Two decisions within the last 10 days confirm the need for agreements relating to support to be in (an acknowledged) writing, and then incorporated in a court order. In one, the Second Department affirmed the award of maintenance arrears without a hearing despite the claimed reduction of maintenance under an oral modification of the parties’ … Continue Reading
In a January 15, 2013 decision in Alvarado v. Alvarado, Richmond County Supreme Court Justice Catherine M. DiDomenico, held that the husband’s veteran’s and Social Security disability benefits are separate property for purposes of equitable distribution. Moreover, the veteran’s disability benefits could not be considered on a maintenance award. The Social Security benefits could. As discussed in … 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
In its November 14, 2012 decision in Shah v. Shah, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Mark D. Cohen did not improperly “double count” the income generated by the husband’s business when he awarded the wife four years of maintenance. That business was started by the husband and a … Continue Reading
Under a 2004 stipulation of settlement that was incorporated, but survived the entry of the judgment of divorce that ended the parties seven-year marriage, the ex-husband/father was to pay $250,000.00 in annual maintenance and $140,000.00 in annual child support emancipated. The stipulation further provided that the father would be able to apply for a reduction … Continue Reading
In a September 12, 2012 press release, MyDivorcePapers.com, a self-proclaimed “established leader in online divorce forms,” announced that it had recently released another video in their online divorce forms series, How to File New York Divorce Forms Online. The video “is an education and informational video aimed at giving summary overview of specific divorce laws along … 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
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
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 … Continue Reading
When your lawyer tells you that you are about to make a really bad deal, you disregard that advice at your peril. That is one lesson to be learned from a split-decision of the Appellate Division First Department in its April 17, 2012 decision in Barocas v. Barocas. The court affirmed a decision of Supreme Court … 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
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
Marital financial planning is vital for spouses dealing with advanced age and deteriorating health. Though not arising from an orchestrated plan, the February decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Matter of Donald L.L. (Miceli), supports that planning. After almost 40 years of marriage, the wife in 2005 suffered a stroke that left her with … Continue Reading
In his February 9, 2011 decision in PP v. KP, Justice Robert A. Bruno of Nassau County, providing the reader with the salient facts, reflected his balancing of the various factors and policies underlying a maintenance determination. Justice Bruno had conducted a hearing on maintenance (and counsel fees) after the parties to this 24-year marriage stipulated to equitable distribution matters … Continue Reading
