Gibson v. Gibson
| Decision Date | 08 June 2001 |
| Citation | 726 N.Y.S.2d 195,284 A.D.2d 908 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | SUZANNE C. GIBSON, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>HAROLD M. GIBSON, Respondent. |
Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, Property Settlement & Separation Agreement set aside and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff contends that the parties' Property Settlement & Separation Agreement (Agreement), entered into after the parties were married for almost 19 years, is unfair and unconscionable and that Supreme Court therefore erred in refusing to set it aside. We agree.
During the course of their marriage, plaintiff and defendant jointly managed their own business, purchased and substantially improved a home, and acquired additional assets, including a boat, several motor vehicles, a plane and a $30,000 certificate of deposit. While some of those assets were acquired with funds from defendant's personal injury settlement and may have been subject to some separate property claims, the bulk of the assets were marital. The total value of their joint assets was approximately $350,000, excluding the value of their business. In addition, the parties had joint liabilities of approximately $115,000, excluding a purchase agreement for gasoline that was signed in connection with their business. Pursuant to the Agreement, plaintiff received no marital assets or maintenance. She was, however, relieved of any child support obligation for the parties' 17-year-old son and any joint liabilities of the parties. Plaintiff was not represented by counsel when she signed the Agreement but acknowledged during her deposition and at the hearing herein that she knew of the parties' assets and liabilities, having handled the parties' finances for the business.
"The fact that [plaintiff] gave away more than [s]he might legally have been compelled to give does not mean that the separation agreement was the product of overreaching by [defendant]" (Groper v Groper, 132 AD2d 492, 497-498). We conclude, however, that the Agreement must be set aside. "Agreements between spouses, unlike ordinary business contracts, involve a fiduciary relationship requiring the utmost of good faith," and thus courts have "set aside or refuse[d] to enforce those born of and subsisting in inequity" (Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 72; see, Tchorzewski v Tchorzewski, 278 AD2d 869). "The fact that [plaintiff] was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gottlieb v. Gottlieb
...A.D.2d 18, 733 N.Y.S.2d 417 [1st Dept.2001], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 610, 749 N.Y.S.2d 2, 778 N.E.2d 553 [2002] ; Gibson v. Gibson, 284 A.D.2d 908, 726 N.Y.S.2d 195 [4th Dept.2001] ).It is the fiduciary nature of the marital relationship that has prompted the law to apply intense scrutiny to s......
-
Infante v. Infante
...provisions ofthe parties' stipulation of settlement ( see Bright v. Freeman, 24 A.D.3d at 588, 808 N.Y.S.2d 359; Gibson v. Gibson, 284 A.D.2d 908, 909, 726 N.Y.S.2d 195), and properly awarded temporary child support and ...
-
Venus v. Brennan
...when signing a stipulation ( see Matter of Stearns v. Stearns, 11 A.D.3d 746, 747, 783 N.Y.S.2d 686;see generally Gibson v. Gibson, 284 A.D.2d 908, 909, 726 N.Y.S.2d 195). It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the peti......
-
Tuzzolino v. Tuzzolino, 1326
...between spouses (see Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 72, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 365 N.E.2d 849 [1977] ; Gibson v. Gibson, 284 A.D.2d 908, 909, 726 N.Y.S.2d 195 [4th Dept. 2001] ). A separation agreement should be set aside as unconscionable where it is "such as no person in his or her sens......