Orologio v. Orologio
| Decision Date | 18 August 1975 |
| Citation | 82 Misc.2d 1022,372 N.Y.S.2d 15 |
| Parties | Lincoln OROLOGIO, Plaintiff, v. Janet H. OROLOGIO, Defendant |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
On November 9, 1965, while the parties were married to each other, they acquired as tenants by the entirety certain real property which became and remained their marital domicile until the marriage was dissolved by divorce on May 8, 1975.
Prior to the divorce the parties entered into a separation agreement dated March 22, 1974 which provided among other things that the wife was to have the sole and exclusive right to possession of the marital residence until the children of the marriage attained the age of 21 years or sooner became emancipated, after which the wife must vacate the premises which are then to be sold and the net proceeds divided between the husband and wife. That contract of separation also provided that in any matrimonial decree thereafter obtained by either party the provisions of the agreement 'may' be incorporated in, but are to survive and shall not merge with the final decree.
There are four children of the marriage and the youngest is now only seven years old.
The husband brings this action for partition of the subject real property and the wife moves to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (subd. (a), par. 1) on the ground that the separation agreement is a complete defense.
The divorce converted the tenancy by the entirety to a tenancy in common (Stelz v. Shreck, 128 N.Y. 263, 28 N.E. 510) which lends itself to an action for partition. (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 901(1).) It is basic, however, that if partition would violate an agreement between the tenants, it may not be granted. (Chew v. Sheldon, 214 N.Y. 344, 349, 108 N.E. 552, 553; Buschmann v. McDermott, 154 App.Div. 515, 139 N.Y.S. 314.)
Although in the separation agreement there is no specific prohibition against partition, the provision for the wife's exclusive right to possession of the marital residence would be meaningless and unenforceable if the husband, after a divorce, could compel a sale of the realty. The agreement expressly gives the wife the right to possession until the youngest child attains her 21st birthday or is sooner emancipated. No such emancipation is claimed by the plaintiff and the child is still 14 years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braaten v. Braaten, 12584
...Hepler v. Burnham, 1975, 24 N.C.App. 362, 210 S.E.2d 509; Terrible v. Terrible, 1975, 91 Nev. 279, 534 P.2d 919; Orologio v. Orologio, 1975, 82 Misc.2d 1022, 372 N.Y.S.2d 15; Goodpasture v. Goodpasture, 1971, 115 N.J.Super. 189, 278 A.2d 531; Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, 1969, 28 Conn.Sup. 230, 256 ......
-
Balderston v. Balderston
...362, 210 S.E.2d 509, 512-13 (1975).6 See, e.g., Mack v. Mack, 286 S.W.2d 385, 388-89 (St. Louis Mo.Ct.App. 1956); Orologio v. Orologio, 82 Misc.2d 1022, 372 N.Y.S.2d 15, 16 (Sup.Ct., Saratoga County 1975).7 See Annot., 37 A.L.R.3d 962 (1971).8 Dugan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 70 Md. 1, 8, 16 A.......
-
McNally v. McNally
...v. Petty, 79 A.D.2d 679, 680, 433 N.Y.S.2d 867, appeal denied 53 N.Y.2d 605, 439 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 422 N.E.2d 584; Orologio v. Orologio, 82 Misc.2d 1022, 1024, 372 N.Y.S.2d 15). The plaintiff argues that such an agreement not to seek partition for the duration of a cotenant's life is an unreas......
-
Petty v. Petty, 1
...in common, cannot compel partition of the property since such an action would violate the parties' agreement (see Orologio v. Orologio, 82 Misc.2d 1022, 372 N.Y.S.2d 15; cf. Ripp v. Ripp, 32 N.Y.2d 755, 344 N.Y.S.2d 950, 298 N.E.2d 114, affg. 38 A.D.2d 65, 69, 327 N.Y.S.2d 465 on the opn. a......