Parker v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 2024 · Family Law

2024 NY Slip Op 06661 (2024)

Updated July 31, 2026

family lawcontemptrenewalreargumentmarital apartmentmortgagecarrying costsso-ordered stipulation

Facts

The parties disputed responsibility for mortgage and carrying costs on the marital apartment while the property was to be sold. Plaintiff sought contempt based in part on defendant's failure to pay half of those expenses, but the mortgage arrears were later cured with funds released from a jointly held account. Defendant sought renewal of his request to have plaintiff pay the mortgage and carrying costs from marital assets held solely in her name, presenting evidence that plaintiff had unilaterally stopped paying the mortgage and maintenance in November 2022 and that he learned of this only after receiving a bank letter in spring 2023. The motion court had also found that plaintiff controlled nearly all of the parties' liquid assets and had taken litigation positions and actions that stalled the apartment's sale.

Issue

Whether plaintiff was entitled to contempt and other relief, whether defendant properly obtained renewal and partial relief requiring plaintiff to pay the apartment's mortgage and carrying costs from marital assets in her sole name pending sale, and whether plaintiff could appeal from the denial of her later motion labeled as one to renew and reargue. The case also raised whether defendant should have been held in contempt for violating the parties' so-ordered June 13, 2018 stipulation.

Rule

A contempt request based on failure to pay mortgage and carrying costs is moot when the default has been cured by the parties' release of sufficient funds to satisfy the arrears. Leave to renew may be granted when the movant presents new evidence or developments that could not have been presented earlier, and the court may direct payment of mortgage and carrying costs for marital property from marital assets held by one spouse pending sale where the circumstances warrant. A court may deny a request to compel refinancing absent an explanation of necessity or proposed terms, especially when the property is already ordered sold and sufficient assets exist to maintain current payments. Denial of a motion that is in substance one for reargument is not appealable, and a party may be held in contempt for violating a so-ordered stipulation, with remand appropriate for determination of penalty.

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a divorce action in Manhattan, Dana Ortiz moved to hold her spouse, Miles Ortiz, in contempt for missing his court-ordered share of mortgage and maintenance payments on a condo awaiting sale. Before the motion was decided, both spouses signed authorizations releasing money from their joint brokerage account, and the arrears were paid in full.

How should the court rule on Dana's contempt request insofar as it is based on the missed mortgage and maintenance payments?

Explanation. The majority held that contempt relief tied to nonpayment of mortgage and carrying costs becomes moot when the parties jointly cure the default by releasing sufficient funds to satisfy the arrears. The prior default may have existed, but once the arrears are cured in that manner, contempt relief directed at that payment default is no longer live.