## Facts

- The parties married in 2000.
- They executed postnuptial agreements in 2002 and 2006 addressing ownership and distribution of specified marital and separate assets, including real property.
- In 2010, after separating, they executed a separation agreement addressing maintenance and equitable distribution.
- At that time, the plaintiff (a physician) earned about $600,000 annually; the defendant earned about $40,000 annually and alleged a medical condition limiting earning capacity.
- The separation agreement provided that the defendant would have no interest in assets acquired during the marriage (including multiple real properties, the plaintiff’s medical partnership interest, and financial accounts) and waived spousal maintenance.
- The defendant signed the separation agreement without counsel, and also signed an affidavit stating he read the agreement and executed it voluntarily without obtaining legal representation.
- In 2011, the plaintiff commenced a divorce action seeking a judgment incorporating, but not merging, the separation agreement.
- The defendant counterclaimed to vacate the separation agreement and the 2006 postnuptial agreement, alleging unconscionability, fraud, duress, and overreaching, including alleged nondisclosure of investment proceeds.
- The trial court granted the plaintiff summary judgment dismissing those counterclaims and entered a divorce judgment implementing the separation agreement; the defendant appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment enforcing the separation agreement was improper because factual disputes existed as to unconscionability, fraud, duress, or overreaching.
2. Whether summary judgment dismissing the challenge to the 2006 postnuptial agreement was improper due to factual disputes concerning enforceability.
3. Whether the challenged agreements required a plenary hearing before they could be enforced in the divorce judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court modified the divorce judgment by deleting multiple decretal provisions implementing the separation agreement.
- The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims challenging the separation agreement and the 2006 postnuptial agreement.
- The court reinstated those counterclaims and remitted the matter for further proceedings and entry of an amended divorce judgment.
- The court held that the record presented triable issues of fact concerning unconscionability and overreaching, precluding summary disposition and requiring a hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Marital agreements are construed under general contract principles but receive heightened scrutiny due to the fiduciary aspects of the marital relationship.
- A separation or postnuptial agreement may be set aside if unconscionable or the product of fraud, duress, or overreaching.
- Unconscionability has procedural components (execution circumstances such as bargaining power, counsel, disclosure, and voluntariness) and substantive components (terms so one-sided as to shock the conscience).
- Summary judgment enforcing a marital agreement is improper where evidence raises a material factual dispute as to overreaching, lack of fair disclosure, or unconscionability; a plenary hearing is required.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that severe economic disparity, broad waivers of maintenance and marital assets, lack of counsel, and evidence suggesting nondisclosure created factual disputes about unconscionability and overreaching; therefore, the challenged marital agreements could not be enforced on summary judgment and required further proceedings.


Gardella v. Remizov, 144 A.D.3d 977, 42 N.Y.S.3d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2016)