Burtch v. Burtch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burtch v. Burtch

98 A.D.2d 704, 469 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21004

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 5, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 704 (Burtch v. Burtch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burtch v. Burtch, 98 A.D.2d 704, 469 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover accrued arrears under a separation agreement, the defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated March 5, 1982, which is in favor of the wife and against him in the principal sum of $13,620. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The parties entered into a separation agreement which was thereafter incorporated, but not merged, into a foreign divorce decree. Therefore, the separation agreement continued in effect as a separate and independent contractual arrangement between the parties (Goldman v Goldman, 282 NY 296) and a subsequent modification of the divorce decree could not modify the separation agreement, absent a clear expression by the parties of such intent (see Kleila v Kleila, 50 NY2d 277). Since there was no clear expression by the parties of an intent to modify the separation agreement, the fact 'that subsequent orders of the Family Court reduced the amount of alimony and child support did not foreclose the wife’s right to sue on the contract for the difference between the reduced awards and the amount provided for in the separation agreement (see Kleila v Kleila, supra; Galyn v Schwartz, 77 AD2d 437). Weinstein, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover accrued arrears under a separation agreement, the defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated March 5, 1982, which is in favor of the wife and against him in the principal sum of $13,620. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The parties entered into a separation agreement which was thereafter incorporated, but not merged, into a foreign divorce decree. Therefore, the separation agreement continued in effect as a separate and independent contractual arrangement between the parties (Goldman v Goldman, 282 NY 296) and a subsequent modification of the divorce decree could not modify the separation agreement, absent a clear expression by the parties of such intent (see Kleila v Kleila, 50 NY2d 277). Since there was no clear expression by the parties of an intent to modify the separation agreement, the fact 'that subsequent orders of the Family Court reduced the amount of alimony and child support did not foreclose the wife’s right to sue on the contract for the difference between the reduced awards and the amount provided for in the separation agreement (see Kleila v Kleila, supra; Galyn v Schwartz, 77 AD2d 437). Weinstein, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 704, 469 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burtch-v-burtch-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack