| Barchella v Barchella |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07647 [44 AD3d 696] |
| October 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Angela Barchella, Respondent, v Frank Barchella,Appellant. |
—[*1] Domenick J. Porco, Scarsdale, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered February 24, 2006, which, after anonjury trial, granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate the parties' postnuptial agreement.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff-wife moved to set aside the parties' postnuptial agreement (hereinafter theagreement) pursuant to which she surrendered her interest in significant assets in exchange forthe defendant-husband's agreement to purchase a home for her with a maximum value of$600,000. The wife signed the agreement against the advice of her attorney, while she wasundergoing treatment and suffering from the mental and physical effects of complications arisingfrom a surgery. The agreement was drafted by the husband's attorney. After a nonjury trial, theSupreme Court granted the wife's motion to vacate the agreement. We affirm.
In general, postnuptial agreements are subject to ordinary principles of contract law (see O'Malley v O'Malley, 41 AD3d449 [2007]; Whitmore vWhitmore, 8 AD3d 371, 372 [2004]). However, because of the fiduciary relationshipthat exists between spouses, postnuptial agreements are closely scrutinized by the courts and aremore readily set aside on grounds that would be insufficient to nullify an ordinary contract(cf. Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42, 47 [1982]; Cardinal v Cardinal, 275 AD2d756, 757 [2000]; Paruch v Paruch, 140 AD2d 418, 421 [1988]). "To warrant equity'sintervention, no actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the settlement ismanifestly unfair to a spouse because [*2]of the other'soverreaching" (Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 72 [1977]). Here, the Supreme Courtproperly set aside the agreement as manifestly unfair to the wife because of the husband'soverreaching (see Frank v Frank, 260 AD2d 344 [1999]; Thomas v Thomas, 145AD2d 477 [1988]; Stern v Stern, 63 AD2d 700 [1978]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldsteinand Dickerson, JJ., concur.