Maintenance

Subscribe to Maintenance via RSS

Prenup.jpg

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 New York County Justice Ellen Gesmer which for the most part denied a wife’s attack on the prenuptial agreement she signed with her future husband in 1995.

Their marriage two weeks after the agreement was signed is now ending in divorce. Under the parties’ agreement, Deborah Barocas will not receive any maintenance (personal support). (The agreement contained no provision regarding the support for the parties’ two children.) Moreover, under the agreement, Deborah will also not share in any property accumulated by Victor during the marriage. Indeed, the agreement provided that Deborah would forfeit any gifts or jewelry she had been given by Victor before and during the marriage. Over their 15 years of marriage, Victor accumulated some $4,600,000 in assets, while Deborah had only $30,550 in an I.R.A.

Deborah was born in Guyana, the second of seven children. She arrived in the United States in 1981, at the age of twenty-one. She obtained a GED in 1982, and worked menial jobs. In 1989, she worked part-time as a receptionist for Victor’s family business. While working there, the parties began to date. In 1993, she moved into Victor’s Sutton Place apartment. Other than sporadic attempts at small business ventures, Deborah did not work outside the home for the duration of the marriage. She has no further education and no special skills.

Now attacking that agreement, Deborah noted that she has no other assets or sources of income. She alleged that she can no longer work, as she is now 50 years old and that her husband had thwarted her efforts to get a college education and pursue a career during the marriage.

The three-judge majority of this five-judge appellate court upheld Justice Gesmer’s decision to uphold the property division provisions of the prenuptial agreement. With regard to those provisions, Deborah Barocas failed to establish that her execution of the agreement was the result of inequitable conduct on her husband’s part. Rather, the parties fully disclosed their respective assets and net worth.

Moreover, the agreement was reviewed by independent counsel. Indeed, Deborah’s own lawyer admittedly had told her that the agreement was “completely unfair” and advised against signing it. The fact that the husband’s attorney recommended the wife’s attorney, and that the husband paid Deborah’s counsel’s fees, was insufficient to demonstrate duress or overreaching sufficient to base an attack upon the agreement.  Still further, the claim that Deborah believed that there would be no wedding if she did not sign the agreement, that the wedding was only two weeks away and that wedding plans had been made, was an insufficient basis to attack the agreement on the grounds of duress.

Although application of the provisions would result in plaintiff [husband] retaining essentially all the property, courts will not set aside an agreement on the ground of unconscionability where inequitable conduct was lacking and simply because, in retrospect, the agreement proves to be improvident or one-sided . . . . The circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement disclose no issue of fact as to whether there was overreaching. We therefore adhere to the general rule that “‘[i]f the execution of the agreement . . . be fair, no further inquiry will be made’. . . .

Continue Reading Signing a Prenuptial Agreement Against the Advice of Counsel Bars Subsequent Attack

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

1040.jpgThe 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 a $340,000 counsel fee, and secured the husband’s support obligations with a $4 million life insurance policy (reduced on appeal to $3 million).

In its November, 2011 modification of that award, the Second Department recognized the presumption that spousal maintenance should be taxable income to the recipient spouse, and deductible to the payor. The appellate court stated:

. . . there was insufficient evidence justifying the Supreme Court’s direction that maintenance be nontaxable to the plaintiff, which is “a departure from the norm envisioned by current Internal Revenue Code provisions.”

In 2007, in Grumet v. Grumet, the Second Department had modified J.H.O. Gartenstein’s award to the wife of non-taxable maintenance, declaring that in the absence of a stated rationale for a departure from the norm envisioned by the Internal Revenue Code provisions, a maintenance award should be taxable.

Maintenance is appropriately taxable income to the recipient. Baron v. Baron (2nd Dept. 2010), Markopulous v. Markopulos, 274 A.D.2d 457, 710 N.Y.S.2d 636 (2nd Dept. 2000) ; see also Taverna v. Taverna (2008), where the Second Department modified the trial court award by making maintenance taxable. Such may have been the holding because the trial court properly declined to consider the husband’s tax liabilities resulting from the liquidation and distribution of investment accounts incident to equitable distribution, as the husband had failed to offer any competent evidence concerning the liabilities which would be incurred. See Fleishmann v. Fleischmann (2010 Supreme Westchester Co., Lubell, J.)Continue Reading The Taxability of Spousal Maintenance Payments: a Subject of Inconsistent Court Decisions

Calulator on 100s 8 red.jpgOn 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 no-fault divorce were adopted last year. In part, the Commission was charged to:

review the maintenance laws of the state, including the way in which they are administered to determine the impact of these laws on post marital economic disparities and the effectiveness of such laws and their administration in achieving the state’s policy goals and objectives of ensuring that the economic consequences of a divorce are fairly and equitably shared by the divorcing couple . . . .

Lee Rosenberg, chair of the Nassau County Bar Association Matrimonial Law Committee, noted that last week’s round-table discussion revealed a gap in opinions.  Those advocating for lower income women and domestic violence victims believed that the interim temporary maintenance statute enacted last year should remain in effect, with permanent guidelines leaving little to judicial discretion needed as well. The rest of the attorneys and judges believed a “one size fits all” formulaic approach did not work, created more litigation and did not do justice for both parties.

Mr. Rosenberg commented that if there was any majority view, it was that the temporary maintenance statute needed a major overhaul or complete repeal, except perhaps in lower income cases. Courts should retain real discretion to consider long-established factors in making any award, temporary or final.

A Preliminary Report on Maintenance Awards in Divorce Proceedings (Law Revision Report on Maintenance May 11 2011.pdf) was issued by the Law Revision Commission on May 11, 2011. That Report concluded that the 2010 temporary maintenance law sparked “intense debate over whether a formula should be used to calculate temporary maintenance.” To pursue its mandate, the Commission is reviewing reported appellate and trial court decisions awarding or denying temporary and/or final maintenance over the past 14 years. The Preliminary report presented a summary of the most recent decisions.

Posts in this blog on March 23, April 5 and July 18 considered recent awards under the new temporary maintenance statute, criticizing the absence of a “reality check” in two of those decisions.Continue Reading Spousal Maintenance Statute Difficulties Noted by New York's Law Revision Commission

House of money.jpgThe 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 squired through the judicial process.

By Order to Show Cause issued June 13, 2009, two years before this decision, the wife sought interim support.  She also sought a restraint against her husband refinancing the marital residence. One may surmise that Mr. Many was sole owner of the home; it was his “separate property,” subject to his wife’s claim to an equitable share.

Ms. Many received her award of temporary maintenance. However, by his Order of April, 2010, Supreme Court, Westchester County, Justice Edgar G. Walker, denied that branch of Ms. Many’s motion which was to restrain her husband from encumbering the marital residence.  In effect, Mr. Many was authorized to refinance the equity in the marital residence, but restricted from using the funds for any purpose other than paying his pendente lite maintenance obligation.Continue Reading When Mortgaging the Marital Residence Is Necessary to Pay Temporary Support

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 Law, the calculation starts with a determination of parental income. F.C.A. §413(c)(1) or D.R.L. §240(1-b)(c)(1). Determining parental income under either F.C.A. §413(b)(5)(i) or D.R.L. §240(1-b)(b)(5)(i) begins by looking at the:

gross (total) income as should have been or should be reported in the most recent federal income tax return.

The recent amendment to D.R.L. §237(B) adopts the C.S.S.A. definition to begin the calculation of a temporary support award under D.R.L. §237(B)(5-a)(b)(4):

“Income” shall mean:

(a)  income as defined in the child support standards act . . . .

There actually is a line on the federal income tax return which reports the “total income.”  It’s line 22: Total Income.jpg

Although “gross” income is a term in the statute, but not the 1040, its context is made clear when reference is made to the calculation of Adjusted Gross Income which begins on line 23.Continue Reading "Gross (Total) Income" for the Purposes of Child Support and Temporary Maintenance

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

Calulator on 100s 3.jpg

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…

Calulator on 100s.jpg

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…

unhealthy senior couple 2.jpgMarital 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…