## Facts

- Edie Weiner (plaintiff) and Jay Weiner (defendant) divorced in 2001 under a stipulation of settlement incorporated into the judgment of divorce.
- The stipulation included a mutual “no-molestation” clause barring the parties from harassing, annoying, or disturbing each other.
- The stipulation also required Edie to pay Jay spousal maintenance and to maintain a life-insurance policy for Jay’s benefit.
- Edie had a country/vacation home in a gated rural Pennsylvania community known as “the Hideout,” where she lived for several years and felt safe.
- After the divorce, Jay repeatedly threatened and degraded Edie through calls and letters; in 2007 he threatened to break into the Hideout.
- Edie obtained a three-year order of protection that prohibited Jay from entering the Hideout.
- When that protective order expired, Jay rented a home in the Hideout in very close proximity to Edie’s home, soon after the expiration date.
- Edie asserted Jay moved there to continue his pattern of intimidation and control, even though she did not claim he contacted or approached her after moving in.
- Jay claimed he moved to the Hideout because he liked the scenery and wildlife and knew people in the community, but he did not provide details supporting that claim.
- Edie filed a post-judgment motion in Supreme Court seeking enforcement of the no-molestation clause (including an order requiring Jay to move away), termination of her maintenance and life-insurance obligations based on Jay’s alleged breach, and attorneys’ fees.

## Issues

1. Whether Jay’s decision to rent and reside in very close proximity to Edie in the Hideout, shortly after an order of protection expired and without new contact, violated the divorce stipulation’s no-molestation clause so as to justify an order effectively requiring him to relocate.
2. If a violation were shown, whether Edie could be relieved (on this motion) of her contractual obligations to pay spousal maintenance and maintain life insurance for Jay’s benefit.
3. Whether Edie was entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in connection with the motion.

## Decision

- Denied Edie’s request for relief that would require Jay to leave the Hideout or otherwise relocate based solely on his choice to live near her.
- Declined to find that Jay’s residence in the same community, without additional acts of harassment or contact after the move, established a breach of the no-molestation clause warranting injunctive relocation relief.
- Denied Edie’s request to terminate or suspend her obligations to pay spousal maintenance and to maintain the life-insurance policy for Jay’s benefit.
- Granted Edie’s application for counsel fees incurred in bringing the motion.

## Legal Principles

- A stipulation of settlement incorporated into a divorce judgment is enforced as a contract; where its language is clear, a court applies the plain meaning rather than adding terms the parties did not include.
- A “no-molestation” clause generally targets conduct such as harassment, threats, or improper contact; absent express language, it does not automatically create a geographic exclusion zone barring a former spouse from living in the same community.
- Subjective fear, standing alone, is not enough to transform otherwise lawful conduct (such as choosing a residence) into contractual “molestation” or harassment without supporting proof of prohibited acts.
- Ongoing financial obligations exchanged in a divorce settlement (maintenance and life insurance) are not forfeited unless the agreement makes them conditional or a legally recognized basis for modification is shown.
- A court may award attorneys’ fees in matrimonial motion practice under its statutory and discretionary authority even where the moving party does not obtain the main substantive relief requested.

## Conclusion

In *Weiner v. Weiner*, the court held that an ex-husband’s move into the same gated vacation community as his ex-wife—without new contact or other post-move harassment—did not, by itself, violate the parties’ no-molestation clause or justify an order forcing him to relocate, and it refused to relieve the ex-wife of her contractual maintenance and life-insurance duties; however, it awarded her attorneys’ fees for the motion.


Weiner v. Weiner, 899 N.Y.S.2d 555 (2010)