More and more New Yorker’s are including stipulations in their settlement agreement in order to expedite the dissolving of their marriage.  While doing so can, in some cases, enhance and speed up your divorce proceedings, couples can also get bogged down with details which can cause serious friction that will ultimately delay the proceedings.

If you and your soon-to-be-ex spouse choose to undertake the task of including stipulations in your settlement agreement, it is strongly recommended that you do so with the help of an experienced New York divorce attorney.

Why?  

Such an agreement must be meticulously crafted as even minor ambiguities can lead to serious, often very ugly, disputes which, more often than not, leads to costly and possibly very lengthy disputes.  If you have questions about your options with regard to adding stipulations to your settlement agreement, we suggest contacting a NY lawyer from the get go.

As a Matter of Fact

Take a few moments to read the following … it could save you a great deal of stress, frustration, time and money.  The “it won’t happen to us” attitude is one that frequently doubles back to bite you.  Don’t let sentiment or the desire for a speedy resolution tempt you into making a mistake that can cause months, even years of overwhelming problems.  There are plenty of New Yorker’s who’ve made this mistake . . . don’t let it happen to you.

It is alleged that the husband and the wife were married in March 2000 and had one daughter, born in November 2003. The parties subsequently divorced in 2007. They resolved their financial and custody issues through a stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into their final judgment of divorce in December 2007. Under this stipulation, the wife was granted exclusive occupancy of the marital residence until its sale, with the husband responsible for monthly mortgage payments, real estate taxes, and homeowner’s insurance. Additionally, the husband was required to cover 57% of their daughter’s college expenses, with no specific provision regarding who would pay the remaining 43%. The husband paid 100% of the tuition costs up to the date of the litigation.

It is reported that the husband sought enforcement of the stipulation regarding the marital residence and requested credits for payments made towards homeowner’s insurance, property taxes, and their daughter’s college tuition. The wife filed a cross-motion contesting these credits and seeking additional credits for mortgage principal reductions. The trial court granted the husband’s motion, awarding him credits for the insurance and tax payments and for the child’s tuition while denying the wife’s cross-motion entirely. The wife appealed.

Interpretation of Stipulation of Settlement Agreements

On appeal, the court reviewed the stipulation of settlement under ordinary contract principles, emphasizing that clear and unambiguous terms must be enforced as written. The court acknowledged that while the husband was entitled to some credit for his post-2009 insurance and tax payments, the trial court erred in awarding him credit for the entire period from 2009 to 2022. The court noted that the husband’s records did not specify when he began making direct payments, warranting a remand for recalculation of the appropriate credit.

Regarding the college tuition payments, the court identified an ambiguity in the stipulation concerning the wife’s obligation to pay 43% of their daughter’s tuition. The court remanded this issue for further proceedings to resolve the ambiguity, allowing the submission of extrinsic evidence to determine whether the wife was responsible for this portion of the tuition. The court clarified that if it was determined that she was obligated to pay, the husband should receive a credit against any outstanding arrears or the wife’s purchase of the marital home.

The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny the wife’s claim for a 100% credit of the mortgage principal reduction, concluding that the stipulation did not entitle her to such a credit. Furthermore, the court upheld the denial of prejudgment interest, noting that the stipulation did not provide for it and that such interest is not automatically granted in matrimonial cases. The appellate court thus modified the lower court’s order by vacating the credits awarded to the husband and remanding for further determination and recalculation while affirming the rest of the order.

In any legal matter, the only advice that is worth its weight is gold is from a highly experienced Legal Team that specializes in the matter at hand.  Only a New York City Divorce Lawyers can give you the advice and assistance you need to ensure that every eventuality is considered and your best interests are fully covered.  Every time you sign a legal document you need to be 100% confident that it covers you today, tomorrow and for many years to come.

Don’t risk a peaceful future for a moment of convenience today.