Interim

Subscribe to Interim via RSS

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,…

Two of three November 5, 2014 custody decisions of the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed Family Court determinations.

In the only affirmance in Mondschein v. Mondschein, the Second Department upheld the order of Westchester County Family Court Judge David Klein which, after a hearing, granted a father’s petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ divorce (2011) stipulation of settlement, awarding the father sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two younger children, with supervised visitation to the mother. Affirming Judge Klein, the Second Department noted:

Since custody determinations necessarily depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the Family Court’s findings. Therefore, its findings should not be set aside unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Here, contrary to the mother’s contention, the appellate court found that Judge Klein had properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and that the record supported his determination that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances requiring a change in custody to protect the best interests of the parties’ two younger children. That record included the hearing testimony and the recommendation of the court-appointed forensic evaluator.

In Burke v. Cogan, the Second Department reversed the determination of Suffolk County Family Court Judge Martha Luft that had dismissed the petition of a mother to modify a prior custody order by awarding her sole residential custody of the parties’ 13 year-old child. The appellate court awarded the mother such custody.Continue Reading Appellate Reversals of Custody Decisions

Mid-trial in a “high-end” matrimonial, it was held that the “monied” husband would not be required to continue to pay his wife’s continuing fees. Rather, in his October 10, 2013 decision in Sykes v. Sykes, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper held that such fees would be paid from $2 million in marital assets; each side to use half of the sum to pay his or her own outstanding and prospective counsel and expert fees, subject to reallocation after trial.

From the divorce action’s commencement in December, 2010, until February, 2013, just before the trial, Mr. Sykes had paid close to $1 million in counsel fees for himself and, voluntarily, for his wife. Then, in March 2013, the wife’s attorneys billed the husband $238,196 for their services rendered that month. He paid that bill in full. In April 2013, during which the first eight days of trial took place, the wife’s attorneys billed the husband $355,329 for their services. In addition, the husband was billed $74,853 for the wife’s experts’ services. Mr. Sykes, then decided he could no longer foot the litigation costs for both sides. He declined to pay the April 2013 bills or any subsequent bills incurred by the wife for her attorneys’ or experts’ services absent further order of the court.

Instead, Mr. Sykes, moved for an order authorizing him to release $2 million from marital funds and evenly share that amount with his wife so that each party could pay his or her own interim litigation expenses. He argued that not only had his income and personal funds significantly declined over the last two years, but that permitting the wife to proceed without “skin in the game” (a phrase attributed to Warren Buffett), enabled her to push forward with the litigation without any concern for its cost or any eye towards settlement.

Ms. Sykes opposed the release of the money for the payment of counsel and expert fees. She maintained that she had “skin in the game” by virtue of having to travel from France to make periodic court appearances; she was every bit as motivated as the husband to reach a fair resolution of the case. Moreover, Ms. Sykes argued that because she had no income other than the husband’s $75,000 monthly interim maintenance and child support support payments, she must be considered the nonmonied spouse. Thus, she was entitled under statutory and case law to have her husband pay her interim legal fees. Moreover, she claimed the law was clear: interim counsel fees must come from her husband’s income and separate funds rather than marital funds so as not to deplete her assets.Continue Reading Wife Given “Skin In The Game” By Having To Pay Her Own Interim Counsel Fees Using Marital Assets

Prenuptial Agreement.jpgThe premarital agreement of the parties limited their rights to obtain spousal support upon divorce. It also contained a waiver of their rights to counsel fees.

Nevertheless, recently-retired New York County Supreme Court Justice Saralee Evans awarded the wife $6,000 per month in unallocated pendente lite support (an award not specifying how much of it…