99 A.D.2d 852 (1984)

When a divorce judgment contains ambiguous language regarding the distribution of marital assets, the case should be remitted to the trial court for clarification and resettlement of the relevant decretal paragraphs.

Summary

In this divorce proceeding, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed a decision by the Appellate Division modifying the trial court’s judgment. While affirming most of the Appellate Division’s order, the Court of Appeals identified an ambiguity in the ninth decretal paragraph of the original judgment concerning the distribution of funds withdrawn from joint bank accounts. Specifically, the parties disputed whether this paragraph required the wife to pay the husband funds he had already withdrawn. To resolve this ambiguity and ensure clarity in the judgment, the Court of Appeals remitted the case to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for resettlement of the disputed paragraph.

Facts

The husband and wife each sought a divorce. The trial court granted a divorce to the wife. The trial court also awarded custody of the child to the wife, awarded the wife capital stock of Island Business Machines, Inc., and directed the husband to pay counsel fees to the wife’s attorney. The trial court found that the husband withdrew $54,884.80 from the parties’ joint bank accounts. The trial court ordered the husband awarded $27,442.40, half of the amount withdrawn.

Procedural History

The trial court granted the wife a divorce and made orders concerning the distribution of assets and other matters. The Appellate Division modified the trial court’s judgment by deleting provisions related to child custody, visitation, the award of capital stock to the wife, and the payment of counsel fees. The Appellate Division added a provision for interest on $27,442.40 awarded to the husband. The husband appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that paragraph nine of the judgment imposed a constructive trust on funds held by the wife. The wife argued the same paragraph required her to pay the husband funds he already withdrew. The Court of Appeals remitted the case to the trial court to resettle paragraph nine of the judgment.

Issue(s)

Whether the ninth decretal paragraph of the divorce judgment was ambiguous regarding the distribution of funds withdrawn from the parties’ joint bank accounts, specifically, whether it required the wife to pay the husband funds he had already withdrawn.

Holding

Yes, because the parties presented conflicting interpretations of the ninth decretal paragraph, necessitating clarification by the trial court to accurately reflect the intended distribution of assets.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the conflicting interpretations of the ninth decretal paragraph created an ambiguity that needed to be resolved. The husband claimed the paragraph imposed a constructive trust on funds held by the wife, while the wife argued it required her to pay the husband funds he had already withdrawn. The Court stated: “To resolve any ambiguity, we believe resettlement of the ninth decretal paragraph is appropriate.” By remitting the case for resettlement, the Court aimed to ensure the judgment accurately reflected the trial court’s intentions regarding the distribution of marital assets and to avoid future disputes based on the ambiguous language. The decision emphasizes the importance of clear and unambiguous language in court orders, particularly in divorce cases involving the division of property.