Justice Carol Mackenzie

The Child Support Standards Act authorizes parents to agree to a child support obligation that deviates from the presumptive formula provided in that statute. However, if they are going to deviate from the formula, the parents must state what the obligation would have been if the formula were to be applied, and the reasons why the parties have agreed to deviate.

In its September 26, 2018 decision in Fasano v. Fasano, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that if one of those reasons no longer applies, such is a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting a new child support determination.

The parties were married in 1993 and have two children together. In October, 2012, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement of a prior divorce action after which that action was discontinued.

That stipulation provided that although the husband’s monthly child support obligation using the C.S.S.A. calculation would be $1,994.45 on the first $130,000.00 of combined parental income (then, the “cap”) and $2,575.61 on the total combined parental income, the parties had agreed that the husband’s monthly child support obligation would be $1,500.00. The stipulation also provided that there would be no “add-ons” or “additional health costs” added to these child support payments, even though the C.S.S.A. generally provides that each parent’s share of unreimbursed health care expenses is to be prorated in the same proportion as each parent’s income is to the combined parental income.

The stipulation contained an explanation that the deviation from the C.S.S.A. calculation was necessary “to allow the [husband] to retain the marital residence as a place for the children to be with him when they are together” and had “been agreed by the parties to be in the best interests of the children to provide them continuity and stability in their living and educational environments.”

Continue Reading A Child Support Redetermination Is Warranted If a Stated Reason Parties Deviated From CSSA No Longer Applies

In its August 24, 2016 decision in Maddaloni v. Maddaloni, the Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the rulings of Supreme Court Suffolk County Justice Justice Carol Mackenzie that invalidated the all-but-complete maintenance waiver contained in a 23-year-old postnuptial agreement, awarding the wife maintenance for 10 years. The appellate court also upheld Justice Mackenzie’s award to the wife of 25% of the $2,000,000 appreciation during the marriage in the value of the husband’s pre-marital business, Maddaloni Jewelers of Huntington.

The Maddalonis were married in January, 1988. At the time of the marriage, the husband owned several cars, a house, and a jewelry business, and he was in contract to buy a shopping center. On August 22, 1988, less than eight months after the parties were married, they experienced marital difficulties and entered into a postnuptial agreement. Among other things, this agreement provided that, in the event that the parties divorced after the first five years of marriage, the wife agreed to accept the sum of $50,000, payable in five equal annual installments of $10,000, “in full satisfaction of any and all claims of whatsoever kind and nature she may have at that time for past or future support or for distribution of assets.”

Continue Reading Maintenance Provision of Postnuptial Agreement Voided; Wife Awarded 25% of Appreciation of Husband’s Premarital Business

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 apply to the parties’ reported income in order to determine the presumptively correct amount of temporary maintenance. It further provides that the court shall order the presumptive award of temporary maintenance in accordance with the formulas, unless it finds that the presumptive award is unjust or inappropriate. If so, the court must set forth, in its written order, the enumerated factors it considered and the reasons it adjusted the presumptive award of temporary maintenance.

Here, Justice Mackenzie applied the statutory formulas set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a) and arrived at a presumptive award of $784.62 per week, but found that the presumptive award was unjust and inappropriate. The court awarded the wife only $75 per week in temporary maintenance, a 96% reduction of the presumptively correct award.

The appellate court held that the record did not support any reduction of the presumptively correct award, or otherwise lead to the conclusion that the presumptive award was unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances of this case.

While an appellate court should rarely modify a temporary maintenance award, here, we conclude that justice requires an award equal to the statutorily presumptive award.

The Second Department also held that Justice Mackenzie had improvidently exercised her discretion in awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of only $2,500. Considering the parties’ relative circumstances, including the disparity in the parties’ respective incomes, and considering all of the relevant factors, the appellate court increased the attorney’s fee to the sum of $7,500.

Of interest here may also be the fact that Justice Mackenzie’s order was dated June 21, 2013 (the motion having obviously been made months before that). It thus took some 20 months for the wife’s temporary support to be increased.

Erik C. Howard, of Foster, Vandenburgh, & Riyaz, LLP, of Westhampton, represented the wife. Alan M. Wolinsky, of Wolinsky, Parnell & Montgomery, LLP, of Lake Ronkonkoma, represented the husband.