Elliott v. Elliott

2025 NY Slip Op 00767 · Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department · February 7, 2025 · No. 898 CA 23-01747

Summary

This Appellate Division, Fourth Department opinion affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff's complaint to rescind a separation agreement incorporated into her divorce judgment. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the agreement should be voided due to alleged failures in financial disclosure, lack of legal representation regarding maintenance guidelines, and claims of manifest unfairness or unconscionability. Relying on established precedent favoring marital settlement agreements, the court found no triable issues of fact and upheld the dismissal without costs.

Court
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Smith, J.P.; Bannister; Montour; Greenwood; Keane
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
February 7, 2025
Docket number
898 CA 23-01747
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County granting summary judgment to defendant and dismissing the complaint.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Lori A. Elliott v. Robert A. Elliott
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

family lawappellate proceduresummary judgmentfamily law procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

family law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(4) requires financial disclosure when no maintenance is at issue.
  2. Whether a separation agreement may be set aside as manifestly unfair, unconscionable, or the result of overreaching.
  3. Whether summary judgment was proper under the applicable standards.

Holdings

  1. Financial disclosure under §236(B)(4) is required only when alimony, maintenance, or support is in issue; because the parties waived maintenance, disclosure was not required.
  2. A separation agreement will not be vacated absent a showing of overreaching, fraud, or unconscionability; the agreement here was not unfair on its face and the plaintiff raised no triable issue of fact.
  3. Summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact regarding unfairness or nondisclosure.

Key quotations

"Marital settlement agreements are judicially favored and are not to be easily set aside" (Simkin v. Blank, 19 NY3d 46, 52 (2012)).
"[a] separation agreement may be vacated if it is manifestly unfair to one party because of the other's overreaching or where its terms are unconscionable, or there exists fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident" (Tchorzewski v. Tchorzewski, 278 AD2d 869, 870 (4th Dept 2000)).

Factual background

The parties executed a separation agreement that was incorporated into their divorce judgment. The agreement stated the plaintiff was self‑supporting and waived any claim to spousal maintenance. The plaintiff later sought to rescind the agreement, alleging lack of financial disclosure, unfairness, and that she was unrepresented at the time of signing.

Procedural history

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint seeking rescission of a separation agreement. The plaintiff appealed the order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…