Agreements and Stipulations

Subscribe to Agreements and Stipulations via RSS

The First Department, in its February 19, 2013 decision in David v. Cruz, threw out an entire settlement agreement because of its failure to include  language required by the Child Support Standards Act.

The C.S.S.A. sets out a presumptive formula for the calculation of a parent’s child support obligation.

Parents are free to agree to vary the formula and fix their own base periodic child support obligation. They may also fix the parents’ respective liabilities for addition health care, child care and add-on expenses, if not others. However if they so agree, the parents must recite in their agreement what would have been the results had the presumptive statutory formula been applied.

As noted by the First Department, an agreement purporting to opt out of the presumptive basic child support obligations set forth in the Child Support Standards Act must include a provision stating that the parties have been advised of the provisions of the C.S.S.A., must specify the amount that the basic child support obligation would have been, and must state the reason or reasons for the deviation (Family Court Act § 413 [1] [h]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][h]). That required recitation may not be waived by either party or by counsel.Continue Reading Settlement Agreement’s Failure to Include C.S.S.A. Recitation Invalidates Entire Agreement

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’ separation agreement. In the second, Albany County Family Court Judge W. Dennis Duggan directed a father to pay 71% of his older son’s private middle school expense, despite the mother’s conceded agreement to pay the full tuition.

In its January 30, 2103 decision in Parker v. Navarra, the Second Department affirmed the award of maintenance arrears by Dutchess County Supreme Court Justice James V. Brands. The ex-husband alleged that he and his ex-wife had orally modified the maintenance provisions of their separation agreement and, alternatively, that the ex-wife should be equitably estopped from enforcing the maintenance provisions of the separation agreement. The ex-husband had requested an evidentiary hearing so that he could present the testimony of witnesses on those issues. Justice Brands denied the request for an evidentiary hearing, awarding arrears on the basis of the parties’ submissions.

The Second Department affirmed, noting that the ex-husband failed to make a showing sufficient to entitle him to a hearing on this issue:

Where, as here, the parties’ separation agreement contains a provision that expressly provides that modifications must be in writing, an alleged oral modification is enforceable only if there is part performance that is unequivocally referable to the oral modification. The defendant did not demonstrate that the plaintiff’s acceptance of reduced monthly maintenance payments was unequivocally referable to an alleged oral modification by, for example, demonstrating that consideration was given in exchange for the plaintiff’s alleged oral agreement to accept reduced maintenance payments.

Moreover, to establish a defense of equitable estoppel, the ex-husband was required to have shown that the ex-wife’s conduct induced his significant and substantial reliance upon an oral modification. Again, the ex-husband was required to have shown that the conduct relied upon to establish estoppel was not otherwise  compatible with the agreement as written.Continue Reading Support Modification Agreements: Get’em in Writing; Get’em into Court (Part II)

contract ripped by angry woman.jpgIn its December 5, 2012 decision in Petracca v. Petracca, the Second Department affirmed the decision of Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Brown that set aside a postnuptial agreement due to the husband’s overreaching at the time of signing.

Four months after the parties’ 1995 marriage, they entered into a postnuptial agreement. The agreement provided that the jointly-owned marital residence, which had just been purchased for approximately $3.1 million and which was subsequently renovated at a cost of between $3 million and $5 million, was the husband’s separate property.

The agreement further provided that if the parties divorced, the wife, who had not been employed other than as a homemaker since just before the marriage, would waive her interest in any business in which the husband had an interest, including any appreciation in the value of such interests accruing during the marriage. At the time the agreement was entered into, the husband valued his interests in these business entities at over $10 million. The wife also waived any and all rights she had to the husband’s estate, including her right to an elective share. At the time the agreement was entered into the husband valued his net worth at more than $22 million.

Finally, the agreement provided that if the parties divorced, the wife would waive maintenance, except in the sum of between $24,000 and $36,000 per year, for varying lengths of time, depending on the duration of the marriage.

In 2008, the wife commenced this action for a divorce. In his answer, the husband sought enforcement of the postnuptial agreement. A hearing was held to determined its validity.

The wife testified that her husband had bullied her into signing agreement, shortly after she had suffered a miscarriage, by threatening that they would not have any children and that the marriage would be over if she did not sign. The wife further testified that she signed the agreement within days of receiving it and, although she reviewed some portions of it, she did not understand its terms and did not consult an attorney. At the hearing, the wife also demonstrated that the statement of the husband’s net worth contained in the agreement was inaccurate at the time it was made, and was undervalued by at least $11 million.

For his part, the husband denied any knowledge of his wife’s miscarriage. He had wanted the postnuptial agreement in order to protect his son from a prior marriage. The husband testified that the parties had discussed the issue of entering into a postnuptial agreement prior to the marriage and that they had negotiated the postnuptial agreement over the course of many weeks.

The husband’s attorney drafted the agreement. Although she had not disclosed the name, the husband believed that his wife had consulted with her own attorney.Continue Reading Postnuptial Agreement Vacated for Overreaching 16 Years After Entry

How.jpgIn its November 20, 2012 decision in Kang v. Kim, the First Department affirmed what appears to be an unwarranted interpretation of a divorce settlement marital residence buyout provision. In doing so, the appellate court yielded to the construction of the provision used by the “trier of fact” to resolve the ex=wife’s post-divorce motion to enforce the parties’ property settlement agreement.

That agreement gave the ex-wife the right to purchase the husband’s interest in the marital residence, a cooperative apartment. The clause provided:

If the parties are unable to agree as to the terms for such purchase within 30 days of the day that the Wife gave notice to the Husband then the value of the Husband’s interest (the ‘buy-out price’) shall be one half of the value of the apartment as determined by a Real Estate Appraisers [sic ] agreed to by the parties less the outstanding amount owed upon the First Mortgage.

The wife claimed that the provision was unambiguous. The price (“P”) she was to receive was one half of the value of the apartment (“V”) less the entire outstanding mortgage (“M”). The entirety of the mortgage was to be subtracted from the ex-husband’s half-share of the gross value.

Recalling math class from, oh, so many years ago, the wife successfully argued:

P = (V/2) – M

The husband had argued that the buyout price was half the value of the apartment less the wife’s one-half share of the outstanding amount of the mortgage. Mathematically, the husband argued:

P = V/2 – M/2

Thus, the husband asserted that the buyout price was one half of the equity in the apartment. This might also be written:

P = (V-M)/2

The First Department noted that the lower court, New York County Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper, found the provision “unambiguous.”

However, the First Department disagreed on the issue of ambiguity, nevertheless deferring to the construction used by the lower court. The appellate court found that:

upon examination of the settlement agreement in its entirety, and considering the relation of the parties and the circumstances under which it was executed, the agreement is ambiguous because the provision is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation.

Indeed, the First Department noted, the settlement agreement also provided that all marital property was to be divided 50/50 and that if the premises were sold to a third party, the “net proceeds of sale” were to be divided equally.Continue Reading Drafting Formulas in Divorce Stipulations of Settlement: Use Examples and Math Concepts

College Fund 4.jpgIn last week’s blog, I discussed the extraordinary analysis undertaken by Monroe County Supreme Court Justice Richard A. Dollinger in L.L. v. R.L. in order to apply the agreement made by parents at the time of their divorce to finance their children’s college education “according to their respective means at the time the child…

College Fund 2.jpg“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Bill Clinton, August 17, 1998

“What does “means” mean?” Justice Richard A. Dollinger, June 22, 2012

By statute, a court may direct a parent to contribute to a child’s education, even in the absence of special circumstances or a voluntary agreement of the parties. Under the Child Support Standards Act (D.R.L. 240[1-b][c][7] and F.C.A. 413[c][7]) the court may award educational expenses:

Where the court determines, having regard for the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interests of the child, and as justice requires, that the present or future provision of post-secondary, private, special, or enriched education for the child is appropriate.

In my May 9, 2012 blog, I discussed the April 24, 2012 decision in Tishman v. Bogatin, in which the Appellate Division, First Department, held that a parent’s contribution to a child’s college education would not necessarily be limited to a portion of the expense to attend a campus within the State University of New York system: the “SUNY cap.” In making a decision, there is no burden placed on a parent to show that the child’s needs cannot be met adequately at a SUNY college. “Whether to impose a SUNY cap is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the parties’ means and the child’s educational needs.”

In its July 25, 2012 decision in Lynn v Kroenung, the Second Department reaffirmed that unlike the obligation to provide support for a child’s basic needs, support for a child’s college education is not mandatory. Instead, absent a voluntary agreement, whether a parent is obligated to contribute to a child’s college education is “dependent upon the exercise of the court’s discretion, and an award will be made only “as justice requires.”

In L.L. v. R.L., Monroe County Supreme Court Justice Richard A. Dollinger was compelled to determine what “means” meant in a couple’s separation agreement. That agreement provided that the parents would finance the children’s college education “according to their respective means at the time the child attends college, after grants and scholarships have been taken into consideration.”

In 2011, the parties’ oldest son applied, was accepted, and enrolled at Penn State (Harrisburg). Before he left for school, the mother moved for an allocation of the college expenses. In a prior decision, Justice Dollinger reserved this issue. When the couple’s second son recently applied to Hofstra (stated cost $33,000 annually), the mother sought an allocation of those expenses as well.

Justice Dollinger clarified the issue he would be deciding:

This Court is not deciding what the parents should contribute to their children’s college education expenses. The agreement clearly indicates that both parents would contribute something if they had the means to do so. The only issues before the court are questions of contract interpretation and contractual rights: what the parents agreed they would contribute, what obligation may be enforced against either parent under the agreement, and whether either party has, to date, breached their obligations thereunder.Continue Reading The Divorced Parent's Obligation to Pay for College: It Depends What "Means" Means

Focus.jpgUnder 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 of his child support and spousal maintenance obligations in the event of an “involuntary, substantial, adverse change” in income. Moreover, if a downward modification were to be granted, the parties’ stipulation would be deemed amended to the extent of any relief afforded. The particular provision provided:

Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, in the event of an involuntary, substantial, adverse change in the Husband’s income, including income produced by his assets (such as involuntary loss of employment), he shall have the right to make application to a court of competent jurisdiction, which must include a sworn statement of net worth, for an appropriate modification of child-related support and/or spousal maintenance obligations hereunder, and if granted, the parties’ Agreement shall be deemed amended to the extent of any relief afforded on such application.

The September 10, 2012 decision of Westchester County Supreme Court Justice John P. Colangelo in Mark P. v. Teresa P., resolved such an application to reduce his support obligations. The father based his application on the reduction of his annual income from $3.3 million in 2004, when the stipulation was signed to $651,000.00 in 2011, and an anticipated $251,000.00 in 2012. The father, a securities trader, claimed that the reduction in his income was due to “changes in the securities industry, the economy and a general decline in securities’ sales volume . . . .”

The ex-wife/mother contended that the agreement’s support reduction paragraph should be read only to provide the threshold setting the father’s right to apply for a support reduction, but not necessarily to obtain such a reduction. The mother claimed that the provision did not alter the standards for granting a reduction in child support (a substantial unanticipated an unreasonable change in circumstances) or spousal maintenance (extreme hardship).

Justice Colangelo agreed with the mother, and denied relief to the father. Although the Court acknowledged that the parties had “sought” in their stipulation to provide a “less restrictive standard than that provided by prevailing law,” the Court held that the any easing of the standard was “more circumscribed” than the father argued. Justice Colangelo noted that “conspicuous by its absence is any standard to apply once the threshold to apply for reduction was met.” Thus, the Court would apply “well established principles of whether a reduction in amount is warranted.” The father failed to meet that standard.

Justice Colangelo discussed several decisions which honored agreement provisions that only lowered the threshold to apply for relief, but also held that meeting the threshold did not mandate a reduction.

Only by an explicit agreement . . . may the parties successfully substitute a different standard for support payment reduction from the well-worn standards established by statutory and case law.

Continue Reading Divorce Stipulations That Change Court Standards Must Be Precise

Mediation.jpgThe ex-husband brought this post-divorce civil action against his ex-wife and Alan L. Finkel, the attorney who mediated the spouses’ 2007 divorce settlement agreement, seeking to set aside that agreement.

In his July 12, 2012, decision in Valkavich v. Valkavich, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Ralph T. Gazzillo, granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The husband complained that the child support provisions did not comply with the Child Support Standards Act (C.S.S.A.), that it contained erroneous statements concerning his earnings at the time.

Justice Gazzillo found that the ex-husband had not demonstrated that the Stipulation of Settlement was unfair when made or that there was overreaching in its execution. The Court placed heavy emphasis on the waivers and disclaimers signed by the parties at the time of their mediation. It was clear from the agreement between the parties and the mediator, as well as the Stipulation of Settlement, that the parties were advised to seek guidance from an outside attorney, if they so chose. This was certainly sufficient opportunity for plaintiff to have had the proposed agreement reviewed by an attorney and to have been advised of any questions he had as to its terms. By the terms of the agreement, plaintiff acknowledged that he had the right to obtain counsel, that he knew and understood what he was signing, and that he entered into it freely and voluntarily.

Pertinent portions of the agreement between the parties and The Divorce Mediation Center stated:

At the end … of the first session, you will be asked to complete a financial disclosure package. However, you are free to waive this homework assignment, provided you both agree to do so. … We highly recommend that prior to signing the final agreement, each of you spend sufficient time in fully reviewing it (and bringing it to your attorney, accountant, guru,, parent, sibling, or other adviser or confidant) to be confident that it contains everything you need, and that the agreement is fair.Continue Reading Mediated Divorce Settlement Agreement Upheld In Light Of Waiver of Financial Disclosure

Father and daughter.jpgParents sometimes enter child support agreements which track the presumptive formula set out in New York’s Child Support Standards Act (Family Court Act §413; Domestic Relations Law §240[1-b]). However, parents in their agreements often deviate from the presumptive formula to reflect various considerations. That deviation for a married couple may reflect the delicate balancing of property rights, spousal maintenance and child support.

For example, parents may reduce the presumptive child support amount where the child(ren) spend more time with the “non-custodial” parent than what might be considered the “normal” alternate weekends and a mid-week dinner.

May the non-custodial parent’s failure to fully exercise visitation rights under an agreement serve as a basis to increase child support?

In its July 11, 2012 opinion in McCormick v. McCormick, the Appellate Division Second Department said, “Yes.” It found that the substantial reduction in a father’s visitation with his child warranted an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation. That reduction in visitation provided the substantial change in circumstances needed to justify a support modification.

[T]he mother established that an increase in the father’s child support obligation was warranted by a change in circumstances … Specifically, the substantial reduction in the father’s visitation with the child, which significantly reduced the amount of money the father was required to spend on the child, “constituted an unanticipated change in circumstances that created the need for modification of the child support obligations.”

The Second Department was quoting from the 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals in Gravlin v. Ruppert, 98 NY2d 1, 743 NYS2d 773. That case also addressed a father’s failure to live up to his scheduled substantial parenting time.Continue Reading Father's Failure To Visit Child Is Grounds To Increase Child Support

Gavel main.jpgIn a stipulation which settled a prior dispute between parents, the father agreed to pay child support. The mother had sole custody of the parties’ child.

The father thereafter commenced a Nassau County Family Court proceeding to terminate his child support obligation. Upon the mother’s motion, Support Magistrate Penelope Beck Cahn dismissed the father’s petition.