From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burtch v. Burtch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1983
98 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

December 5, 1983


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 N.Y. 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 N.Y.2d 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 A.D.2d 437). Weinstein, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Burtch v. Burtch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1983
98 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Burtch v. Burtch

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA J. BURTCH, Respondent, v. NORMAN BURTCH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 5, 1983

Citations

98 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Zambito v. Zambito

Whether there has been a mutual rescission of a separation agreement through repudiation of the agreement by…

Rogers v. Rogers

In cases that precede the effective date of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (b), the court has the power…