Two cases this month discussed the treatment of employer-provided fringe benefits in child support determinations.
In his May 14, 2012 decision in K.W. v. M.W., Onondaga County Family Court Judge Michael L. Hanuszczak rejected a father’s objections to the determination of a Support Magistrate. While doing so, Judge Hanuszczak considered the impact of certain
Two May 23, 2012 decisions of the Appellate Division, Second Department, demonstrate the importance in custody determinations of demonstrating whether a parent fosters or hampers the children’s relationship with the other parent.
In its decision in Purse v. Crocker, the court affirmed the award of Suffolk County Family Court Referee Kerri Lechtrecker of sole
Particularly when it comes to agreements fixing child support obligations, “shaking on it” is simply not enough.
Both the Domestic Relations Law and the Family Court Act authorize parents to enter agreements which establish their child support obligations. DRL §§236B(3) and 240(1-b)(h) and FCA §413(1)(h) set out many requirements for such agreements.
Nothing suggests that
New York County Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper reports in a May, 2012 decision that for 2010, 23% of New York State’s divorce action were commenced in Manhattan, although it is home to only 8% of the state’s population. For 2011, 49.6% of the New York City divorce actions were filed in Manhattan (New York County), although Manhattan, with some 19% of the city’s population, ranks a distant third in population to Kings and Queens Counties.
Justice Cooper in Castaneda v. Castaneda tried to explain why 75 to 80% of the New York County filings involve divorces where both spouses reside outside the county. He speculates that perhaps it is because New York has a reputation for processing divorce actions more expeditiously than elsewhere. Perhaps it is because it is more convenient for attorneys and divorce mills who have their offices in Manhattan. Perhaps it is because the chances of a party obtaining an uncontested divorce on default increase if the action is brought in a venue far removed from where the defendant actually lives. [Note: It also may because New York County may be thought to be more favorable for awarding interim or permanent awards of support or counsel fees.]
It has become the accepted practice for attorneys and non-attorney divorce processing services, the so-called divorce mills, to commence divorce proceedings in New York County despite the fact that neither spouse lives here.
Justice Cooper’s comments came as he granted a motion to change venue under C.P.L.R. 511. Despite the fact that not one aspect of the marriage or the parties’ lives was remotely connected to Manhattan, the plaintiff-husband nevertheless chose to file in New York County Supreme Court, seeking a divorce upon the grounds of living apart pursuant to a separation agreement. D.R.L. §170(6).Continue Reading Judge Bemoans Manhattan as New York's Divorce Capital
The rule of law discussed by Monroe County Supreme Court Justice Richard A. Dollinger in Lomaglio v. Lomaglio is undoubtedly correct. An ex-husband may not be required to provide health insurance beyond the period he is required to pay his ex-wife maintenance. The question is was he allowed to correctly apply the law?
With allusions to Gilbert and Sullivan’s H.M.S. Pinafore, Justice Dollinger answered his own question:
When does a trial court judge get to review or opine, expand upon or possibly modify an appellate division ruling? Answer: “hardly ever.”
Domestic Relations Law §236B(8) is straightforward enough. A divorcing spouse may not be required to provide health insurance beyond the support period:
8. Special relief in matrimonial actions. a. In any matrimonial action the court may order a party to purchase, maintain or assign a policy of insurance providing benefits for health and hospital care and related services for either spouse or children of the marriage not to exceed such period of time as such party shall be obligated to provide maintenance, child support or make payments of a distributive award.
So why is Justice Dollinger’s just-published February, 2012 opinion implementing this provision front page news (New York Law Journal 5/21/2012)? It is because 12 years ago, the Appellate Division Fourth Department appears to have held that Mr. Lomaglio would be obligated to provide health insurance to his ex-wife, permanently, although the 18-month period for which he was obligated to provide maintenance to his ex-wife had expired.Continue Reading Did Judge Overrule the Appellate Division to Hold Ex-Husband May Not Be Required to Provide Health Insurance Beyond Period He Is Required to Pay Support to Ex-Wife?
When a judge works this hard to provide a searching analysis of a difficult question, we should sit up and take notice.
Should an unemployed father be required to prove why he should not have to relocate to seek/obtain employment in his field as a condition to him receiving a downward modification of his child support obligations?
Presenting a scholarly review of decisions in New York and around the country, Monroe County Supreme Court Justice Richard A. Dollinger crafted a test to determine whether a parent with substantial child support obligations, and unique job skills, is required as a matter of law to geographically expand his search for employment.
The essential facts in Szalapski v. Schwartz are not unfamiliar. The former spouses have three children, ranging in ages from 10 to 15. When the parties were divorced in 2005, the father was earning $82,000 annually; the mother approximately $6,000. The father’s child support obligation was $1,826.49 monthly.
Mr. Szaplapski (the “father”) is a “multi-disciplinary physicist,” with a career in academia before serving as a staff engineer. He left academics in 2004, electing to stay in western New York to accommodate his family. He worked in software design for which he had only marginal qualifications. In July, 2010, the father was laid off. After his severance pay ended, he received unemployment insurance benefits of $405 per week.
In the application being decided by Justice Dollinger, the father, now remarried, sought to reduce his child support obligation. He alleged that he was unable to find comparable employment in the geographic area where his children live. His ex-wife challenged the diligence of his job search, but also argued that because of the father’s unique talents, the court must require him to diligently search for employment in a broader geographic area. That the father failed to do.
Justice Dollinger began with a detailed legal and factual analysis of the father’s search for employment in the Rochester area where the parties lived. This exhaustive analysis, itself, presented a primer on the diligent efforts necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss an application for a downward modification of a child support obligation based upon the loss of employment. Based upon the evidence presented Justice Dollinger found that the father presented “a prima facie case for a hearing.”
Noting that a parent’s child support obligations are “paramount.” Justice Dollinger then turned “to the second question: is the applicant required to demonstrate a reasonable job search outside the local community and, if so, how far does his job search have to extend?”Continue Reading Unemployed Father May Have To Relocate Rather Than Having His Child Support Obligation Reduced
The parties’ 2008 Separation Agreement which resolved their divorce provided for joint legal custody of the parties’ two children, with their primary residence being with the mother. Nine months after the divorce, the mother remarried and moved to her new husband’s residence in Florida. The children remained in New York with their father.
The parties
In my December 12, 2011 blog, I discussed the October 14, 2011 decision of New York County Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper, directing a father to pay 40% of his child’s private college expenses. In its April 24, 2012 decision in Tishman v. Bogatin, the First Department affirmed. A parent’s contribution
If the parents reach an agreement resolving custody litigation, may the court approve and order the settlement over the objection of the attorney for the children. Yes, as long as the attorney for the children is given the right to be heard by the court and the court determines that the settlement is in the
If a judge, and particularly one held in as high regard as former New York County Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline W. Silberman, tells you that you have contributed to your “fractured relationship” with your child and recommends counseling/therapy, you should probably follow the advice.
The parents of a now-19 year old son have been