Simkin v. Blank
19 N.Y.3d 46 (2012) (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marital settlement agreement may not be reformed or set aside on the basis of mutual mistake where the alleged mistake concerns the true nature and value of a financial asset that later turns out to be part of a fraudulent scheme. Such a situation is treated as a post-agreement loss in value, not a mistake of fact existing at the time of the agreement.
Facts:
- Steven Simkin (husband) and Laura Blank (wife) married in 1973 and separated in 2002.
- The parties agreed that September 1, 2004, would be the valuation date for their marital assets.
- In June 2006, after two years of negotiations, they executed a settlement agreement under which Simkin would pay Blank $6,250,000 in satisfaction of her marital property rights.
- The agreement allowed Simkin to retain title to his 'bank, brokerage and similar financial accounts' held in his name.
- One of Simkin's accounts was with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (the Madoff account), which the parties believed was valued at approximately $5.4 million on the valuation date.
- In 2006, Simkin withdrew funds from the Madoff account to help make the $6,250,000 payment to Blank.
- In December 2008, more than two years after the divorce was finalized, Madoff's investment firm was exposed as a massive Ponzi scheme, rendering the account largely worthless.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Simkin sued Laura Blank in New York Supreme Court (the trial court) to reform their settlement agreement based on mutual mistake and unjust enrichment.
- Blank moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Supreme Court granted Blank's motion and dismissed Simkin's complaint.
- Simkin, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, reinstated the complaint, and denied Blank's motion to dismiss.
- Blank, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 party's mistaken belief about the legitimacy and value of an investment account, which is later revealed to be a Ponzi scheme, constitute a mutual mistake of fact sufficient to reform or rescind a marital settlement agreement, especially when the agreement does not explicitly divide that specific account?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
No. A mistaken belief about the nature and value of an investment that is later discovered to be fraudulent does not constitute a mutual mistake sufficient to reform a marital settlement agreement. To warrant reformation, a mutual mistake must exist at the time the contract is entered into and must be so substantial that it goes to the foundation of the agreement. Here, the settlement agreement does not mention the Madoff account or evince an intent to divide its value specifically; rather, it provides for a lump sum payment to the wife in satisfaction of all her marital rights. The husband's argument that the account was 'nonexistent' is contradicted by the fact that he was able to withdraw funds from it in 2006. This situation is more akin to a marital asset unexpectedly losing value after the divorce, which is not a basis for reopening a final settlement. Allowing reformation would undermine the policy of finality in divorce proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high bar for setting aside a marital settlement agreement on the grounds of mutual mistake, emphasizing the strong policy favoring finality in divorce. It crucially distinguishes between a mistake regarding an asset's fundamental existence (which might be grounds for reformation) and a mistake regarding its value or underlying quality (which is not). The court treats the discovery of the Ponzi scheme not as a mistake about a fact existing in 2006, but as a catastrophic post-agreement loss in the asset's value. This precedent cautions that parties bear the risk of post-divorce market fluctuations and other events affecting asset valuation, even those caused by massive fraud, unless the agreement is explicitly contingent on a specific asset's value.
