Archives: Carrying Charges

Calulator on 100sWhen one spouse is paying all the carrying costs of the home, it is appropriate to reduce the presumptive temporary maintenance formula award to the other spouse by half of those costs.

So held the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its May 20, 2015 decision in Su v. Su, affirming an order of Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Goodstein that directed a wife to pay of the expenses of the home in which the parties were residing while the action was pending plus temporary maintenance to the husband of $200 per month.

In the divorce action commenced by the wife, the husband moved for pendente lite relief seeking, among other things, temporary spousal maintenance in the sum of $4,500.15 per month and to compel the wife to pay all of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence, where both he and the wife continued to reside.

In his order, Justice Goodstein directed the wife to pay 100% of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence, totaling $5,003 per month.

Using the statutory temporary maintenance formula (Domestic Relations Law § 236[ B][5-a][c]), Justice Goodstein also calculated the husband’s presumptive award of temporary maintenance to be $2,057 per month, but found that “it would be unjust and inappropriate” to direct the wife to pay both all of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence plus the presumptive award of temporary maintenance. Therefore, the court downwardly deviated from that presumptive award of temporary maintenance, and awarded the husband the sum of $200 per month.

The husband appealed, contending that the Supreme Court erred in its method of calculating the presumptive award of temporary maintenance and in awarding him the sum of only $200 per month.

Here, the Second Department agreed that the “significant downward deviation from [the] presumptive award of temporary maintenance” was appropriate.

The formula to determine temporary spousal maintenance . . . is intended to cover all of the payee spouse’s basic living expenses, including housing costs of food and clothing, and other usual expenses. . . In addition, where both parties continue to reside in the marital residence and one party is ordered to pay the carrying costs, the payor spouse may be credited with half those costs.

Here, nearly all of the husband’s basic living expenses included in the presumptive award of temporary maintenance were already to be paid by so much of the order as directed the wife to pay 100% of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence, as the court calculated these carrying costs to include the monthly costs for the mortgage, gas, electricity, telephone, water, groceries, home entertainment, household repairs, appliances, laundry, gardening/landscaping, and snow removal.

Moreover, the appellate court noted, the husband failed to demonstrate that the pendente lite award of $200 per month would leave him unable to meet his financial obligations. Under the circumstances, the Second Department held that Justice Goodstein properly downwardly deviated from the presumptive award of temporary maintenance to award the husband the sum of $200 per month

Comment: Although the decision notes that the carrying costs totaled $5,003 per month, it is not clear whether each of the open-ended obligations were capped. Thus, requiring the wife to pay all of the bills for groceries, home entertainment, and repairs, etc., could be problematic. Party at the Su home: caviar and white truffles to be served.

Philip Sands, of Garden City, represented the wife. Thomas Weiss & Associates, P.C., of Garden City, represented the husband.

Calulator on 100sWhen one spouse is paying all the carrying costs of the home, it is appropriate to reduce the presumptive temporary maintenance formula award to the other spouse by half of those costs.

So held the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its May 20, 2015 decision in Su v. Su, affirming an order of Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Goodstein that directed a wife to pay of the expenses of the home in which the parties were residing while the action was pending plus temporary maintenance to the husband of $200 per month.

In the divorce action commenced by the wife, the husband moved for pendente lite relief seeking, among other things, temporary spousal maintenance in the sum of $4,500.15 per month and to compel the wife to pay all of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence, where both he and the wife continued to reside.

In his order, Justice Goodstein directed the wife to pay 100% of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence, totaling $5,003 per month.

Using the statutory temporary maintenance formula (Domestic Relations Law § 236[ B][5-a][c]), Justice Goodstein also calculated the husband’s presumptive award of temporary maintenance to be $2,057 per month, but found that “it would be unjust and inappropriate” to direct the wife to pay both all of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence plus the presumptive award of temporary maintenance. Therefore, the court downwardly deviated from that presumptive award of temporary maintenance, and awarded the husband the sum of $200 per month.

The husband appealed, contending that the Supreme Court erred in its method of calculating the presumptive award of temporary maintenance and in awarding him the sum of only $200 per month.

Here, the Second Department agreed that the “significant downward deviation from [the] presumptive award of temporary maintenance” was appropriate.

The formula to determine temporary spousal maintenance . . . is intended to cover all of the payee spouse’s basic living expenses, including housing costs of food and clothing, and other usual expenses. . . In addition, where both parties continue to reside in the marital residence and one party is ordered to pay the carrying costs, the payor spouse may be credited with half those costs.

Here, nearly all of the husband’s basic living expenses included in the presumptive award of temporary maintenance were already to be paid by so much of the order as directed the wife to pay 100% of the carrying costs associated with the marital residence, as the court calculated these carrying costs to include the monthly costs for the mortgage, gas, electricity, telephone, water, groceries, home entertainment, household repairs, appliances, laundry, gardening/landscaping, and snow removal.

Moreover, the appellate court noted, the husband failed to demonstrate that the pendente lite award of $200 per month would leave him unable to meet his financial obligations. Under the circumstances, the Second Department held that Justice Goodstein properly downwardly deviated from the presumptive award of temporary maintenance to award the husband the sum of $200 per month

Comment: Although the decision notes that the carrying costs totaled $5,003 per month, it is not clear whether each of the open-ended obligations were capped. Thus, requiring the wife to pay all of the bills for groceries, home entertainment, and repairs, etc., could be problematic. Party at the Su home: caviar and white truffles to be served.

Philip Sands, of Garden City, represented the wife. Thomas Weiss & Associates, P.C., of Garden City, represented the husband.

Requiring the wife to pay the carrying charges of the marital residence pendente lite was proper in light of the awards to the wife of temporary maintenance and child support. So held the the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its June 12, 2013 decision in Fini v. Fini, affirming the order of Orange County Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Ecker.

Moreover, Justice Ecker properly based his $7,500 per month temporary maintenance award upon the wife’s needs and the standard of living of the parties prior to commencement of the divorce action as the husband’s “evidence of his gross income was insufficient, and was not reconcilable with his prior spending habits or the parties’ standard of living.”

On appeal, the husband failed to demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his financial obligations. There was no basis in the record to disturb the award of temporary maintenance. Any perceived inequities would best be remedied by a speedy trial.

The husband was represented by William J. Larkin III of Larkin, Axelrod, Ingrassia & Tetenbaum, LLP, of Newburgh. The wife was represented by Adam W. Schneid of Most & Schneid, P.C., of White Plains.

Calulator on 100s 3.jpgTwo 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 that the statutory temporary maintenance formula is intended to include the portion of marital residence carrying costs attributable to the nonmonied spouse.

In the November 5, 2012 decision in Liebman v. Liebman, Justice Jackman Brown balanced the factors presented by directing the husband to continue to make the marital residence carrying charge payments, but deducting the full amount of those charges from the presumptive maintenance formula.

The wife had sought an award of temporary maintenance based upon husband’s 2011 W-2 income. The wife also asked that in addition to the calculated temporary maintenance sum, the husband should be directed to continue to pay the maintenance, mortgage and carrying charges on the marital residence.

The Court found that the presumptive temporary maintenance award would be $6,337.70 monthly. However, under the facts presented, Justice Jackman Brown found that the presumptive award would be unjust or inappropriate. Specifically, the Court adjusted the presumptive temporary maintenance award after considering factor: (q) any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper.

The Court noted that the statute is silent regarding whether the Court shall order the presumptive maintenance award in proceedings in which the payor spouse has agreed or is directed to maintain the mortgage and/or carrying charges on the marital residence. In Liebman, it was undisputed that the husband had been paying the carrying charges, including the mortgage, maintenance and insurance, in the sum of $1739.91 monthly.

The Court deducted the sum of $1,739.91 from the husband’s presumptive monthly temporary maintenance obligation $6,337.70, and awarded the wife $4,597.79 monthly. The Court also directed the husband to continue to pay the mortgage, maintenance and insurance on the marital residence.

Continue Reading Temporary Maintenance Awards and Marital Residence Carrying Charges: Justice Jackman Brown Weighs In

Calulator on 100s 6 red.jpgIn 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 before calculating maintenance.

In the February 7, 2012 decision in Khaira v. Khaira, the Appellate Division, First Department, considered the breadth of D.R.L. §236B(5-a). No longer was the temporary (pendente lite) maintenance award used simply to “tide over the more needy party,” but rather to provide “consistency and predictability in calculating temporary spousal maintenance awards.” The amendment “creates a substantial presumptive entitlement.”

The First Department modified the April 1, 2011 order of New York County Supreme Court Justice Deborah A. Kaplan.  In the case before it, Justice Kaplan had “properly followed the initial procedures” to determine that the presumptive temporary maintenance award would be $138,000.00 per year ($11,500.00 per month), at least based on the husband’s first $500,000.00 of income. Justice Kaplan, then, analyzed the reasonable needs of the wife and children after taking into account husband’s payment of the mortgage and health insurance and expenses. Justice Kaplan, then, awarded the wife $13,870.00 in monthly unallocated spousal and child support payments, in addition to requiring the husband to pay the $5,317.00 monthly mortgage payments and the family’s $855.00 monthly health care premiums and medical expenses. The award and expenses totaled $20,041.00 per month. Justice Kaplan, however, did not discuss the factors required by the amendment to be considered when making an award in excess of the formula applied to the first $500,000.00 of a spouse’s income.

Before remanding the issue to Justice Kaplan for redetermination, the First Department focused on the “suggestion” inherent in her decision “that the formula was intended to cover the support needs of the non-monied spouse, such as food and clothing, but not the cost of the mortgage payments for her residence.” However, because any specific reference to the carrying charges for the marital residence was absent from the temporary maintenance formula amendment, the First Department considered:

[It was] reasonable and logical to view the formula adopted by the new maintenance provision as covering all the spouse’s basic living expenses, including housing costs as well as the cost of food and clothing and other usual expenses.

The First Department noted that prior to the amendment, it was common to award support both in cash payments to the spouse as well as to third-parties. That practice was “not only eminently reasonable, but also the most expedient way of covering payment of the necessities, and protecting the home as a marital asset.” The “new approach” changes that, instead awarding “the amount that will cover all the payee’s presumptive reasonable expenses.”

The First Department did not rule out the possibility of a direct mortgage payment, but, as required by the statute, only after the analysis of income in excess of the $500,000.00 cap was made.

The impact of this decision is clear.  However, it also reveals the lack of logic in the remaining support calculations required by the various support provisions.

Continue Reading Appellate Decision Clarifies Temporary Maintenance Calculations; Temporary Child Support Awards Must Be Next

Calulator on 100s 2.jpgIn 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 action, as well as the Court’s denial of the wife’s partial summary judgment motion on her no-fault claim, although the Court recognized no defenses were available to a subjective irretrievable breakdown claim.

The parties were married in 1992 and have 3 children, ages 13, 10 and 7. The parties continue to reside in the marital residence.

The husband, a 52-year old physician, had 2009 earnings of $530,645.00, although the Court noted that he has $15,833.00 in monthly gross W-2 income from private practice. The wife, a 46-year old homemaker, had $8,516.00 in 2009 dividend income.

At the Preliminary Conference, the husband stipulated to pay the marital residence realty taxes (there is no mortgage), gas electric, telephone including cell, water, homeowner’s, automobile, umbrella, medical and disability insurance, cable TV and Internet, alarm, domestic help, gardening and landscaping, snow removal, sanitation and exterminating, and in-network health expenses. The husband claimed the fixed expenses totaled $7,274.00 per month ($87,288.00 per year).

Based on its determination that the husband’s income net of FICA and Medicare taxes was $529,857.00, the Court first applied the new temporary support formula to determine that the presumptive temporary maintenance award would be $148,297.00 (30% of $529,857.00 minus $8,516.00, as that result is less than 40% of the parties’ combined income less the wife’s income). The Court, then, noted that blind adherence to this formula was likely to lead to inequitable results:

. . . [I]n this court’s view, the statute requires some remedial language as strict application in almost every case will not effectuate the statute’s purpose and will result in awards that are unjust and inappropriate . . . .

Continue Reading Court Tempers Temporary Maintenance Formula and Temporary Child Support with Reality Check