A most fascinating case was just decided in Manhattan
Supreme Court where the parties had agreed (stipulated) that until their
residence was sold "neither party shall file any papers to obtain a
judgment of divorce".
So the question before the Court was: "whether the
parties can condition their divorce upon the mercurial nature of the New York
City real estate market."
The Court would have none of that and deemed this clause
unenforceable because the Court felt that public policy was to make a divorce
less burdensome and to remove as many roadblocks to its conclusion as
possible.
What is interesting from this case is how people utilize
economic coercion as negotiation leverage in a divorce. Had the clause
remained, the parties would have either had to accept a lower sales price or
remained married. This would have allowed the party less motivated to sell to
get concessions from the other party in other aspects of the divorce in order to permit the
sale.
For real estate professionals, you now know that in
Manhattan a divorce should not block a sale of the property as the
Court doesn't see the sale of real estate as a reason to stop a divorce.
Instead, the divorce should go forward and as the Court says: " If
the parties are unable to accomplish the sale themselves, then the court can
force a sale (CPLR § 5103), appoint a receiver (CPLR § 5106), or order a
conveyance by a sheriff (CPLR § 5107)"
To read the case in full, click here.
