In a closely-watched battle over the rights to frozen embryos in the aftermath of divorce, a San Francisco judge on Wednesday found that a deal is a deal when it comes to feuding couples who sign binding contracts at the time they visit clinics for fertility treatment.

San Francisco Superior Court Anne-Christine Massullo sided with a husband who wants the preserved embryos destroyed over the wishes of his soon-to-be ex-wife who insists they are her only chance to have children.

Massullo ruled that Stephen Findley could reasonably rely on a pact he signed at UCSF’s fertility clinic when he and then-wife Mimi Lee decided to cryogenically freeze five embryos after a cancer diagnosis that threatened her fertility. Massullo’s ruling is not final, but is unlikely to change — and unless an appeals court intervenes, the embryos will be destroyed under the terms of that agreement, which called for their disposal in the event of divorce.

“The court holds that while Lee might have a right to procreate in other circumstances not before the court, she does not have a right to procreate with Findley,” the judge wrote.

With courts in California and elsewhere just starting to confront the cutting-edge issue, the case is seen around the nation as a key legal test of spousal rights over frozen embryos when couples split. Findley and Lee have agreed on the financial terms of their divorce, but not the fate of the stored embryos.

A breast cancer survivor rendered infertile by treatments, 46-year-old Lee testified during a trial this summer that she simply wants “her babies.” Her lawyers told Massullo that Lee went through freezing the embryos to ensure “motherhood would not be a casualty of cancer.”

The judge, while sympathetic to Lee’s plight, found that the plain language of their agreement overrode Lee’s desires.

“It is a disturbing consequence of modern biological technology that the fate of the nascent human life, which the embryos in this case represent, must be determined in a court by reference to cold legal principles,” the judge wrote. “The role of a court here at the intersection of a constitutional statute and the agreement of two competent adults is clear.”

Lee’s lawyers released a statement saying she is “disappointed” in the ruling and “evaluating her legal options.” Lee can appeal Massullo’s ruling to the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco and, eventually, the California Supreme Court. The judge indicated in her ruling that she would postpone orders to discard the embryos if the case is appealed.

Experts for the most part said the judge’s ruling is on firm ground.

“On these facts, enforcing the agreement seems appropriate,” said Lisa Ikemoto, a UC Davis law professor. “The opinion does a nice job of marshaling the facts that support a conclusion Lee and Findley both understood the document and did intend at that time that the embryos should be destroyed if they divorced.”

Findley and his lawyer have declined to speak to the media since the case attracted widespread attention last summer. But in testimony in July, Findley told the judge that he agreed to the fertility treatments only if the couple had children together and raised them as a family, believing they would be destroyed in the event of a split.

Findley, a wealthy investment executive, wants the embryos destroyed under agreements the couple signed in 2010 at UC San Francisco’s fertility center, but Lee, a Juilliard-trained pianist and Harvard-educated doctor, is pushing to gain control of them.

On the eve of their September 2010 wedding, Lee was diagnosed with cancer, prompting the couple to rush to UCSF’s fertility center, where five of her embryos were cryogenically frozen and preserved for a possible future with children.

UCSF argued during the trial that fertility clinics must be able to rely on the signed agreements or they would face chaos in handling the embryos when couples battle after bitter splits.

Although the trial broke new ground in California, where the courts had yet to address the question directly, feuding couples in other states have forced the legal system to deal with the modern dilemma of deciding who gets to decide the fate of these stored embryos in the event of a split.

The most high-profile example has been the recent spat between Hollywood star Sofia Vergara and ex-fiancé Nick Loeb, who has sued for custody of their stored embryos. And a Chicago appeals court last month ruled in a high-profile case that a woman in Lee’s similar situation, left infertile by cancer, could use the embryos despite her ex-boyfriend’s opposition.

Legal ethicists are divided over the question as it unfolds around the nation. Some have backed the position taken by Massullo, that such binding agreements should resolve any disputes over the fate of frozen embryos, while others say there may be exceptions in cases like Lee’s when it is a woman’s only biological option to have children.

Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz.