| Smith v Smith |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07682 [66 AD3d 584] |
| October 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Daniella Smith, Respondent, v Richard Smith,Appellant. |
—[*1] Moses Preston & Ziegelman, LLP, New York (Robert M. Preston of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered on or about January9, 2009, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff a sum equal to 50% of the value of theapartment owned by defendant prior to the marriage upon a finding that defendant breached theterms of an antenuptial agreement, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the awardvacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
At issue is the meaning of a provision in an antenuptial agreement providing that defendant"shall cause the cooperative or condominium which he intends to purchase, with his funds, as theprimary residence of the parties to be held in joint names of the parties with right ofsurvivorship." The court determined that it was unable to give effect to this provision as written,and that it required extrinsic evidence of the parties' intentions on this issue. After holding anonjury trial, the court found that the provision imposed an affirmative duty on defendant's partto fulfill his stated intention of buying a new apartment in the parties' joint names, that defendanthad breached that duty, and, as a remedy for the breach, the court awarded plaintiff a sum equalto 50% of the value of the apartment owned by defendant prior to the marriage.
We disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the subject provision was ambiguous. Acontract is unambiguous if the language it uses has "a definite and precise meaning, unattendedby danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which thereis no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion" (Breed v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 46NY2d 351, 355 [1978]). Here, the intent to purchase clause did not create an enforceableobligation, as a mere statement of an intention, even if expressed unconditionally andunequivocally does not, on its own, give rise to a binding contract (see Adams v Gillig,199 NY 314 [1910]). This reading of the provision is consistent with other terms of theagreement, specifically section D (ii) of article 8, which provided that if no jointly owned maritalresidence is held at the termination of the parties' marriage, defendant is required to pay toplaintiff $500,000, if such termination occurs within the first five years of the marriage and$1,000,000 if such termination occurs after the fifth anniversary of the marriage. There is nobasis to deviate from the agreement as written.
Given this bargained for payment, as well as the other financial provisions included in theagreement for the benefit of plaintiff in the event the marriage terminated, there was no basis forthe court's conclusion that plaintiff's waiver of spousal support or maintenance must have been[*2]premised on a guarantee of a joint share in a maritalresidence. Nor did plaintiff provide any other basis for a contractual right to half the equity indefendant's premarital apartment. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz,Renwick and Richter, JJ.