BET ONE LEK DIDN’T LIKE THIS
In the case of Lek v Lek, the parties’ prenuptial agreement provided that, if the couple had a child, the wife would be entitled to an equal ownership in any “Primary Marital Residence” -- with the latter being defined as the husband’s Manhattan apartment “or any successor residence thereto.”
Since the couple had an offspring, and the husband owned a place in London (which he purchased after selling his Manhattan unit), a New York County Supreme Court Justice directed that his European residence be sold and that the net proceeds be equally divided, without any credit for any existing encumbrances or mortgages.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed. It was of the view that the prenuptial agreement clearly contemplated a claim against any “successor residence.” Additionally, it concurred with the Supreme Court’s assessment that the husband was not entitled to any offsets for any collateralized loans or debts as the governing document also excluded them from any calculation, unless the wife acquiesced to such an arrangement, and no evidence was proffered of such consent.
Would you call that a great divide?
# # #