Decisions of Interest

The parties had resided together as husband and wife in New York during several periods, but not for prolonged amounts of time; instead, they moved from place to place and traveled extensively. At the time of filing, the husband was deemed not to have been a resident of New York for at least a year, as he holds a European Union passport, does not pay U.S. income taxes and has never spent more than three months in any one year in the United States. However, the court found that the wife was a New York resident, though she had moved to Ireland in 2010 and claimed to be a resident of that country.

The court based this decision on several factors, including the fact that the wife used her Millbrook, NY, rental property's address when filing her taxes, when banking, when registering to vote and when obtaining and maintaining a driver's license. The court found that many of the wife's actions since the divorce complaint was filed seemed calculated to position her as an Irish resident, though she “continued to keep one foot in New York State.” As she was still connected in many ways to New York and clearly intended to maintain her New York domicile, the court concluded that it could properly exercise jurisdiction.'

'

Postnuptial Agreement Ratified By Later Reliance on It

Even though the divorcing couple's postnuptial agreement was not signed by the parties in open court, it was valid and enforceable because it was entered into during the divorce proceedings, was signed by the parties and was ratified by the husband when he relied upon it to his benefit. Rio v. Rio, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6989 (2d Dept. 10/30/13) (Mastro, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ.).

The divorcing couple had been separated in 2005, at which time they entered into a separation agreement that provided, inter alia, that the husband would give the wife $500 in maintenance for a period of two years. They reunited in 2007 but again filed for divorce in 2008. In conjunction with discontinuing this second divorce action, they entered into a postnuptial agreement that provided that all previous agreements were revoked. This agreement, which said the husband would pay the wife $300,000, was executed by the parties in front of two witnesses. The husband had discharged his attorney prior to its signing.

A third action for divorce was commenced in 2010. On Dec. 16, 2010, the parties and their counsel signed a preliminary conference stipulation and order concerning present maintenance being paid, stating the wife was being paid “$1,000 per week to be credited toward $300,000 under postnup Agreement.” The husband later moved for determinations that the postnuptial agreement was not valid and that the 2005 separation agreement was the enforceable one. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the motion, concluding that the postnuptial agreement was valid and binding on the parties and incorporated, but did not merge, the postnuptial agreement into the judgment.

The husband appealed, claiming the postnuptial agreement did not comply with Domestic Relations Law (DRL) ' 236(B)(3), which states, “An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded.”

The appellate court noted that a written agreement between parties made before or during a marriage that does not meet the formalities of DRL ' 236(B)(3) is not enforceable. However, DRL ' 236(B)(3) “applies only to agreements entered into outside the context of a pending judicial proceeding.” Rubenfeld v. Rubenfeld, 279 AD2d 153. “Here,” stated the court, “the record established that the parties relied on the duly executed stipulation of settlement, which was denominated as the postnuptial agreement, as a means of resolving the respondent's prior divorce action. It is undisputed that the postnuptial agreement was executed while the respondent's action was pending before the Supreme Court. Further, in the instant action, the Supreme Court referred to the appellant's obligations pursuant to the postnuptial agreement in two prior orders. Accordingly, the postnuptial agreement was valid, as it 'was executed in the context of a pending divorce proceeding, and was subject to judicial oversight, even though it was not signed in open court' (Acito v. Acito, 23 Misc. 3d 832 []; see CPLR 2104).”

In addition, the husband ratified the postnuptial agreement by referencing and relying on it in this action in the preliminary conference order concerning his maintenance obligation. Thus, according to Wasserman v. Wasserman, 217 AD2d 554, having ratified the agreement and accepted the benefits provided under it for a “considerable period of time,” the husband had relinquished the right to challenge the postnuptial agreement.

'

'

Domiciled in New York, Not Ireland

In a case posing a complicated domicile question, Supreme Court, Putnam County, has concluded that a wife has sufficient ties to the State of New York to justify its exercise of jurisdiction over the matrimonial case filed there by her husband. MR. S v. MS. S, [Index Number Redacted by Court] NYLJ 1202619214371, at *1 (Sup. PU, Decided Aug. 23, 2013) (Rooney, J.).

After the husband filed a divorce action in Putnam County Supreme Court, the wife moved for dismissal, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Domestic Relations Law (DRL) Section 230(2), which confers jurisdiction in these matters if the parties “resided in this state as husband and wife and either party [was] a resident thereof when the action [was] commenced and has been a resident for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding.” The court noted that “[t]he purpose of these durational requirements is to protect New York courts from being utilized by litigants in matrimonial proceedings who have little or no connection with New York.”

The parties had resided together as husband and wife in New York during several periods, but not for prolonged amounts of time; instead, they moved from place to place and traveled extensively. At the time of filing, the husband was deemed not to have been a resident of New York for at least a year, as he holds a European Union passport, does not pay U.S. income taxes and has never spent more than three months in any one year in the United States. However, the court found that the wife was a New York resident, though she had moved to Ireland in 2010 and claimed to be a resident of that country.

The court based this decision on several factors, including the fact that the wife used her Millbrook, NY, rental property's address when filing her taxes, when banking, when registering to vote and when obtaining and maintaining a driver's license. The court found that many of the wife's actions since the divorce complaint was filed seemed calculated to position her as an Irish resident, though she “continued to keep one foot in New York State.” As she was still connected in many ways to New York and clearly intended to maintain her New York domicile, the court concluded that it could properly exercise jurisdiction.'

'

Postnuptial Agreement Ratified By Later Reliance on It

Even though the divorcing couple's postnuptial agreement was not signed by the parties in open court, it was valid and enforceable because it was entered into during the divorce proceedings, was signed by the parties and was ratified by the husband when he relied upon it to his benefit. Rio v. Rio , 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6989 (2d Dept. 10/30/13) (Mastro, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ.).

The divorcing couple had been separated in 2005, at which time they entered into a separation agreement that provided, inter alia, that the husband would give the wife $500 in maintenance for a period of two years. They reunited in 2007 but again filed for divorce in 2008. In conjunction with discontinuing this second divorce action, they entered into a postnuptial agreement that provided that all previous agreements were revoked. This agreement, which said the husband would pay the wife $300,000, was executed by the parties in front of two witnesses. The husband had discharged his attorney prior to its signing.

A third action for divorce was commenced in 2010. On Dec. 16, 2010, the parties and their counsel signed a preliminary conference stipulation and order concerning present maintenance being paid, stating the wife was being paid “$1,000 per week to be credited toward $300,000 under postnup Agreement.” The husband later moved for determinations that the postnuptial agreement was not valid and that the 2005 separation agreement was the enforceable one. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the motion, concluding that the postnuptial agreement was valid and binding on the parties and incorporated, but did not merge, the postnuptial agreement into the judgment.

The husband appealed, claiming the postnuptial agreement did not comply with Domestic Relations Law (DRL) ' 236(B)(3), which states, “An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded.”

The appellate court noted that a written agreement between parties made before or during a marriage that does not meet the formalities of DRL ' 236(B)(3) is not enforceable. However, DRL ' 236(B)(3) “applies only to agreements entered into outside the context of a pending judicial proceeding.” Rubenfeld v. Rubenfeld , 279 AD2d 153. “Here,” stated the court, “the record established that the parties relied on the duly executed stipulation of settlement, which was denominated as the postnuptial agreement, as a means of resolving the respondent's prior divorce action. It is undisputed that the postnuptial agreement was executed while the respondent's action was pending before the Supreme Court. Further, in the instant action, the Supreme Court referred to the appellant's obligations pursuant to the postnuptial agreement in two prior orders. Accordingly, the postnuptial agreement was valid, as it 'was executed in the context of a pending divorce proceeding, and was subject to judicial oversight, even though it was not signed in open court' ( Acito v. Acito , 23 Misc. 3d 832 []; see CPLR 2104).”

In addition, the husband ratified the postnuptial agreement by referencing and relying on it in this action in the preliminary conference order concerning his maintenance obligation. Thus, according to Wasserman v. Wasserman , 217 AD2d 554, having ratified the agreement and accepted the benefits provided under it for a “considerable period of time,” the husband had relinquished the right to challenge the postnuptial agreement.

'

'