Van Kipnis v. Van Kipnis
11 N.Y.3d 573, 900 N.E.2d 977 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prenuptial agreement does not need to contain an explicit waiver of equitable distribution to be enforceable under New York law. An agreement that unambiguously establishes a 'separation of estates' regime, providing that each spouse retains individual ownership of assets acquired during the marriage, effectively defines such assets as separate property not subject to equitable distribution upon divorce.
Facts:
- In 1965, Claire Van Kipnis (wife) and Gregory Van Kipnis (husband) were married in Paris, France.
- Prior to the marriage, they executed a 'Contrat de Mariage' (prenuptial agreement) under the French Civil Code, which was explained to the husband in English.
- The agreement stipulated that the parties adopted a 'separation of estates' marital property system, opting out of France's default community property scheme.
- The contract stated that each spouse would retain ownership of property they owned at the time of marriage or 'may come to own subsequently by any means whatsoever.'
- Following the wedding, the couple moved to New York and resided there for their 38-year marriage.
- Throughout their marriage, the parties maintained separate financial accounts and assets, with the exception of two jointly owned residences.
Procedural Posture:
- Claire Van Kipnis (wife) commenced a divorce action in New York Supreme Court (the trial court).
- The trial court granted Gregory Van Kipnis's (husband's) motion to amend his answer to assert the 1965 prenuptial agreement as a defense to equitable distribution.
- The Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's order permitting the amendment.
- The trial court appointed a Special Referee who found the prenuptial agreement precluded equitable distribution of the parties' separately held assets.
- The trial court confirmed the Special Referee's report.
- The wife appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, with one Justice dissenting.
- The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted the wife leave to appeal.
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 foreign prenuptial agreement that establishes a 'separation of estates' regime, without an explicit waiver of equitable distribution, prevent the division of separately held assets acquired during the marriage under New York’s equitable distribution law?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
Yes. A prenuptial agreement that unambiguously provides for a separation of estates effectively designates assets acquired individually during the marriage as separate property, thereby precluding their equitable distribution upon divorce. The court reasoned that New York's Domestic Relations Law § 236(B) allows parties to opt out of the statutory scheme for equitable distribution by defining in their agreement what constitutes separate property. An explicit waiver of equitable distribution is not required. The court found the agreement's language, stating each spouse retains ownership of property they 'may come to own subsequently,' was a clear and unambiguous expression of the parties' intent to keep such property separate, rendering it exempt from equitable distribution. This interpretation was supported by the parties' conduct of maintaining separate assets for 38 years.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that an explicit 'waiver of equitable distribution' is not mandatory for a prenuptial agreement to be effective in preventing the division of marital assets in New York. The ruling reinforces the principle of freedom of contract in matrimonial law, holding that the plain language of an agreement defining property as separate is sufficient to remove it from the marital estate. This provides greater certainty for parties drafting prenuptial agreements, including those executed under foreign law, as courts will focus on the clear intent expressed in the text rather than searching for specific legal terms. The case establishes that creating a 'separate property' regime by contract achieves the same result as an express waiver.
