Zubli v Sakizadeh
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law dispute over whether a postnuptial agreement in a divorce action should be enforced without a hearing.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the defendant's motion to set aside the postnuptial agreement without a hearing and later held in the judgment of divorce that there were no assets subject to equitable distribution because of that agreement.
The Appellate Division dismissed the direct appeal from the intermediate order, but reversed the judgment of divorce insofar as appealed from, vacated the May 5, 2023 order, and remitted for a hearing and a new determination on the motion to set aside the postnuptial agreement.
The postnuptial agreement was not fair on its face because the defendant appeared to receive no benefit, and the defendant raised triable issues about overreaching and inequity, including limited English proficiency, an attorney who allegedly did not review the agreement and was later disbarred for fraud, and the defendant's claim that he believed he was signing a business agreement rather than a postnuptial agreement.
Background
The parties married on October 23, 2012, and executed a postnuptial agreement in 2015. The agreement provided that each party would retain separate property and any appreciation or income from it in the event of divorce. The exhibits showed that the plaintiff had substantial premarital assets, including two businesses and real estate, while the defendant had none. After the plaintiff commenced this divorce action in May 2022, the defendant moved on December 30, 2022 to set aside the postnuptial agreement.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the postnuptial agreement without conducting a hearing. It later entered a judgment of divorce determining that, because of the postnuptial agreement, there were no assets subject to equitable distribution.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the appeal from the May 5, 2023 order had to be dismissed because the right to directly appeal that order terminated upon entry of the judgment of divorce, although the issues were reviewable on the appeal from the judgment under CPLR 5501(a)(1) [permits review of prior nonfinal orders on an appeal from a final judgment]. On the merits, the court found that the agreement could not be deemed fair on its face and that the plaintiff failed to eliminate factual issues raised by the defendant. The court therefore reversed the judgment insofar as appealed from, vacated the order denying the motion, and remitted for a hearing and a new determination.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that postnuptial agreements between spouses are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny because spouses stand in a fiduciary relationship to one another. While courts generally favor enforcing marital agreements, a court may deny a motion to set one aside without a hearing only when the agreement is fair on its face. Where the agreement appears one-sided and the challenging spouse presents facts suggesting fraud, duress, overreaching, misunderstanding, or other inequitable conduct, the court must examine the totality of the circumstances at a hearing before enforcing it.
A facially one-sided postnuptial agreement, coupled with evidence that a spouse may not have understood what was being signed, cannot be enforced summarily; a hearing is required to determine whether equity demands that the agreement be set aside.