The Supreme Court, Westchester County, recently issued a significant matrimonial decision and order clarifying that under Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §170(7), if all ancillary issues are resolved via a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his or her cause of action for divorce. The decision in Fiasconaro v. Fiasconaro, Index No. 64458/2019 (July 13, 2021) (Nancy Quinn Koba, J.) demonstrates the critical importance of a well-drafted, rock-solid prenuptial or postnuptial agreement in the era of no-fault divorce.

The Facts

The defendant wife had commenced two earlier divorce actions, which were discontinued when the parties reconciled. The latter action, filed in 2007, resulted in a postnuptial agreement dated Aug. 14, 2009 (the agreement). The agreement was the product of extensive discovery and negotiation, with both parties represented by experienced matrimonial counsel. The agreement: (1) defined and identified each item of separate and marital property; (2) described how after-acquired property would be classified and distributed; (3) described the mechanism and the timing for distributing the marital property, both real and personal; (4) provided child support for the parties' child, plus maintenance to the wife of $11,833 per month for five years; (5) provided that the parties had each received substantial disclosure from the other party, waived any additional discovery, and believed the agreement to be fair, just and reasonable; and (6) provided that in the event of "marital discord," the agreement would be converted to a separation agreement. The agreement was duly signed and acknowledged.

On Sept. 19, 2019, the husband filed for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. He sought incorporation, without merger, of the agreement. Defendant's Nov. 12, 2019 Amended Verified Answer pleaded nine affirmative defenses sounding in fraud, coercion, duress, unclean hands, unconscionability, lack of legal capacity, lack of capacity due to physical and mental disability, and failure to comply with the agreement's terms. Defendant's counsel later withdrew her two affirmative defenses alleging lack of capacity. Notably, the wife did not plead any counterclaims.