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.
Henry MENDLER, Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant, v. Judith Marion MENDLER, Respondent-Appellant-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on November 4, 1996, which, inter alia, granted petitioner husband's application to discharge a second mortgage he had given to respondent wife, denied petitioner's motion for counsel fees, and bringing up for review a prior order, entered on or about November 18, 1994, which denied respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
While the parties' separation agreement was silent as to whether petitioner could prepay the mortgage, the mortgage agreement contained a clause permitting prepayment, thus rebutting the presumption that prepayment was not permitted (see, Matter of Arthur v. Burkich, 131 A.D.2d 105, 106, 520 N.Y.S.2d 638). Furthermore, reading the separation agreement and the mortgage together as parts of a single transaction, we find that the parties intended that the mortgage was to secure only the outstanding principal and interest thereon, and that the other debts were to remain unsecured. Accordingly, petitioner was entitled to a satisfaction of the mortgage upon his tender of the principal and the interest due through the date of tender (see, Three Bros. Estates v. Guli, 205 A.D.2d 525, 613 N.Y.S.2d 56; compare, Jeffrey Towers, Inc. v. Straus, 31 A.D.2d 319, 297 N.Y.S.2d 450, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 812, 309 N.Y.S.2d 350, 257 N.E.2d 897). We have considered the parties' remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: December 23, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)