Gershon v. Back
Citations
- 346 Conn. 181
Syllabus
The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dissolved by a New York court, appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court, which dismissed her motion to open and set aside the final New York judgment of divorce for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before their marriage, the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement, pursuant to which the plaintiff waived her interest in certain of the defendant's business interests. During the divorce proceedings, the plaintiff challenged the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement, but the New York court rejected the claim, finding no evidence of fraud or overreaching by the defendant. The parties eventually settled their dispute by way of a separation agreement, which superseded the prenup- tial agreement and resolved the parties' respective financial and property rights. The separation agreement also included a choice of law provision, which designated New York law as governing the agreement, and a provision incorporating New York's plenary action rule, which requires a party seeking to modify or vacate a separation agreement that survives a final judgment of divorce to file a plenary action on the contract instead of a motion to open, modify or vacate the divorce judgment. The final judgment of divorce incorporated the separation agreement by reference but provided that the separation agreement would survive and not be merged into the judgment. The parties both later moved to Connecticut, where the plaintiff registered the New York divorce judgment pursuant to statute (§ 46b-71 (a)). Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to open and set aside the divorce judgment in the Superior 182 FEBRUARY, 2023 346 Conn. 181 Gershon v. Back Court, claiming that it was obtained through the defendant's fraudulent conduct. The plaintiff requested that the Connecticut court open the New York divorce judgment and vacate the settlement agreement. Applying New York law, the trial court concluded that,
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Christian v. ChristianNew York Court of Appeals· 1977-06-09· cited 495×
- Teitelbaum Holdings, Ltd. v. GoldNew York Court of Appeals· 1979-10-16· cited 314×
- Rainbow v. SwisherNew York Court of Appeals· 1988-07-06· cited 208×
- Bloomfield v. BloomfieldNew York Court of Appeals· 2001-11-27· cited 106×
- Kleila v. KleilaNew York Court of Appeals· 1980-05-01· cited 89×
- Boyd Rosene and Associates, Inc. v. Kansas Municipal Gas Agency, an Interlocal Municipal Agency City of Winfield, Kansas, a MunicipalityTenth Circuit· 1999-04-13· cited 71×
- Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-07-26· cited 50×
- Thomas Iron Co. v. Ensign-Bickford Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1945-03-08· cited 44×
- Weber v. U.S. Sterling Securities, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-06-19· cited 42×
- Oneglia v. OnegliaConnecticut Appellate Court· 1988-04-26· cited 41×
- Lambert v. LambertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1988-07-05· cited 34×
- Wilson v. NeppellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1998-08-17· cited 26×
- Culp v. CulpAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1986-02-18· cited 18×
- Sass v. SassAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2000-11-20· cited 16×
- City of Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-09-11· cited 15×
- Brennan v. BrennanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2003-05-19· cited 13×
- Spano v. O'HaraNew York Court of Appeals· 1988-12-22· cited 12×
- Gershon v. BackConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-11-10· cited 8×
- Jaslow v. JaslowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1980-05-21· cited 8×
- Fine v. FineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1993-03-01· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.