In a sharply corrective ruling issued just before the holidays, a New York appellate panel has reversed a trial court order that enforced a matrimonial settlement between H. & M. R., finding that the lower court skipped a crucial step: honoring the couple’s own agreement to mediate their disputes before returning to court.
The case centers on a post‑divorce conflict over money and property—specifically, a payment of 108,682.02 Swiss Francs and the sale of the couple’s New York City apartment. Earlier this year, the trial court sided with H., directing M. to make the payment, appointing H. as receiver to sell the apartment, and awarding her $35,000 in attorneys’ fees.
But the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed that decision, reminding both the parties and the lower court that a matrimonial settlement is, at its core, a contract. And this contract contained a clear, unambiguous requirement: mediation first, litigation later.
Because the settlement agreement was incorporated—but not merged—into the divorce judgment, its terms remained enforceable as a standalone contract. One of those terms was a mandatory mediation clause. With factual disputes still unresolved, the appellate panel held that the trial court should have paused all proceedings and sent the parties to mediation before taking any further action.
As a result, the appellate court vacated the appointment of a receiver and the award of attorneys’ fees, without prejudice, and stayed all further proceedings until mediation is completed.
Bet they wished they skipped that .... (Like a bad buffet.)
# # #
DECISION