Pro Rata Share

Subscribe to Pro Rata Share via RSS

Calulator on 100s 6 redUntil the amendment of the Child Support Standards Act effective January 24, 2016 (D.R.L. §240[1-b][b][5][iii][I]; Laws of 2015, c. 387, §3), the rule had been that when a divorce court awards maintenance to a spouse, the amount of annual maintenance is to be deducted from the payor’s income when calculating parental income. However, for those same C.S.S.A. calculations, maintenance was not to be added to the recipient’s income. Thus, for example if in its award, a divorce court awarded a wife (the custodial parent) who had no other income $60,000 per year in maintenance from a husband earning $250,000 per year, the husband’s income for C.S.S.A. purposes would equal $250,000 less FICA, Medicare, and the $60,000 in maintenance, but the wife’s income would still be $0.

The recent amendment changed that anomaly. Effective January 24, 2016 , the alimony or maintenance actually paid or to be paid to a spouse is to be added to the income of the recipient when calculating parental income.

Although it does not expressly so state, it has been held that this amendment is to be applied to cases commenced on or after January 24, 2016, and not to cases commenced before that date. R.I. v. T.I., 2016 NY Slip Op 50664(U), 51 Misc. 3d 1215(A) (Sup. Ct. Kings 2016); C.G. v. F.G., 2016 NY Slip Op 26220, 53 Misc. 3d 229, 235-36, 34 N.Y.S.3d 882, 887-88 (Sup. Ct. Richmond 2016).

Until the amendment, the rule had been that it was error to include maintenance awards as income to the recipient when computing the child support obligation. Krukenkamp v. Krukenkamp, 54 A.D.3d 345 (2nd Dept. 2008); Wallach v. Wallach, 37 A.D.3d 707, (2nd Dept. 2007); Shapiro v. Shapiro, 35 A.D.3d 585 (2nd Dept. 2006); Lee v Lee, 18 A.D.3D 508 (2nd Dept. 2005).

In its November 9, 2016 decision in Castello v. Castello, the Second Department ruled differently. In that case, the court modified a 2013 divorce judgment by changing the child support calculation.Continue Reading The Effect of Spousal Support on Child Support: Did the Second Department Jump the Gun?

Calulator on 100s 3In its April 1, 2015 decision in Pittman v. Williams, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a decision of Supreme Court, Kings County Court Attorney/Referee (and now Family Court Judge) J. Machelle Sweeting that awarded child support equal to 17% of the father’s entire $441,000 income.  The Second Department also deleted a requirement that the father pay private school tuition after preschool, and allocated the wife’s child care expense equally between the father’s child and another of the mother’s children for whom care was provided.

In this child support proceeding, the parties’ combined income was $489,937. The father’s income represented 90% of this sum or C.S.S.A.-adjusted income of approximately $441,000 per year; the mother’s 10% share was approximately $49,000. Referee Sweeting directed the father to pay child support in the sum of $6,246 per month, child care expenses in the sum of $291.60 per week, and his pro rata share of the child’s tuition at the Brooklyn Waldorf School.

The Second Department reversed and remitted the matter for a new determination of the amount of the basic child support obligation.

The Child Support Standards Act sets forth a formula for calculating child support by applying a designated statutory percentage, here 17% for one child, to combined parental income up to a particular ceiling. The court, in fixing the basic child support obligation on income over the ceiling, i.e., the “statutory cap” (in this case, $136,000), has the discretion to apply the factors set forth in the statute, or to apply the statutory percentage, or to apply both.

However, there must be some record articulation of the reasons for the court’s choice to facilitate review. The court’s decision should reflect a careful consideration of the stated basis for its exercise of discretion, the parties’ circumstances, and its reasoning why there should or should not be a departure from the prescribed percentage. In addition to providing a record articulation for deviating or not deviating from the statutory formula, a court must relate that record articulation to the statutory factors.

Here, the Second Department held that the Referee properly determined that the parties’ combined parental income was $489,937. However, when determining the amount of child support, Referee Sweeting failed to articulate her reasons for applying the statutory percentage of 17% to the combined parental income over the statutory cap of $136,000. As a result, her determination was reversed. It was held that the matter must be remitted for a new determination in this regard and the court must articulate its reasons for the new determination.Continue Reading Reasons To Apply CSSA Formula to Father's $441,000 Income Must Be Stated; No Private School Payment Without Proof Of Superiority Of Education

Considering the add-ons for private school, health care, child care, and extra-curricular activities, imposing a base child support obligation upon a father (the less-moneyed spouse) in excess of his pro rata share of the first $136,000 of combined parental income would be unjust and inappropriate. Such was the holding of Acting Supreme Court Kings County Justice Debra Silber in her August 12, 2013 decision in A.C. v. J.O.

That ruling, at first blush, would appear to be at odds with the Second Department’s August 14, 2013 decision in  Beroza v. Hendler, the subject of Monday’s blog post. There, the appellate court held it was improper for the trial court to have limited the base child support obligation of the father (the less moneyed spouse) to less than his pro rata share of the first $400,000 in combined parental income.

Any comparison, however, must be clouded by the vast number of factors that Justice Silber considered when deciding all of the issues incident to the parties’ divorce.

In A.C. v. J.O., at the time of the commencement of the divorce action in May, 2011, the parties had been married for almost 13 years. They had two children, a daughter now 12 and a son now 10. The parties were still living together. The wife, 52 years old, had her own dental practice, with income stipulated to be $251, 395. The husband, 47, worked as a first assistant director, primarily for television. He also wrote screenplays and recently made a full length film, which he both wrote and directed. The husband’s income was stipulated to be $171,706.

In a lengthy opinion, Justice Silber awarded the mother both physical and legal (decision-making) custody of the two children. Although both parents could handle parenting responsibilities alone, joint custody was not appropriate as the parents’ “cannot easily agree upon anything.” Justice Silber provided a detailed plan for the father’s “parental access” and consultation on major decisions.Continue Reading No Child Support Awarded Upon Combined Parental Income in Excess of $136,000 Statutory Cap

Two published decisions last week ruled on the whether to award child support upon combined parental income in excess of the base child support amount. In the first, the Second Department in Beroza v. Hendler, found it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the trial court to have capped the parties’ combined parental income at $255,000.00. On appeal, the Second Department increased the cap to $400,000.00 and awarded the mother the father’s pro rata portion of that capped amount.

In the second case, A.C. v. J.O. (to be the subject of Wednesday’s blog post), Acting Kings County Supreme Court Justice Debra Silber, determined that although the parents had net combined parental income of $423,100.00, the father’s child support obligation would be limited to his pro rata share of the $136,000.00 cap.

In Beroza, the father had commenced this divorce action in 2001 after 11 years of marriage. At that time the oldest of the parties’ three children was 4½ years old and their twins were 18 months old. The parties were both educated professionals. The father was a veterinarian with a private practice devoted to horses and a related horse-boarding business and the mother was a partner in a group anesthesiology practice. Both parties worked throughout the marriage. the family enjoyed an affluent lifestyle in Laurel Hollow.

Underlying the parties’ 2008 divorce judgment, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Ira Warshawsky imputed gross annual income to the father of $259,100.00. The father’s base annual child support obligation was fixed at as 29% of $200,000.00, or $4,833.33 monthly.

On the husband’s appeal from the 2008 judgment, the Second Department agreed with amount of the father’s imputed annual gross income, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court because it had failed to properly set forth the parties’ pro rata shares of child support. Additionally, the lower court failed to adequately explain its application of the “precisely articulated, three-step method for determining child support’” pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (Beroza v Hendler, 71 AD3d 615, 617, 896 N.Y.S.2d 144 [2010]).

On remittitur, Justice Warshawsky re-determined the parties’ respective annual net C.S.S.A. incomes to be $248,721.00 for the father and $487,693.00 for the mother, for net combined parental income of $736,414.00. However, for the purpose of determining the plaintiff’s child support obligation, the court capped combined parental income at $255,000.00.

Justice Warshawsky found that $255,000.00 adequately reflected a support level that met the needs and continuation of the children’s lifestyle, as dictated by the past spending practices of the parties. Justice Warshawsky applied the 29% statutory percentage to combined parental income capped at $255,000.00 ($73,950.00 total support obligation), and the calculated that the husband’s 33.7% pro rata support obligation at $24,921.00, annually, or $2,076.75, monthly.

The Second Department modified. Although he had articulated his analysis pursuant to the three-step method for determining child support embodied in the C.S.S.A. guidelines, Justice Warshawsky, the appellate court held, improvidently exercised his discretion in capping the parties’ combined parental income at $255,000.00.Continue Reading $400,000 Combined Parental Income Cap Imposed by Second Department when Determining Father’s Child Support Obligation