Post-Death Property Transfer in NY Divorce: Legal Analysis

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the Second Department which upheld a lower court’s Order appointing the Executor of a deceased husband’s (the “Plaintiff”) estate as the receiver of certain property to transfer title because the wife (the “Defendant”) failed to cooperate in effectuating the transfer of title to the property, as required by the judgment of divorce.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

During their marriage, the parties acquired two separate properties located at 111-09 103rd Avenue in Richmond Hill (hereinafter the “103rd Avenue Property”), and at 104-61 Atlantic Avenue, Richmond Hill (hereinafter the “Atlantic Avenue Property”). After a non-jury trial in the divorce action, held before a Court Attorney Referee, the Supreme Court issued an Order awarding the 103rd Avenue Property to the husband but required him to indemnify and hold the wife “harmless for any financial obligations with respect to that property and to cause the Defendant to be removed from the mortgages on that property.” “The wife was awarded the Atlantic Avenue Property and, to balance out the difference in the values of the two properties, the husband was awarded full title to all of his retirement accounts, including amounts he withdrew therefrom during the pendency of the action”. A judgment of divorce was entered on December 29, 2015, and in early January 2016 the wife moved to vacate so much of the judgment of divorce as determined issues of equitable distribution. The husband died on January 30, 2016, and his son from a prior marriage was thereafter appointed as Executor and substituted by stipulation as Plaintiff in the action. In an effort to enforce judgment of divorce and have the 103rd Avenue Property transferred to the decedent’s estate, the Plaintiff cross-moved to be appointed Receiver of the 103rd Avenue Property which relief was granted by the Supreme Court in two (2) separate Orders dated September 16, 2016. The Defendant thereafter appealed the judgment of divorce as well as the two (2) Orders appointing Plaintiff as Receiver.

In denying the appeal, the Appellate Court reasoned that the “record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the Defendant failed to cooperate in effectuating the transfer of title to the 103rd Avenue Property, as required by the judgment of divorce [and that]… the court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the Plaintiff's cross motion which was to be appointed receiver of the 103rd Avenue Property to effectuate the transfer of title” (citation omitted). The Appellate Court further reasoned that alleged, newly-discovered evidence concerning "title issues" affecting the Atlantic Avenue property was insufficient as no evidence was submitted to the Supreme Court indicating either that the claimed newly discovered evidence would likely have produced a different result or that Defendant-Appellant could not have previously discovered the alleged new evidence prior to the trial.

To view this case click the link below:
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_02332.htm