Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · Family Law
Family Lawstipulation of settlementmarital residenceambiguityextrinsic evidencehearingintent of the partiesincorporated but not merged
Facts
The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in open court on August 14, 1995. That stipulation included a provision regarding the sale of the marital residence. The stipulation was incorporated but not merged into the later judgment of divorce entered March 19, 1999. The plaintiff moved to enforce the sale provision, but the Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion.
Issue
Whether the provision in the parties' stipulation of settlement regarding the sale of the marital residence was sufficiently ambiguous to require a hearing on the parties' intent before the court could decide the plaintiff's motion to enforce that provision.
Rule
Where the terms of a stipulation are ambiguous, the court may consider extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties. When a stipulation provision is ambiguous, a hearing is required to determine that intent before the court makes a determination on enforcement.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a divorce action in Brooklyn, Dana Mercer and Leo Mercer placed a settlement on the record. One clause stated that their townhouse would be sold "when the youngest child finishes school, unless the parties otherwise agree," but another clause referred to one spouse buying out the other "upon relocation." After the divorce judgment incorporated but did not merge the stipulation, Dana moved to compel an immediate sale based only on the transcript.
How should the court rule on Dana's motion if it concludes the housing provision is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning?
Explanation. Where a stipulation's terms are ambiguous, the court may consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. The majority rule requires a hearing to determine intent before deciding enforcement, followed by a de novo determination of the enforcement request. (Derived from Laing v. Laing (n.d.).)