You are here: / / AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN...

AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that an ambiguity in the stipulation of settlement involving the supplemental employee retirement plan (SERP) should have been resolved by the language of the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO):

Courts must interpret matrimonial stipulations of settlement using the standards of contract interpretation … . A QDRO can only convey rights agreed upon by the parties in their underlying stipulation of settlement… . Courts “cannot reform an agreement to conform to what it thinks is proper, if the parties have not assented to such a reformation” … . Here, however, the parties assented to a reformation of their stipulation of settlement in a manner that resolves the ambiguity of its SERP [supplemental employee retirement plan] language by mutually consenting to the language of the QDRO that was entered by the Supreme Court … . The QDRO states that the parties “consent[ed] to the submission of th[e] order,” and it was signed by the attorneys representing both parties. The QDRO directed the use of a standard Majauskas formula for dividing, inter alia, the SERP. While the terms of a QDRO must ordinarily yield to the terms of an underlying matrimonial stipulation of settlement or judgment … , here, the circumstances warrant otherwise as the QDRO resolved an ambiguity in the language of the underlying stipulation, and further, was submitted for entry upon the consent of both parties. * * *

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have interpreted the stipulation of settlement in light of the 2002 QDRO, which granted to the plaintiff a one-half share, as per the formula set forth therein, in the subject 401(k) account and SERP as of the date of the retirement of the defendant … . Palaia v Palaia, 2018 NY Slip Op 01076, Second Dept 2-14-18

FAMILY LAW (AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FAMILY LAW, AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN (SERP) (FAMILY LAW, AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) (FAMILY LAW, AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AFTER THE APPLICATION FOR A BUILIDING PERMIT WAS DENIED BY APPEALING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXCUSED ON THE GROUND THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS AT STAKE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK, AT TRIAL, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON THE PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE TO COVER CHILD SUPPORT AND EDUCATION COSTS.
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OR ASSIGNEE OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION TO RECORD THE MORTGAGE WAS BROUGHT; THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Judge’s Statement Defense Counsel Should Confine Her Opening to What She Intended to Prove, Under the Facts, Did Not Shift Burden of Proof
Question of Fact Whether Board of Education Liable for Negligent Supervision of Violent Student

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEGLECT STEMMING FROM MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS NOT PROVEN, FAMILY COURT... SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN...