What does a court do with a wife who claims not to have discovered that she was a million-dollar winner of a May 19, 2011 lottery drawing until only days before the ticket would have expired a year later, and 11 months after she was awarded temporary support and counsel fees in her pending divorce action? … Continue Reading
On the wife’s motion for temporary relief, Supreme Court, New York County Justice Deborah A. Kaplan in Lennox v. Weberman, awarded the wife tax-free maintenance of $38,000 per month, plus the wife’s unreimbursed medical expenses up to $2,000 per month, interim counsel fees of $50,000, and expert fees of $35,000. By its February 26, 2013 … Continue Reading
In order to prevent the foreclosure of the marital residence, a court in a divorce action, and prior to judgment, may order the spouses to cooperate with a refinance application. Moreover, if the property is not successfully refinanced, the court, before divorce judgment, may compel a spouse to satisfy (at least) one half of the … Continue Reading
Two decisions last month of Queens County Supreme Court Justice Pam Jackman Brown provide insights on how courts might cope with the overlap of the statutory temporary maintenance formula and the payment of marital residence carrying charges. Yesterdays blog reported upon the Second Department’s November 21, 2012 agreement in Woodford v. Woodford with the First Department in Khaira v. Khaira … Continue Reading
The statutory temporary maintenance formula is intended to include the portion of marital residence carrying costs attributable to the nonmonied spouse. So concluded the Appellate Division, Second Department in its November 21, 2012 decision in Woodford v. Woodford. Accordingly, the appellate court vacated so much of Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice James F. Quinn’s July 15, 2011 … Continue Reading
Resolving the rights and obligations of a couple incident to their divorce often involves the delicate balancing of property rights, spousal and child support, and custody and parenting issues. Attempting an orderly resolution in different forums simultaneously may be impossible. The July 26, 2012 decision of Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Daniel Palmieri in Loike … Continue Reading
What are the support rights and obligations of a couple who have habitually lived often the generosity of their parents? That was the question Monroe County Suprme Court Justice Richard A. Dollinger answered in his July 23, 2012 decision in G.R.P. v. L.B.P. when determining temporary support. The divorcing couple have been married for 20 years … Continue Reading
From the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” Department: During the course of this Westchester County divorce action, Elizabeth Perry “engaged in inappropriate litigation behavior.” She refused to comply with court orders to produce documents or to submit to an examination before trial, she secreted assets (including millions of dollars of cash assets), and she apparently illicitly acquired … Continue Reading
The premarital agreement of the parties limited their rights to obtain spousal support upon divorce. It also contained a waiver of their rights to counsel fees. Nevertheless, recently-retired New York County Supreme Court Justice Saralee Evans awarded the wife $6,000 per month in unallocated pendente lite support (an award not specifying how much of it … Continue Reading
Within weeks after entering a temporary support stipulation, the husband in a Kings County divorce action, resigned from his employment as a police officer with the New York City Police Department (NYPD). He moved to Georgia and entered the police academy as an entry-level officer at $38,000.00 per year, a more than 50% reduction of … Continue Reading
As has been the trend, a court has held that despite what may be the superior parenting skills of one parent, that parent may be denied custody if that parent does not promote the relationship of the children with the other parent. In an April 26, 2012 decision, the Third Department in Jeannemarie O. v. Richard … Continue Reading
In the first appellate decision to apply the October 12, 2010 temporary maintenance amendment to the Domestic Relations Law, it was held that the recipient’s share of marital residence carrying charges is within the temporary maintenance award, itself. It was improper to have the payor spouse pay carrying costs directly in exhange for a credit against income … Continue Reading
The Appellate Division, Second Department, has again told J.H.O. Stanley Gartenstein that it was improper for him to award nontaxable spousal maintenance. In Siskind v. Siskind, in addition to awarding the wife $65,000 per year in nontaxable maintenance until the wife reached her 65th birthday, J.H.O. Gartenstein equitably distributed the parties’ assets, awarded child support and … Continue Reading
On October 25, 2011 the New York State Law Revision Commission held a round-table discussion to review New York’s spousal support, i.e. “maintenance” statute, Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(5-a, 6). The discussion precedes a final report which that Commission is required to render under a mandate imposed by the Legislature when new laws concerning temporary maintenance, interim counsel fees and … Continue Reading
Last week, the Appellate Division, Third Department, exercised its equitable muscle to filling in the gaps while the marriage and divorce laws of the different states catch up with each other. On July 21, 2011, in Dickerson v. Thompson, the court granted a dissolution of a Vermont civil union. Under Vermont law, the civil union … Continue Reading
The May, 2011 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Many v. Many, seems, at first blush, to be a rather routine matter. While their divorce action is pending, the interests of the parties are balanced. However, below the surface lurk issues which highlight the frustration and anxiety which spouses must feel as their case is … Continue Reading
Have you looked at an IRS Form 1040 (pdf) lately? Looking at the 1040 is supposed to begin the C.S.S.A. calculation for determining child support. For actions commenced on or after October 13, 2010, it is also the first step when determining temporary maintenance. When computing child support under either the Family Court Act or the Domestic Relations … Continue Reading
In this second of two blogs discussing Supreme Court Nassau County Justice Anthony J. Falanga‘s March 28, 2011 decision in A.C. v. D.R., we look at the Court’s temporary financial relief rulings under the recent amendments to D.R.L. §§236B(5-a) and 237. Last Monday’s blog discussed the joinder for trial of the wife’s post-no-fault action with the husband’s pre-no-fault … Continue Reading
The February 15, 2010 [sic] decision of Rockland County Supreme Court Justice Alfred J. Weiner in C.K. v. M.K., adds to what is shaping up to be a remarkable string of cases applying the 2010 temporary maintenance and counsel fee amendments to the Domestic Relations Law. The decision was published March 15, 2011, the same day as Margaret A. v. … Continue Reading
The March 15, 2011 decision of Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Francesca E. Connolly in Margaret A. v. Shawn B., raises a number of questions and invites lessons to be learned. Here, the Court applied the recently-adopted temporary maintenance and counsel fee statutes to a recently-terminated substantial wage-earner. The parties were married in June, 2007, and have … Continue Reading
With the addition on August 13, 2010 of D.R.L. §170(7), making New York the 50th state to grant no-fault divorces, Governor Patterson also signed an amendment to D.R.L. §237. That amendment creates a rebuttable presumption that while a divorce action is pending, the “less monied” spouse shall be awarded counsel and expert fees and expenses … Continue Reading
