceedings in April 2008. In June, Mr. Petracca filed the present motion, seeking to vacate a notice of discovery. He asserted that his wife's “fishing expedition” sought reams of irrelevant documents. Under the terms of the couple's nuptial agreement, he contended, the only outstanding issue was child support.

Ms. Petracca cross-moved to set aside the agreement, arguing among other things that it was facially unconscionable and included numerous misrepresentations made by Mr. Petracca, a prominent Long Island contractor.

That cross-motion set into motion the present dispute over the application of the statute of limitations for attacking nuptial agreements. Under the CPLR, the validity of a contract must be challenged within six years of its signing. However, applying that standard to marital agreements would require “presumably happy” spouses to litigate the validity of their agreements or “be forever barred,” as Justice Brown noted.

Faced with that conundrum, the Appellate Division, First Department, repeatedly held that the statute of limitations is tolled until the parties separate, or until one party dies or files for divorce. The Second Department, on the other hand, ruled that marital agreements are time barred if the action was not brought within six years of its execution.

In attempting to mend the split, the Court of Appeals only confused the issue with Bloomfield v. Bloomfield, 97 NY 2d 188, which distinguished between whether the statute of limitations was raised affirmatively or defensively.

The state Legislature then introduced DRL ' 250, which spurred questions of its own, including whether it applied to nuptial agreements ' such as the one in the Petracca case ' executed before January 2001.

In his decision, Justice Brown found that the latest amendment to DRL ' 250 answers those questions: For any action initiated after July 3, 2007, and not previously barred, the statute of limitations begins to run three years after the commencement of the matrimonial action or the death of a party. As Ms. Petracca commenced the present action in April, her challenge of the postnuptial agreement is not barred, Justice Brown concluded. He therefore ordered a hearing to determine whether the postnuptial agreement is valid and enforceable.

Matrimonial Practitioners React

Myrna Felder, a matrimonial expert not involved in this case, praised the decision. “It's good that we're having well-reasoned and correct decisions concerning the impact of this new statute because, on its face, the statute's so confusing ' which is only exceeded by the confusion that came about after Bloomfield,” Ms. Felder said.

Bernard Clair of Clair Greifer represented Ms. Petracca. Mr. Clair seconded Ms. Felder's opinion.”This goes a long way toward resolving the artificial distinction that had arisen between departments regarding the tolling of a nuptial agreement during the marriage,” Mr. Clair said. “We are pleased that the court gave common sense applicability to the statutory language and intent behind the statute.”

Stephen W. Schlissel of Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos represented Mr. Petracca. Mr. Schlissel said his client is considering an appeal.

Mark Faas writes for the New York Law Journal, an Incisive Media sister publication of this newsletter.

In the first case to interpret the latest amendment to a perplexing New York matrimonial statute, a state judge has ruled that a Long Island woman may challenge the validity of her postnuptial agreement 12 years after it was signed, notwithstanding the three-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations began to run only when plaintiff Janine Petracca initiated the divorce proceedings earlier this year, ruled Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Brown of Nassau County.

The decision seeks to clarify an issue muddled by confusing precedent and repeated amendments to the controlling statute, Domestic Relations Law ' 250. The most recent amendment states that, for all cases filed after July 2, 2007, and not invalidated by a court, the statute of limitations for challenging a nuptial agreement is tolled until either one party dies or process is served in a matrimonial action, Justice Brown ruled in Petracca v. Petracca, 201099-08. “Moreover,” he concluded, “the statute should not be extended by construction beyond its express terms or reasonable implication to its language.”

The Petracca Case

Janine and Eugene Petracca signed the disputed postnuptial agreement in March 1996, three months after they married.

Ms. Petracca initiated divorce proceedings in April 2008. In June, Mr. Petracca filed the present motion, seeking to vacate a notice of discovery. He asserted that his wife's “fishing expedition” sought reams of irrelevant documents. Under the terms of the couple's nuptial agreement, he contended, the only outstanding issue was child support.

Ms. Petracca cross-moved to set aside the agreement, arguing among other things that it was facially unconscionable and included numerous misrepresentations made by Mr. Petracca, a prominent Long Island contractor.

That cross-motion set into motion the present dispute over the application of the statute of limitations for attacking nuptial agreements. Under the CPLR, the validity of a contract must be challenged within six years of its signing. However, applying that standard to marital agreements would require “presumably happy” spouses to litigate the validity of their agreements or “be forever barred,” as Justice Brown noted.

Faced with that conundrum, the Appellate Division, First Department, repeatedly held that the statute of limitations is tolled until the parties separate, or until one party dies or files for divorce. The Second Department, on the other hand, ruled that marital agreements are time barred if the action was not brought within six years of its execution.

In attempting to mend the split, the Court of Appeals only confused the issue with Bloomfield v. Bloomfield , 97 NY 2d 188, which distinguished between whether the statute of limitations was raised affirmatively or defensively.

The state Legislature then introduced DRL ' 250, which spurred questions of its own, including whether it applied to nuptial agreements ' such as the one in the Petracca case ' executed before January 2001.

In his decision, Justice Brown found that the latest amendment to DRL ' 250 answers those questions: For any action initiated after July 3, 2007, and not previously barred, the statute of limitations begins to run three years after the commencement of the matrimonial action or the death of a party. As Ms. Petracca commenced the present action in April, her challenge of the postnuptial agreement is not barred, Justice Brown concluded. He therefore ordered a hearing to determine whether the postnuptial agreement is valid and enforceable.

Matrimonial Practitioners React

Myrna Felder, a matrimonial expert not involved in this case, praised the decision. “It's good that we're having well-reasoned and correct decisions concerning the impact of this new statute because, on its face, the statute's so confusing ' which is only exceeded by the confusion that came about after Bloomfield,” Ms. Felder said.

Bernard Clair of Clair Greifer represented Ms. Petracca. Mr. Clair seconded Ms. Felder's opinion.”This goes a long way toward resolving the artificial distinction that had arisen between departments regarding the tolling of a nuptial agreement during the marriage,” Mr. Clair said. “We are pleased that the court gave common sense applicability to the statutory language and intent behind the statute.”

Stephen W. Schlissel of Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos represented Mr. Petracca. Mr. Schlissel said his client is considering an appeal.

Mark Faas writes for the New York Law Journal, an Incisive Media sister publication of this newsletter.