A New York Supreme Court judge recently ruled against a request by a woman to transfer her ex-husband's interest in their marital home as part of an ongoing divorce case. This decision affects the financial and custodial arrangements between the couple, who have been embroiled in disputes over unpaid obligations and custody of their children.
The case, AS v. MS, was decided on February 10, 2026, by Judge Ronald Castorina Jr. The ruling came after the defendant, identified as MS, sought to enforce a prior settlement agreement and gain sole custody of their children, citing her ex-husband's failure to meet financial obligations.
Background
AS and MS entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and Agreement in August 2023, which outlined their financial responsibilities, child support, and property rights. Under this agreement, AS was required to pay $4,250 monthly in spousal support, $3,750 for child support, and cover various expenses related to their children. The couple's marital home was jointly owned.
In early 2025, MS filed to enforce the agreement after AS allegedly stopped making payments. The court found AS in contempt for failing to comply with previous orders, including child support and mortgage payments. MS claimed that AS owed over $200,000 in unpaid obligations and had relocated to Israel, making it difficult to enforce the agreement.
The Ruling
Judge Castorina ruled against MS's request to transfer AS's interest in the marital home. The court stated, "The record demonstrates that while Plaintiff has been found in contempt and has failed to comply with prior orders, this Court has not fixed, by formal judicial determination, the precise amount of arrears currently outstanding." This highlights that the court requires a clear and detailed record before taking such significant actions.
The judge emphasized that the absence of a formal determination of the arrears and the lack of evidence regarding the home's current market value made it impossible to justify transferring ownership. The court noted that the request for ownership transfer was more akin to a modification of their property rights rather than a straightforward enforcement of the agreement.
Impact
This ruling underscores the importance of having a solid evidentiary foundation in divorce cases, especially when it comes to enforcing financial obligations and altering custody arrangements. The decision sends a clear message that courts will not make significant changes without proper documentation and evidence.
The outcome also affects the couple's ongoing custody battle. MS's request for sole legal and physical custody of their children was denied for similar reasons. The court stated that there was insufficient evidence to show a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant such a modification. This ruling may impact how both parties approach future custody and financial disputes.
What's Next
MS has the option to appeal the ruling or seek further relief through proper legal channels. The court's decision allows for the possibility of revisiting the issues of arrears and custody if presented with a more developed factual record in the future. The ongoing nature of this case suggests that further legal battles may arise as both parties navigate their obligations and rights.