DeFina v. Scott
755 N.Y.S.2d 587, 195 Misc. 2d 75, 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 126 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement between two sophisticated parties to share financial responsibilities in preparation for marriage, such as one party paying for wedding expenses in exchange for an interest in real property, is an enforceable contract. If the marriage does not occur, the party who paid the expenses is entitled to a lien for the value of their contribution against the property that was transferred as part of the agreement.
Facts:
- Plaintiff DeFina, a nurse practitioner, and defendant Scott, an attorney, became engaged in 2000.
- The couple agreed that DeFina would pay for the wedding preparation expenses.
- In exchange, the couple agreed that Scott would transfer to DeFina a one-half interest in his condominium, which he owned free and clear.
- Scott transferred the one-half interest in the condominium to DeFina by quitclaim deed.
- DeFina expended approximately $16,000 of her own funds on wedding preparations.
- The engagement was terminated in March 2001 before the wedding occurred.
- After the breakup, the parties agreed to return gifts received from third parties, but Scott failed to return five gifts that were in his possession.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 2001, plaintiff DeFina and defendant Scott filed suits against each other in the New York Supreme Court, a trial-level court.
- The parties agreed to waive a jury, and the case was tried by the court (a bench trial).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New York's statutory bar on actions for breach of a contract to marry prevent a party from recovering wedding-related expenses based on a separate contractual agreement where those expenses were the consideration for a premarital transfer of a property interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Diane A. Lebedeff, J.
No. New York's statutory bar on actions for breach of a contract to marry does not prevent enforcement of a separate, bargained-for contract allocating premarital financial responsibilities. The court found that the parties, as two sophisticated, highly-educated professionals, made a clear agreement that DeFina's payment of wedding expenses was her contribution in exchange for Scott transferring a one-half interest in his apartment. This agreement is distinct from the promise to marry and is treated like any other enforceable contract, similar to a prenuptial agreement. Enforcing this contract by granting DeFina a lien for her expenses on the property serves the legal goal of returning the parties to their prior economic positions without punishment, as articulated in Gaden v Gaden. This approach avoids the prohibited cause of action for breach of contract to marry (Civil Rights Law § 80-a) while still falling under the exception in § 80-b that allows for a lien against a gift made in contemplation of marriage to the extent of the donee's contribution.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its modern application of contract law to disputes arising from broken engagements between sophisticated, self-supporting adults. By treating the parties' allocation of premarital expenses as an enforceable contract separate from the promise to marry, the court circumvents the traditional restrictions of 'heart balm' statutes. This decision establishes a precedent that allows for the financial recovery of wedding expenses—traditionally borne by women—when they are part of a clear, bargained-for exchange, thereby promoting economic fairness. It signals that courts may increasingly recognize and enforce specific financial agreements made by engaged couples, reflecting contemporary societal norms where partners plan their economic futures together before marriage.
Unlock the full brief for DeFina v. Scott