Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of plaintiff's motion to enforce the stipulation, which did not contain any provision requiring plaintiff to make payments on the mortgage or water bill. A court may not imply a term where the circumstances of the contract's formation indicate that, when the contract was made, the parties must have foreseen the contingency at issue and the agreement can be enforced according to its terms. Here, the underlying controversy between the parties involved defendant's claim that plaintiff failed to make mortgage and other payments. When the parties entered into the stipulation, they must have foreseen that contingency..
Plaintiff's motion papers established that defendant failed to respond to an offer to purchase the property and, therefore, established that defendant breached the stipulation. Defendant failed to show that plaintiff breached the stipulation, and did not proffer sufficient cause to invalidate the agreement, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident.
Student note: A stipulation of settlement is a contract, enforceable according to
its terms. When a court enforces a stipulation of settlement, it must
effectuate the parties' intent. As with any contract, where the terms of
a stipulation of settlement are unambiguous, the Supreme Court must
give effect to the parties' intent based upon the plain meaning of the
words used by the parties.
Case: Bethea v. Thousand, NY Slip Op 02923 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Freezing rainstorm in progress.
