Rehill v. Rehill
Dorothy Rehill v. Lee M. Rehill
Subsequent history: rev'd, Rehill v. Rehill, 116 N.E.2d 281 (N.Y. 1953). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Since the making of the separation agreement and the entry of the Nevada decree, eoncededly there have been very substantial changes in the circumstances of both the parties and the children including the emancipation of both children neither of whom for some time has lived with the mother or required support, negotiations reducing the amount to be paid, acceptance by plaintiff for a period of time of sums considerably less than those provided in the agreement, claimed accord and satisfaction and a claim for reformation based upon claimed mistake or fraud. Parties may waive their rights under a contract or under a decree whether foreign or domestic when there is no law preventing waiver. In the state of facts here disclosed, summary judgment should not be granted but all issues should await a plenary trial.
Accordingly, the orders appealed from should be affirmed, without costs, and the parties directed to proceed expeditiously to trial.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Callahan and Bbeitel, JJ.
(dissenting). We dissent and vote to reverse the order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to grant such motion with an assessment of damages. The agreement sued on was made a part of the Nevada decree, which directed the parties to carry it out. Accordingly, any attack on the provisions of the agreement would impair the Nevada decree. The only issue sufficiently raised by defendant appears to be as to the amount due. (See Hoyt v. Hoyt, 276 App. Div. 995 , affd. 301 N. Y. 589 ; Schacht v. Schacht, 295 N. Y. 439 ; Fry v. Fry, 279 App. Div. 122 , 304 N. Y. 889 .) This may be determined upon an assessment of damages.
We dissent and vote to deny the motion to amend the answer.
We dissent and vote to deny the motion for examination before trial.
Dore, J. P., Cohn and Yan Yoorhis, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Callahan and Breitel, JJ., dissent, in opinion.
Orders affirmed, without costs, and the parties are directed to proceed expeditiously to trial. The date for the examination to proceed shall be fixed in the order. Settle orders on notice. [See post, p. 961.]
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.