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 order as directed the husband to pay both 100% of certain carrying charges on the marital residence and temporary maintenance to the wife. The issue was sent back to Justice Quinn for a new determination of pendente lite relief as to maintenance and payment of the carrying charges on the marital residence.
The Second Department quoted with approval from the First Department’s May 25, 2012 decision in Khaira v. Khaira, the subject of an earlier blog. The court also cited with approval former Justice Anthony Falanga’s opinion in A.C. v. D.R., also the subject of an earlier blog.
The Second Department concluded:
Indeed, it is “reasonable and logical” to view the formulas set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5–a) “as covering all the spouse’s basic living expenses, including housing costs” (Khaira v. Khaira, 93 AD3d at 200).
The husband was represented by D. Daniel Engstrand, Jr., Esq., of Doniger & Engstrand, LLP, of Northport.