Temporary (Pendente Lite) Relief

Subscribe to Temporary (Pendente Lite) Relief via RSS

In the April 15th decision in FR v. AR, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Edmund M. Dane ordered the pendente lite sale of the marital residence titled in the husband’s name after foreclosure proceedings had been commenced. The Court elected to preserve the asset by ordering the immediate sale, as the equity in the house was simply more important than the actual structure.

Last week’s post discussed the April 10th decision of the Third Department in Angello v. Angello, which upheld the trial determination that a wife’s refusal to approve a mid-action sale of the husband’s insolvent business constituted a wasteful dissipation of the largest marital asset. I asked whether the lower court could have simply approved the sale.

Here, to provide authority for the sale, Justice Dane wrestled with the 1977 (pre-Equitable Distribution) decision of the Court of Appeals in Kahn v. Kahn. There, it was held that while D.R.L. §234 authorized a court to decide questions of title, it did not authorize the sale of a marital residence held as tenants by the entirety unless there had been a change in a couple’s marital status that changed the interests of the parties to tenants in common. In the absence of a change in marital status, there could be no question of title between the parties, as the law treated tenants by the entirety as a single person. Nonetheless, the fiction is not applied when recognizing that a tenant by the entirety has the power to mortgage their interest. The Court also noted that prior to the enactment of D.R.L. §234 and its predecessor Civil Practice Act §1164-a, “no authority existed to permit a court to adjudicate a real property right in a marital action.”

Justice Dane held that Kahn did not preclude a sale and on the facts before the Court, an immediate sale was necessary.

The parties married in 2007. The marital residence was acquired after the parties’ marriage and prior to the commencement of this action. Title was taken solely in the name of the husband. The husband commenced this matrimonial action in May 2023 and stopped making mortgage payments in July 2023. The mortgagee bank commenced a foreclosure action on March 28, 2024.

The wife made a pendente lite application to sell the marital residence.Continue Reading Court Orders Pendente Lite Sale of Marital Residence

Two days before the parties were married in February, 2011, they executed a prenuptial agreement. In it the wife accepted an agreed-upon maintenance provision. The husband commenced a divorce action in 2019. The wife counterclaimed, seeking an award of maintenance and a judgment setting aside the agreement as invalid.

The husband moved for summary judgment requesting the court deem the agreement valid. The wife opposed the husband’s motion and cross-moved for an award of temporary maintenance and counsel fees. Acting Clinton County Supreme Court Justice Keith M. Bruno partially granted the husband’s motion and dismissed the wife’s second counterclaim disputing the validity of the agreement. Justice Bruno also denied her cross-motion seeking temporary maintenance.

In its June 9, 2022 decision in Spiegel v. Spiegel, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, finding various issues of fact raised by the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement that precluded an award of summary judgment. The Court reported the wife’s allegations concerning the husband’s controlling conduct leading to the execution of the prenuptial agreement. The Court concluded:

We find that the foregoing facts, if established, raise issues concerning whether the wife was meaningfully represented during the abbreviated negotiations, and also raise an inference that the husband did not intend on engaging in a good faith negotiation of the agreement from the outset, which, if true, would be sufficient to establish overreaching on his part.

The Court also found that the wife was improperly denied temporary maintenance, invalidating the maintenance provision of the agreement for failing to comply with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law former §236(B)(5-a)(f).Continue Reading Temporary maintenance provisions in prenuptial agreements entered 2010 to 2015 must contain CSSA-type formula recitation

Despite repeated efforts to bring predictability and consistency to temporary support awards, that goal remains elusive. Consider the December, 2017 decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Rouis v. Rouis.

The parties were married in 1993 and had two children. After the husband departed the marital residence, the wife commenced this action for divorce in 2014. Applying the pre-2015 temporary maintenance formula on the wife’s motion for temporary relief, Sullivan County Supreme Court Justice Mary MacMaster Work granted the wife, among other things, temporary maintenance ($1,958 per month) and child support ($2,720 per month) and required the husband to pay for the carrying costs and upkeep of the marital home ($4,859 per month), private school for the youngest child ($848 per month), health insurance for the family ($1,921 per month), interim counsel fees ($10,000) and the wife’s vehicle and fuel costs ($644 per month). The husband appealed.

Recognizing that the combined monthly awards amounted to an annual award of $155,400 plus $10,000 in interim counsel fees, to be paid from the husband’s annual gross income of $183,300.50 (the wife’s pre-award income was $11,700.00), the Third Department agreed that the temporary awards were excessive and should be modified.

The appellate court noted that the (pre-2015) temporary maintenance formula resulted in a presumptive monthly temporary maintenance amount of $4,387.50. Justice Work also granted the wife’s request that the husband also pay the $4,859 in expenses, including the mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance and upkeep. Justice Work recognized that it would not be equitable to require the husband to pay full maintenance, child support and all carrying costs on the marital home, and therefor essentially credited the husband for one half of the carrying costs on the home ($2,429.50 per month) by reducing the presumptive maintenance award by that amount, resulting in a temporary maintenance award of $1,958 per month. The lower court also ordered the husband to pay the full monthly carrying costs on the home ($4,859) in which he did not reside. The appellate court noted that when the wife’s vehicle expenses were added ($644 per month), the total combined monthly award was $7,461, plus tuition ($848 per month) and child support. The net effect of Supreme Court’s order was that the husband was ordered to pay the full presumptive maintenance award plus one half of the carrying costs on the home and the wife’s vehicle expenses.Continue Reading Do Temporary Support Awards Include Marital Residence Expenses?

In addition to providing a guideline for the amount of a maintenance (alimony) award, New York’s relatively new maintenance (alimony) statute includes a presumptive range for the period of time maintenance is to be paid based upon the length of the marriage. Particularly with short marriages, what should be the impact of the length of the marriage on the award of maintenance while the divorce action is pending? Put differently, should a spouse be able to increase support, just by keeping the divorce action going?

In her August 31, 2017 decision in Barlik v. Barlik, Acting Queens County Supreme Court Justice Elisa S. Koenderman was faced with that issue.

Among the temporary relief sought by the parties in this divorce action, the parties husband cross-moved for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence. The wife moved, in part, for temporary maintenance and child support and for an order directing the husband to pay 100% of the carrying costs of the marital residence; an order appointing a forensic accountant to value the income from the husband’s business as well as a real estate appraiser to value the marital residence, both at the husband’s expense; and for counsel fees.

Justice Koenderman first denied the husband’s motion for exclusive use and occupancy, but granted the wife’s cross-motion for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence.

The Court then granted the wife’s motion for temporary maintenance and child support. As required by the statute, the court calculated the guideline amount by applying the statutory formula to the payor’s income up to the statutory cap of $178,000 (see DRL § 236[B][5-a][b][5] & [6]). Then, the court may adjust the guideline amount of temporary maintenance if it is “unjust or inappropriate” (DRL § 236[B][5-a][h][1]). The court must consider certain enumerated factors, including but not limited to the health and age of the parties; the present or future earning capacity of the parties; and care of children during the marriage that inhibits a party’s earning capacity, as well as any other factor which it finds just and proper to determine “whether and to what extent it will apply the statutory formula” to the payor’s income which exceeds the statutory cap.Continue Reading Considering the Length of the Marriage and Other Factors on Temporary Support Awards

In its December 14, 2016 decision in Piza v. Baez-Piza, the Appellate Division, Second Department, stated that a father was required to prove a change of circumstances before modifying a prior award of temporary custody. The court also held that where a wife’s attorney did not comply with billing rules, a trial court could not award the wife counsel fees in excess of the retainer amount initially paid by the wife to her attorney.

The parties were married in 1996 and later separated. The husband commenced this action for a divorce in 2010. They have a son, who is now 17 years old.

The parties cross-appealed from their judgment of divorce entered in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Marlene L. Budd, J.), that was entered upon a decision after trial of Justice Stephen M. Behar. That decision:

  • awarded the plaintiff custody of the parties’ child;
  • directed the defendant to pay child support in the sum of $293.20 per month;
  • awarded the mother $150 per week for the period of April 26, 2010, through July 11, 2016; and
  • awarded the wife an additional $7,500 in attorney’s fees for legal services provided following an earlier award of $3,500 in attorney’s fees.

Continue Reading The Burden At Trial to Change Temporary Custody Award; Counsel Fees Where Rules Not Followed

Going farther than simply holding that the lower court temporary support award was inadequate, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its September, 2015, decision in Kaufman v. Kaufman, discussed the detailed decision necessary to deviate from presumptive temporary maintenance and child support formulas. Doing so, the court reversed the May 15, 2013 order of Supreme Court Justice Edward A. Maron and remanded the matter for new determinations. The appellate court also substantially increased the interim counsel fee award. Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a) [amended after this decision], sets forth formulas for courts to apply to the parties’ reported income in order to determine the presumptively correct amount of temporary maintenance. “In any decision made pursuant to that section, the lower court shall set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision.” “[A] court may deviate from the presumptive award if that presumptive award is unjust or inappropriate.” Under such circumstances, the court must “set forth, in a written order, the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award of temporary maintenance, the factors it considered, and the reasons that the court adjusted the presumptive award of temporary maintenance.”

Additionally, when a court is unable to perform the needed calculations as a result of being “presented with insufficient evidence to determine gross income, the court shall order the temporary maintenance award based upon the needs of the payee or the standard of living of the parties prior to commencement of the divorce action, whichever is greater” (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5-a][g]).Continue Reading Making It Tougher To Deviate From Presumptive Formulas on Temporary Support Awards

In its August 19, 2015 decision in Hof v. Hof, the Second Department, almost matter-of-factly, addressed a number of pendente lite and pre-nuptial agreement issues.

To begin, the Court affirmed the determination of Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice John B. Collins, that after a hearing upheld the parties’ prenuptial agreement. By that agreement,…

Calculator formulaOn June 24, 2015, the New York State Senate passed Bill A7645-2015 relating to the duration and amount of temporary and post-divorce spousal maintenance. The bill passed the State Assembly on June 15th. It awaits approval by Governor Cuomo.

The law’s formulas apply to actions commenced on or after the 120th day after they become law (except for the temporary maintenance formulas which apply to actions commenced on or after the 30th day after they become law). The new law may not be used as a basis to change existing orders and agreements.

The law will undoubtedly be the subject of numerous articles and legal seminars. Years of decisions will be forthcoming that particularly focus on matters of discretion, just as they followed the enactment of the Child Support Standards Act in 1989.

Before getting to the new formulas, the law eliminates a major thorn in side of the matrimonial bench and bar: When equitably distributing the assets of the parties, the court is no longer to consider as a marital asset the value of a spouse’s enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement (however, it may be condidered when making other distributive awards).

As to maintenance, the following highlights may be noted, many of which are contained in the Sponsor’s Memo:Continue Reading Legislature Passes Spousal Maintenance (Alimony) Formula

Gavel mainIn its February 18, 2015 decision in Dunleavy v. Dunleavy, the Second Department modified the order of Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Carol Mackenzie by increasing the wife’s temporary maintenance award from $75 to $784.62 per week.

The Second Department noted that Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a) sets forth formulas for the courts to…