Harry Jaffe v. Heather Jaffe (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

The court has reviewed the motion and briefs of counsel.   The court has carefully read “C,” the disputed paragraph of the parties' separation agreement.   The court finds conflicting terms in said paragraph creating ambiguity “․ to refinance or effect sale of the property within one year from the date of judgment aligns with ․ either of which (refinance or sale) shall in no event take place later than one (1) year from the date of judgment is entered.”  (Emphasis added.)   Clearly both parties contemplate the refinance and/or sale to occur within the year following the judgment.   However these phrases are contradicted by the sentence “If the husband does not qualify to refinance the property he shall list the house for sale [so it is sold] no later than 1 year from the date judgment is entered,” indicating that the Husband had 1 year from the date of judgment prior to listing the home.   The words crossed out as well as the word “listing” are indices of this interpretation.   Based on the foregoing analysis the court cannot find Mr. Jaffe to be in contempt.

The court however does concur with the defendant's attorney that the plaintiff cannot hold the defendant hostage.   She is entitled to her equitable share.   The court will award her statutory interest at the rate of 10% from November 24, 2010 on the balance due her upon the sale.¹  The court finds that the appraised value of the house is $1,600,000 dollars for purposes of computing the wife's 45% equitable interest.   So ordered.

The Court

SCHOFIELD, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court notes that Mr. Jaffe is entitled to a credit for the $20,000 paid from the refinance..  FN1. The court notes that Mr. Jaffe is entitled to a credit for the $20,000 paid from the refinance.

Schofield, Marylouise, J.