Narrative Opinion Summary
In a divorce action, the plaintiff wife appealed a June 25, 1996 order from the Supreme Court of Westchester County that denied her motion to prevent the defendant husband from benefiting from her waiver of rights to certain marital property under their stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the order, emphasizing that a settlement stipulation will not be disturbed unless there is evidence of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress. The court referenced established precedents, stating that if an agreement appears fair and lacks indicators of overreaching, it will not be vacated even if one party did not disclose financial information, unless the undisclosed information was significantly consequential enough to alter the decision to enter into the agreement. The husband's nondisclosure of a payment from a creditor was ruled insufficient to make the stipulation unfair enough to warrant vacatur. The decision was unanimous among the justices.
Legal Issues Addressed
Determining Fairness of Marital Settlement Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The husband's nondisclosure of a payment from a creditor was ruled insufficient to make the stipulation unfair.
Reasoning: The husband's nondisclosure of a payment from a creditor was ruled insufficient to make the stipulation unfair enough to warrant vacatur.
Disclosure Obligations in Marital Settlement Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the nondisclosure of financial information must be significantly consequential to warrant vacating a settlement agreement.
Reasoning: The court referenced established precedents, stating that if an agreement appears fair and lacks indicators of overreaching, it will not be vacated even if one party did not disclose financial information, unless the undisclosed information was significantly consequential enough to alter the decision to enter into the agreement.
Enforcement of Settlement Stipulationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reinforced that settlement stipulations in divorce actions will not be disturbed absent evidence of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the order, emphasizing that a settlement stipulation will not be disturbed unless there is evidence of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress.