Enforcement of Support and Orders

What happens when a deceased father failed to maintain life insurance for the benefit of his ex-wife and the children of the marriage entitled to receive support? Is there a claim, against whom, and for how much?

Those were the questions answered by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its August 31, 2016 decision in Mayer v. Mayer.

There, the plaintiff (mother) was the second wife of Paul S. Mayer (father). Pursuant to their 2000 judgment of divorce, the father was, among other things, obligated to pay child support and educational expenses for the children of that marriage, Alanna and Matthew. The judgment of divorce also provided that the father was to maintain a term life insurance policy in the face amount of $1,000,000 for the benefit of Alanna and Matthew, with the mother being named as trustee on their behalf, “until such time as his support obligation is fully satisfied.”

In 2001, the father married Kristen and thereafter had two children, Jonah and Ryan.

In 2005, due to the father’s claimed inability to pay the premiums on the $1,000,000 policy required under the judgment of divorce, the policy was converted into two policies insuring his life, both of which were issued by New York Life. One policy, with a face amount of $200,000, listed the father as the owner and the mother as the beneficiary. The other policy, with a face amount of $100,000, listed the mother as both the owner and the beneficiary. The mother paid the premiums on the $100,000 policy.

In 2006, the mother moved in the Family Court to have the father held in contempt for, among other things, failing to maintain the $1,000,000 policy required by the judgment of divorce. The Family Court found the father to be in contempt and directed him to comply with the life insurance provision of the judgment of divorce. However, apparently the father could not obtain a new policy in the amount of $1,000,000 because of ill health.

Continue Reading Redressing the Failure to Maintain Life Insurance Required by Divorce Judgment

Contested litigation is remarkably unsuited for healing a divorced family. One gets a sense of the feelings of frustration, if not helplessness a Family Court Judge may feel as she tries to figure out “what do we do next?” What remedy should be ordered that will actually strengthen the bonds between parent and children?

Consider the July 1, 2016 decision of Erie County Family Court Judge Mary G. Carney in Matter of Gregory S. v. Dana K. Judge Carney was charged with resolving the claims of a father, rejected by his four children in substantial part due to the mother’s willful violations of visitation orders.

Judge Carney noted that the family’s history was branded by protracted, caustic litigation, toxic interpersonal conflict and all categories of broken hearts.

Continue Reading Mother Ordered to Write Book Report for Disobeying Father’s Visitation Rights

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has held in its June 15, 2016 decision in Schiero v. Perrotta, that a mother’s testimony was a sufficient foundation for the admission in evidence of her children’s medical bills and her proof of payment of those bills.

The mother had filed a violation petition alleging that the father had failed to pay his pro rata share of the children’s unreimbursed medical expenses. At the ensuing hearing, the mother testified that she had incurred $980 in medical expenses for the children. She attempted to offer into evidence copies of medical bills and proof of payment.

Support Magistrate Rachelle C. Kaufman, however, refused to admit the medical invoices into evidence on the ground that the medical invoices were hearsay, and were not admissible through the mother’s testimony. Magistrate Kaufman then held that the mother failed to demonstrate the amounts of each individual medical expense, or when they were incurred. The Magistrate dismissed that branch of her petition. The mother filed objections, which were denied by Rockland County Family Court Judge Sherri L. Eisenpress.

Continue Reading Mother’s Testimony Sufficient Foundation for Receipt in Evidence of Health Care Invoices and Payment Records

In its October 20, 2015 decision in El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, New York’s highest court restates the elements of civil contempt, the burdens of proof needed to support a finding, and the effect of the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege against incrimination. Doing so, the Court of Appeals affirmed a 2013 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which in turn upheld the finding of civil contempt made by Kings County Supreme Court Justice Eric I. Prus.

In January 2010, an Order to Show Cause was signed to bring on the wife’s motion to hold the husband in contempt for having violated a 2008 order that supposedly restrained the transfer of assets. The husband had transferred certain parcels of realty. In addition to scheduling a hearing on the contempt motion, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued directing the husband to deposit immediately with the wife’s attorney the sum of $950,000.00 “which is the sum of money he purportedly received from the transfer of [the property] 171 Ainslie Street, Brooklyn, New York and 64-17 60th Road, Maspeth, New York, minus the money paid for [the] real estate broker, transfer taxes and payment of the underlying mortgage.” The husband was personally served with this Order to Show Cause.

As it turns out, the 2008 order did not, in fact, prohibit the transactions in which the husband engaged. However, here, the husband was not found in civil contempt for having violated the 2008 order, but for violating the Temporary Restraining Order contained in the January, 2010 Order to Show Cause that looked to preserve marital assets and the status quo while the court considered whether the husband violated the 2008 order.

Continue Reading Court of Appeals Restates Civil Contempt Rules

The wife’s failure to send notice of default as required by the parties’ divorce judgment resulted in no award of counsel fees on her enforcement application. So held the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its August, 2015 decision in Taormina v. Taorminareversing the wife’s $7,781.25 counsel fee award by Westchester Supreme Court Acting Justice Janet C. Malone.

The wife had sought an award of a counsel fee pursuant to the parties’ judgment of divorce in connection with the husband’s alleged defaults as to certain obligations set forth in that judgment. The judgment, however, required the nondefaulting party to give notice of alleged defaults by certified mail. It was undisputed that the wife did not give such notice. Accordingly, the wife was not entitled to an award of a counsel fee pursuant to the terms of the judgment.

Moreover, as the record did not reflect that the husband’s defaults were “willful” within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law §237(c), that statute did not provide a proper alternative basis for the award of a counsel fee to the wife. Therefore, Justice Malone erred in awarding the wife a counsel fee.

Rocco V. Salerno, Jr., of Eastchester, represented the husband. Helene M. Selznick, of Somers, represented the wife.

Sentencing a father (a police officer) to 15 days in jail for sending abusive e-mails to the mother, Supreme Court, Putnam County Justice Victor G. Grossman attempted to stop the war between divorcing parents.

Charging the parties with acting more like children, throwing tantrums, teasing and name-calling, Justice Grossman, in his decision in L.T. v. K.T.  noted that both parents behaved like preschoolers. Unfortunately, the Court could send the parties to their rooms. The parties’ three children have two parents whose embarrassing behavior has set a horrible example. the behavior of both parties was “all the more disappointing when one considers the parties should know better.” The father was a police officer, who had been trained to defuse difficult situations. The mother had a Master’s Degree in Psychology. Thankfully, the children had multiple outlets where they can see responsible adult behavior.

The Court also blamed the lawyers, observing “how counsel for each of the parties has personalized the conflict to the point where they are incapable of communicating effectively beyond a litigating posture, to promote their clients’ interests.”

Continue Reading Co-parenting: Flexibility Cannot Be Ordered; Abusive E-mails Warrant Jail

Parental Alienation RibbonThe mother’s alienation of the children from the father was the sole basis stated by the Second Department while upholding a change of custody to the father. In its March 25, 2015 decision in Halioris v. Halioris, the court affirmed an order of Suffolk County Family Court Judge Bernard Cheng.

The Second Department noted that modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child.

Parental alienation of a child from the other parent is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending parent is unfit to act as custodial parent.

As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, Judge Cheng’s findings in connection with these issues would not be disturbed unless they lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. Here, the Second Department found that Judge Cheng’s determinations that there had been a change in circumstances, and that a transfer of sole custody to the father would be in the children’s best interests, had such a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Moreover, the Second Department upheld Judge Cheng’s holding the mother in contempt for failing to cooperate with family therapy. Generally, in order to prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, the movant is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence:

  1. that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect;
  2. that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms; and
  3. that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct.

Here, the father met his burden. Specifically, the father showed, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother, with full knowledge of its requirements, violated a so-ordered stipulation that in part unequivocally mandated that the parties and the subject children engage in, cooperate with, and attend family therapy. The violation of the stipulation by the mother resulted in prejudice to the father. Accordingly, Judge Cheng properly granted the father’s petition to hold the mother in contempt for disobeying the stipulation.

Christopher J. Chimeri, of Hauppauge, represented the mother. The father represented himself. Domenik Veraldi, Jr., of Islandia, served as attorney for the children.

The third of four decisions this month with an international context was decided by New York County Supreme Court Justice Manuel J. Mendez.

In Bond v Lichtenstein (pdf), decided July 15, 2014, Justice Mendez granted a mother summary judgment in lieu of complaint under C.P.L.R. §3213 domesticating a $570,110.05 Hong Kong judgment for child support arrears.

The parties lived together for approximately one year beginning in April of 2006. The mother is a citizen of the United Kingdom and the father is a citizen of the United States. Not long after the mother found out she was pregnant, the relationship fell apart, and by April of 2007, the parties had separated.

On August 31, 2007, their female child was born in England. The mother currently resides with the daughter in Hong Kong and with another man.

On November 21, 2008, the mother commenced child support and paternity proceedings in England. There was a trial and resulting December 3, 2010 Support Order from the High Court of England.

The parties then entered into a consent summons for the purpose of obtaining a “mirror order” in Hong Kong reflecting the support obligations obtained by the mother in England and vacating the English Order. In November of 2012, the father submitted to jurisdiction in Hong Kong for obtaining the “mirror order” and resolving other related issues.

In May of 2013, the proceeding brought before the High Court of Hong Kong resulted in a four-day trial concerning child support. The father appeared for the trial by video. He submitted evidence and was represented by attorneys. On June 28, 2013, the High Court of Hong Kong, by Deputy High Court Judge, Bebe Pui Ying Chu, rendered an 87-page Opinion.

Continue Reading Melting Pot (Part 3 of 4): Domesticating the Foreign Child Support Judgment

A spouse’s pre-divorce judgment death results in the unenforceablitity of divorce action orders, including the automatic orders mandated by Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(2)(b). As a result, Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Paul I. Marx held in his April 17, 2014 decision in A.V.B. v. D.B. that a husband was without a remedy for his wife removing the husband as a beneficiary of her retirment account and life insurance policy.

After 13 years of marriage and two children, the wife commenced this divorce action on September 12, 2012. Pursuant to stipulated Preliminary Conference Orders, it was agreed that the wife would be awarded the divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, an Attorney for the Child was appointed and the pre-trial schedule was fixed.

On April 22, 2013, the wife committed suicide. During the administration of her Estate, it was learned that on February 14, 2013, while the divorce action was pending, the wife had changed the named beneficiaries on her ING 403(b) account from her husband as her sole beneficiary to the parties’ two children as 50% primary beneficiaries. It was further discovered that on or about March 10, 2013, the wife changed her designation of the husband as the sole named beneficiary on her Prudential life insurance policy to the husband as a 1% primary beneficiary, the parties’ daughter K. as a 49% beneficiary and daughter R. as a 50% beneficiary.

The husband’s counsel then submitted a letter to Justice Marx with a proposed order directing that the named beneficiaries on the wife’s ING account and Prudential life insurance policy revert back to the date of the commencement of the action and directing ING and Prudential to pay out the balance in the wife’s annuity and the “death benefit” under her life insurance policy to the named beneficiaries that existed before the changes were made. At that time, the husband’s lawyer also submitted the supporting affirmation of the attorney for wife’s Estate, declaring that the Estate consented to the proposed order.

Justice Marx declined to sign the proposed order. Instead, the Court scheduled a conference at which the Court directed defense counsel to move by Order to Show Cause. Although no papers were submitted in response to that motion, Justice Marx nevertheless denied it. The relief sought in the motion was not warranted by the law, nor by a good faith extension of the law.

While it is regrettable that Plaintiff violated the automatic orders and seems to have reached beyond the grave to thwart Defendant’s efforts to recover his share of her assets, this Court is unable to remedy the violation in this proceeding.

Continue Reading Automatic Orders, Violated During Divorce Action, Cannot Be Enforced After Pre-Judgment Death

Unemployment, alone, is not sufficient to avoid incarceration for the willful failure to pay child support. So held the First Department when on April 8, 2014 it affirmed the determination of Bronx County Family Court Judge Sidney Gribetz in Gina C. v. Augusto C.

Based upon the fact-finding determination of the Support Magistrate, Judge Gribetz had found that the father willfully violated a child support order, and committed him to the New York City Department of Corrections for a term of four months intermittent weekend incarceration, unless discharged by payment of $7,000.00 to the Child Support Collection Unit.

The First Department held that the Support Magistrate properly found that respondent wilfully violated the order of child support. The mother made her prima facie showing that the father’s failure to pay child support over a five year period was a willful violation of the order of support. The father failed to respond with a showing that the violation was not willful by evidence that he was unable to make the required payments. The father and his witnesses gave conflicting testimony as to whether he was working. There was no basis upon which to disturb the Support Magistrate’s credibility determinations.

Further, the appellate court held that unemployment alone does not establish inability to pay, especially given the father’s failure to show that he used his best efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience. Moreover, prior to each court appearance, the father had appeared with a promise of employment and a minor payment on his outstanding arrears, only to lose the new job and discontinue support between hearing dates.

The father’s last minute attempts to avoid the consequences of his previous failure to pay, including staving off a potential jail sentence, should not be countenanced.