In a February, 2019 decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department, foiled the cooperative efforts of previously-divorced parties, by their settlement of post-judgment issues, to avoid an interim fee award to the ex-wife’s counsel to prosecute an appeal.

In Rhodes v. Rhodes, the parties were married in 1993, had three children, and divorced in 2008. In 2013, the ex-husband successfully moved to modify the parties’ custody arrangement and, in a December, 2014 order, was granted residential custody of the children. The ex-wife appealed from that order.

In May 2015, the ex-wife moved for interim appellate attorney’s fees and costs. In an August 25, 2015 order, Former Suffolk County Supreme Court Acting Justice Marlene L. Budd granted that motion, awarding the ex-wife $20,000 in attorney’s fees and costs “for the prosecution of the appeal, with leave to apply for additional sums upon the completion of the appeal.” The ex-husband was directed to pay those attorney’s fees and costs to the ex-wife’s then-attorney, Karyn A. Villar, PLLC (hereinafter Villar), within 20 days of the order.

When payment was not made, on September 23, 2015, Villar moved to hold the ex-husband in civil contempt of the fee order. The ex-husband cross-moved for leave to renew his opposition to the ex-wife’s prior motion for interim appellate attorney’s fees and costs. The ex-husband attached to his cross motion a stipulation of settlement dated September 28, 2015, in which the parties agreed that the ex-wife would waive payment of attorney’s fees and costs owed by the ex-husband pursuant to the August, 2015 order. The ex-wife retained new counsel, and thereafter cross-moved to impose sanctions against Villar, arguing that Villar’s contempt motion was punitive and an abuse of process.

In an order dated March 7, 2016, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Carol MacKenzie (1) denied Villar’s motion to hold the ex-husband in civil contempt, (2) vacated the August, 2015 interim fee award and denied a fee, and (3) granted the ex-wife’s cross motion to impose sanctions against Villar, directing Villar to pay the ex-wife’s new attorneys $2,500. Villar appealed.


Continue Reading

Here’s a reminder. Look over the “boilerplate” counsel-fees-on-default provision of your settlement agreements; and re-read them when resolving enforcement proceedings.

Take a lesson from the July 25, 2018 decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Posner v. Posner. There, The parties’ 2010 judgment of divorce incorporated, but did not merge, their stipulation of settlement. That stipulation provided that where one of the parties commences litigation to enforce it, and that litigation does not “result in a judgment or order in favor of the party” who commenced the litigation, that party shall reimburse the other party for any and all expenses, including attorney’s fees.

In 2011, the husband commenced litigation in the Family Court to enforce certain stipulation provisions. Thereafter, the wife filed a contempt motion under a separate docket number. After eight days of trial over nine months, the parties agreed to withdraw their respective petitions with prejudice. The parties nevertheless “reserve[d] all other rights provided for” in the 2010 stipulation of settlement.

In January 2014, the wife filed a motion in the Supreme Court seeking an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ 2010 stipulation of settlement for the 2011 Family Court litigation. Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Francis A. Nicolai granted the wife’s motion to the extent of finding that the wife was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and set the matter down for a hearing as to the appropriate amount. In a judgment entered September 27, 2016, after a hearing, Justice Janet C. Malone awarded the wife a judgment for attorney’s fees in the sum of $224,287. The husband appealed.


Continue Reading

A spouse’s pre-divorce judgment death results in the unenforceablitity of divorce action orders, including the automatic orders mandated by Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(2)(b). As a result, Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Paul I. Marx held in his April 17, 2014 decision in A.V.B. v. D.B. that a husband was without a remedy for his wife removing the husband as a beneficiary of her retirment account and life insurance policy.

After 13 years of marriage and two children, the wife commenced this divorce action on September 12, 2012. Pursuant to stipulated Preliminary Conference Orders, it was agreed that the wife would be awarded the divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, an Attorney for the Child was appointed and the pre-trial schedule was fixed.

On April 22, 2013, the wife committed suicide. During the administration of her Estate, it was learned that on February 14, 2013, while the divorce action was pending, the wife had changed the named beneficiaries on her ING 403(b) account from her husband as her sole beneficiary to the parties’ two children as 50% primary beneficiaries. It was further discovered that on or about March 10, 2013, the wife changed her designation of the husband as the sole named beneficiary on her Prudential life insurance policy to the husband as a 1% primary beneficiary, the parties’ daughter K. as a 49% beneficiary and daughter R. as a 50% beneficiary.

The husband’s counsel then submitted a letter to Justice Marx with a proposed order directing that the named beneficiaries on the wife’s ING account and Prudential life insurance policy revert back to the date of the commencement of the action and directing ING and Prudential to pay out the balance in the wife’s annuity and the “death benefit” under her life insurance policy to the named beneficiaries that existed before the changes were made. At that time, the husband’s lawyer also submitted the supporting affirmation of the attorney for wife’s Estate, declaring that the Estate consented to the proposed order.

Justice Marx declined to sign the proposed order. Instead, the Court scheduled a conference at which the Court directed defense counsel to move by Order to Show Cause. Although no papers were submitted in response to that motion, Justice Marx nevertheless denied it. The relief sought in the motion was not warranted by the law, nor by a good faith extension of the law.

While it is regrettable that Plaintiff violated the automatic orders and seems to have reached beyond the grave to thwart Defendant’s efforts to recover his share of her assets, this Court is unable to remedy the violation in this proceeding.


Continue Reading

A court’s reduction of a divorce judgment’s child support obligations, incorporated from a settlement agreement that survived the entry of that judgment, does not result in a modification of the agreement. The shortfall may still be collected through a separate action to enforce the contract.

As Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Leonard D. Steinman noted in his July 1, 2013 decision in N.S. v. A.S., N.Y.L.J. July 22, 2013, such has been the law of this State for over 70 years:

A modification of a divorce judgment or decree providing that a party is to pay a sum less than he agreed to pay does not relieve such party of any contractual obligation.

In this case, the parties entered a Stipulation of Settlement in January, 2003,resolving all issues stemming from their divorce proceedings. The parties agreed that the agreement would be incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce.

Among the issues resolved were custody and child support for their son, then 2½ years old. It was agreed that the wife  would receive child support from the husband in the amount of $34,000 per year ($2,833.33 per month) for 48 months and thereafter the sum of $39,146 per year ($3,262.16 per month) The increased amount coinciding with the cessation of  four years of maintenance payments to the wife at $3,833.33 per month.

The agreement reflected the ex-husband’s 2001 income was $312,121. The agreement, itself, provided that if the ex-husband’s income were to dip below $250,000, the parties would attempt to renegotiate the maintenance amount. If unsuccessful, the ex-husband could seek a downward modification of his maintenance obligation from the court. The agreement did not provide to the ex-husband with a concomitant right to seek a downward modification of his child support obligations in the event of a reduction in his income.

In April 2004, ex-husband became unemployed and subsequently took a position at the reduced salary of $150,000. In March 2006, the ex-husband moved for a downward modification of his child support and maintenance obligations (by that time, the ex-husband’s maintenance obligations had expired, but he claimed that there were arrears owed to his ex-wife based which he looked to cancel).


Continue Reading