In Yeun-Ah Choi v. Shoshan, 136 AD3d 506 (1st Dept. 2016) the wife sued for divorce. The husband’s divorce attorney Walter Bottger, found by the divorce court and the appellate court to be experienced and qualified, allowed his client to enter into a settlement agreement wherein he agreed to pay wife’s reasonable interim counsel fees. According to the published court opinion on appeal, the husband later moved in court to set aside the settlement agreement, alleging that it was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct or that to enforce stipulation would have been unjust or inequitable or have permitted wife to gain unconscionable advantage. The trial court denied the husband’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement, and the panel of Appellate Division judges affirmed that finding. The appellate court stated: “counsel’s claim that he had been “misled” into entering the stipulation was properly rejected, given counsel’s significant legal experience, and the fact that the wife never made any representation in the stipulation regarding future increases in her counsel’s average monthly legal fees * * * ” The appellate court did not stop there. It also affirmed the trial court’s award of monetary sanctions for making the motion to set aside the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the New York there is a New York court rule which bars conduct defined as “frivolous” [22 NYCRR § 130-1.1(c)(1)]. The appellate court stated that the “husband’s counsel had not been misled into entering into the stipulation and that wife never made representation regarding future increases in her counsel’s average monthly legal fees. The husband’s conduct was frivolous and warranted sanctions because the motion to vacate stipulation was not based on good-faith argument that was ultimately found to be unpersuasive, and because there was no legal merit to husband’s motion.
"I recommend Robert Smith as an expert and very talented lawyer without reservation." ~ JY
A Fraud Charge Requires A Material Fact, Scienter And Reliance. The Lawyer’s Failure Of Proof Resulted In Monetary Sanctions
On behalf of Robert G. Smith, PLLC | Jun 30, 2016 | Uncategorized
Categories
- Child Custody (47)
- Child Custody & Support Disputes (13)
- Child Support (34)
- Divorces Involving Family Businesses (7)
- High Asset Divorce (36)
- High Net-worth Divorce (11)
- Protecting Your Assets (5)
- Spousal Support (5)
- Tax Considerations In Divorce (7)
- Uncategorized (29)
Archives
- February 2021 (2)
- January 2021 (3)
- December 2020 (1)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (5)
- August 2020 (3)
- July 2020 (2)
- June 2020 (1)
- May 2020 (3)
- April 2020 (2)
- March 2020 (3)
- February 2020 (6)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (3)
- October 2019 (3)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (4)
- July 2019 (2)
- June 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (3)
- April 2019 (4)
- September 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (6)
- June 2016 (8)
- May 2016 (5)
- April 2016 (10)
- March 2016 (11)
- February 2016 (4)
- January 2016 (4)
- December 2015 (5)
- November 2015 (4)
- October 2015 (5)
- September 2015 (4)
- August 2015 (5)
- July 2015 (4)
- June 2015 (4)
- May 2015 (4)
- April 2015 (5)
- March 2015 (4)
- February 2015 (4)
- January 2015 (4)
- December 2014 (6)
- November 2014 (4)
- October 2014 (3)
- September 2014 (5)
- August 2014 (5)