DeFina v. Scott

In DeFina v. Scott (195 Misc. 2d 75 [2003]), the court dealt with a dispute that arose from the termination of an engagement and the subsequent disputes over what reimbursement would be due for funds expended for the wedding "and the establishment of their eventual economic union" (id. at 76). Justice Lebedeff opined, "When both married and unmarried couples may call upon courts for enforcement of contracts, the agreements of formerly betrothed couples surely should be accorded the same honor" (id. at 80). In DeFina, the issue was not about a couple who had married, but who were engaged to be when the relationship failed. The task for the court was to address the financial rights between unmarried couples, which was the status of the DeFina-Scott cohabitation at the time of the breakup. Justice Lebedeff, after noting commentary "that women, who traditionally bear wedding expenses, are necessarily the economic losers in broken engagements" (DeFina at 79), concluded, after citing the case of Bloomfield v. Bloomfield (97 N.Y.2d 188 [2001]) for the proposition that "the law has advanced to the extent that prenuptial and antenuptial agreements are freely recognized" (DeFina at 80) as well as Minieri for the point that "even domestic partners may call upon a court to resolve and regulate property rights acquired during their relationship" (id.), that "where a contract exists," that is, "when both married and unmarried couples may call upon the courts for enforcement of contract, the agreements of formerly betrothed couples surely should be accorded the same honor" (id.).