A New Twist On Who Gets The House When The Relationship Ends

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

House + money (pd)If you read this blog then you know that failed relationships often make for the most interesting cases. For example, if your would-be spouse calls off your wedding, then you are usually entitled to get the engagement ring back. But, if you cancel your wedding reception, you may not be entitled to a refund from the venue where it would have taken place. And, of course, if your ex-wife agreed to pay all "utilities" under a divorce settlement but fails to pay for water filtration services that remained in your name and you get sued by the water filtration company, your ex-wife will be required to reimburse you for those charges. Now, Burke v. Bernardini can be added to this list.

In Burke, plaintiff and defendant were involved in a "romantic relationship." (They had actually known each other for 25 years before they began dating.) While they were dating, plaintiff bought property on which he built a house where he and defendant lived together. He paid approximately $368,000 for the property and another $100,000 for improvements and additions. Both plaintiff and defendant contributed furnishings.

Before buying the property, the parties entered into an agreement that provided:

[Plaintiff] acknowledges and agrees that [defendant] has provided, and will continue to provide[,] companionship to him of an indefinite length. [Plaintiff] promises and represents that upon closing, the home shall be deeded and titled in the name of "[plaintiff] and [defendant], as joint tenants with the right of survivorship."

(As a side note, only in the hands of a lawyer does "'til death do us part" become "I agree to provide companionship of an indefinite length.") The agreement also provided that defendant would have no "financial obligations for the home, including, but not limited to, property taxes, homeowners association fees, and homeowners insurance."  

Continue reading “A New Twist On Who Gets The House When The Relationship Ends”

After You Break Up, Dont Expect To Get Paid For Those Home Repairs You Did For Your Girlfriend While You Were Dating

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Tools (pd)Nothing says romance like asking your girlfriend to sign a contract before you agree to help her fix up her house. Nonetheless, this is essentially the take-home message from the Appellate Division's decidedly unromantic decision in Sukenik v. Dizik.

In Sukenik, plaintiff and defendant dated for approximately 18 months. "Beginning in January 2014, they spent every weekend and holiday together, with plaintiff frequently staying overnight in defendant's home." Eventually, plaintiff moved into defendant's home.

Plaintiff claimed that while he and defendant were dating, he "spent substantial sums not only on mutual expenses such as vacations and dinners, but also on needed improvements to defendant's home and property because the home was in poor condition." He testified that he spent more than $8,000 on materials. He also "contributed his labor, which he valued at $3,000." Unfortunately for plaintiff, "the relationship ended shortly after he underwent kidney surgery on June 18, 2015, when defendant demanded he move out of her home." Two weeks later, plaintiff sued, seeking to recoup the costs of the materials and labor he contributed to the repairs on defendant's home. Defendant denied liability, arguing that the improvements plaintiff made to her home were unconditional gifts.

Plaintiff was the only witness to testify at trial. After his testimony, defendant moved for involuntary dismissal. The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading “After You Break Up, Dont Expect To Get Paid For Those Home Repairs You Did For Your Girlfriend While You Were Dating”

In Case You Ever Find Yourself Fighting With Your Wife Over Your Ferraris . . .

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Ferrari (pd)Right. I never do either. But if you do (or think you might in the future) then you might want to know about Durrani v. Wide World of Cars. In that case, plaintiff sued a car dealership and her ex-husband's former lawyers for delivering two Ferraris to her ex-husband, allegedly in violation of an order entered in their divorce action.

As the trial court described it, when plaintiff and her ex-husband were married, they lived an "extravagant lifestyle." Among other things,  they owned "twenty-five luxury cars worth approximately one million dollars, boats and properties." Of these assets, however, plaintiff was only on the title of two cars (and not the Ferraris). Nonetheless, during their divorce proceeding, plaintiff sought "exclusive possession" of the Ferraris, which were titled and registered to her ex-husband and stored at the defendant dealership's facilities. Consistent with this claim, plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to the dealership requesting that it not release or transfer the Ferraris to anyone, including plaintiff's ex-husband, and threatening to hold the dealership liable for damages if it did. At the end of the letter, counsel asked the dealership to agree to abide by the demand and indicated that if it did not agree, plaintiff would "immediately seek to serve [the dealership] with a court order." The dealership did not respond.

Around the same time plaintiff's counsel sent this letter, the family part entered an order in the divorce proceeding preventing either party from dissipating, selling, etc. any assets of the marriage, and specifically identified the Ferraris in a list of assets to which this restraint applied. Plaintiff's counsel sent a copy of the order to the dealership, purportedly placing it on notice of the terms.

 

Continue reading “In Case You Ever Find Yourself Fighting With Your Wife Over Your Ferraris . . .”

Hell Hath No Fury Like . . . An Angry Litigant And Former Fiance?

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

Courts don't often impose sanctions for frivolous litigation, but when they do, it usually involves something unusual (apologies to John Winger). Unusual — and perhaps even unfortunate — would be the only way to describe the facts of a recent decision from the Appellate Division that revived a party's request for legal fees in a case involving a failed (alleged) engagement and the return of a (purported) engagement ring that the recipient initially claimed to have lost, but later (apparently) found.

 

 

Continue reading “Hell Hath No Fury Like . . . An Angry Litigant And Former Fiance?”