Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of the ESTATE OF Henry F. BRITCHER, Deceased. Fleet National Bank, Petitioner-Appellant; Phyllis C. Britcher, Respondent-Respondent; Joseph S. Deery, Jr., Esq., Guardian Ad Litem.
Petitioner, executor of the estate of decedent Henry F. Britcher, commenced this proceeding to determine the validity of the notices of election of respondent, decedent's widow, to take against decedent's will. Surrogate's Court properly denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the notices of election and properly granted respondent's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. It is undisputed that, although respondent and decedent entered into a separation agreement in 1988 that included a waiver of estate rights, they never divorced and in fact reconciled and resumed their marital relationship in 1995. From 1995 through decedent's death in 2004, respondent and decedent lived together as a married couple and, in doing so, manifested their intention “to void the [separation] agreement in its entirety” (Matter of Wilson, 50 N.Y.2d 59, 66, 427 N.Y.S.2d 977, 405 N.E.2d 220). We reject the contention of petitioner that General Obligations Law § 15-301(2) requires enforcement of the separation agreement provision providing that the agreement shall not be invalidated without a subsequent writing, and therefore that the waiver of estate rights provision remains valid because there is no such writing. The provision in the separation agreement providing that the agreement shall not be invalidated without a subsequent writing is itself void and cannot be taken to render specific provisions of the agreement independently enforceable where, as here, the “agreement itself, rather than any of its components, is brought to an end” (Wilson, 50 N.Y.2d at 66, 427 N.Y.S.2d 977, 405 N.E.2d 220).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 16, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)