Summary
In Brown, a wife moved to enforce a stipulation of settlement which provided that she would not owe her husband money if the sale of the marital residence did not realize a "net profit" above the "upset price," defined as the balance due on the mortgage plus the brokerage fee. Although the sale did realize an amount in excess of the "upset price," additional closing costs exceeded the difference.
Summary of this case from Zesiger v. ZesigerOpinion
April 23, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
The stipulation in issue provides that plaintiff wife would owe defendant husband no money if the sale of the marital residence did not realize a "net profit" above the "upset price", defined as the balance due on the mortgage plus the brokerage fee. In fact, the sale did realize an amount in excess of the "upset price", but additional closing costs more than exceeded the difference. To interpret such a sale as having realized a "net profit", as the husband does, would leave the term "net" meaningless (see, Two Guys v S.F.R. Realty Assocs., 63 N.Y.2d 396, 403). For the reason that the husband had no right to engage in a self-help remedy (King v King, 159 A.D.2d 347), the IAS court properly awarded the wife counsel fees necessary to enforce the stipulation (Holliday v Holliday, 58 A.D.2d 619). Finally, the husband's claim that the wife improperly retained his personal property in the marital residence is without merit and was properly rejected by the IAS court.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.