Goldman v. Goldman
95 N.Y.2d 120, 711 N.Y.S.2d 128, 733 N.E.2d 200 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mortgage secured by one spouse's interest in a tenancy by the entirety during a pending divorce action is not extinguished when a subsequent divorce judgment awards the other spouse sole title to the property.
Facts:
- On October 24, 1985, Debra Goldman and Scott Goldman, a married couple, acquired a house as tenants by the entirety.
- In December 1990, Debra Goldman commenced a divorce action against Scott Goldman.
- While the divorce action was pending, Debra Goldman gave her attorney, Phyllis Gelman, a $50,000 mortgage on the marital home to secure payment for legal services.
- This mortgage was given without the knowledge or consent of Scott Goldman.
- Phyllis Gelman recorded the mortgage on August 13, 1991.
- Scott Goldman learned of the mortgage shortly after it was recorded but did not inform the divorce court of its existence.
- A final judgment of divorce was entered in October 1994, which awarded Scott Goldman exclusive title to the marital home.
Procedural Posture:
- Following the divorce, Scott Goldman filed a motion in the trial court (Supreme Court) to discharge Phyllis Gelman's mortgage on the property.
- Phyllis Gelman moved for leave to intervene in the action and opposed the motion to discharge.
- The Supreme Court granted Scott Goldman's motion, ruling that the mortgage was extinguished by the judgment of divorce, but stayed the discharge pending appeal.
- Phyllis Gelman, as intervenor-appellant, appealed to the intermediate appellate court (the Appellate Division).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order.
- Scott Goldman, as appellant, now appeals to the state's highest court (the Court of Appeals).
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 a mortgage, taken by one spouse on their interest in a property held as tenants by the entirety during a pending divorce action, survive as a valid lien when the final judgment of divorce awards exclusive title of that property to the non-mortgaging spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes, the mortgage survives. A mortgage placed by one spouse on their interest in a tenancy by the entirety remains a valid encumbrance even if a subsequent divorce decree awards the property to the non-mortgaging spouse. The court reasoned that a tenant by the entirety has the right to mortgage their individual interest in the property, subject to the other spouse's rights. When Debra Goldman conveyed the mortgage to Gelman, Gelman acquired a contingent interest in all of Debra's rights at that time. The divorce decree converted the tenancy by the entirety into a tenancy in common, and Gelman's security interest attached to what became Debra's interest as a tenant in common. The subsequent equitable distribution award, which divested Debra of her interest, could not retroactively defeat Gelman's pre-existing, validly secured third-party interest. The court further noted that the Domestic Relations Law does not authorize a court to alter substantive property law principles or defeat the vested rights of a third-party mortgagee.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the survivability of liens placed on marital property during divorce proceedings. It establishes that a divorce court's equitable distribution award acts prospectively on the spouses' interests and cannot retroactively nullify a valid, pre-existing security interest held by a third party. This places a significant burden on the non-debtor spouse to identify and bring any such encumbrances to the court's attention during the divorce action, so they can be accounted for in the final property division. The ruling reinforces the stability and predictability of secured transactions, protecting creditors who take a security interest in one spouse's share of property before a final judgment.
