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
Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling
NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Forum Selection Clause Requiring All Enforcement Actions to be Brought in Surrogate’s Court Enforced 
Courts Have Discretion to Grant Affirmative Relief in Absence of a Formal Cross-Motion
REQUEST FOR THE NAME OF THE MOHEL WHO PERFORMED CIRCUMCISION ON AN INFANT WHO BECAME INFECTED WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED.
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS ALLEGEDLY REVIEWED BY THE AFFIANT; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS HEARSAY AND THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THIS INQUEST ON DAMAGES; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEFAULTED ON LIABILITY IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DEFENDANT APPEARED FOR THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE SPONTANEOUS ACT OF A BAR PATRON (SECOND DEPT).

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...