SS (the wife) and MD (the husband) had a settlement agreement that included a specific clause about how MD should distribute assets to their children. The clause provided that “"[husband] shall irrevocably convey to the Children in equal shares in a manner to be determined solely by [husband] (e.g., in trust, gift of cash, property transfer, etc.) either (a) the sum of SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($660,000), or (b) a one-quarter interest in the Bridgehampton House."
When a dispute later arose as to the meaning of that language, MD asserted that he had to give the children either $660,000 or a 25% interest in the couple’s Bridgehampton house, divided equally between the children. When he asked SS Sarah to sign documents to transfer the Bridgehampton property according to their agreement, she refused, and the New York County Supreme Court later denied the husband’s request that she be compelled to execute the deed and transfer the property.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, thought the language in the parties’ settlement agreement was “clear and unambiguous.” MD had to give the children either $660,000 or a 25% interest in the house, divided equally ($330,000 or 12.5% each).
The AD1 reversed the underlying determination and granted MD’s motion to force SS to sign the necessary documents to transfer the property as originally contemplated.
Think that settled that?
# # #
DECISION
S. v. D.