Whether by agreement or court decree, it is common for divorced parents to be obligated to contributed to their child’s college education tuition, room and board expenses. How is that obligation computed when a child receives financial aid?
Cases have held that scholarships, grants and aid for which the student has no repayment responsibility are
In its October 22, 2014 decision, the Appellate Division Second Department in Ebel v. Ebel upheld an open-court divorce settlement stipulation against the attack of the wife.
In his June, 2012 determination of the lower court, then Supreme Court Suffolk County Justice Hector D. LaSalle (now himself an Associate Justice on the Appellate Division Second Department) had rejected the argument of the wife that her emotional state prevented her from entering that May, 2011 settlement stipulation knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.
On appeal, the Second Department first noted that the wife’s contention that the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement were unconscionable was not properly raised on appeal, as it was not raised at the trial level.
The wife’s additional contention on appeal that the stipulation should have been vacated because it did not address, and she did not waive her claims regarding, certain financial issues was also found to be without without merit.
The Second Department noted that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside, particularly when the parties are represented by attorneys.
Where, as here, the record demonstrates that the parties validly entered into a comprehensive open-court stipulation by which the plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to be bound, the agreement will not be set aside.
Here, the terms of the parties’ agreement, including issues of financial support and equitable distribution of the marital residence, were placed on the record in what the Justice LaSalle characterized as a “global stipulation of settlement.” Moreover, the wife’s counsel affirmatively waived all other equitable distribution matters and withdrew all outstanding requests for relief.Continue Reading Attacking Open-Court Divorce Stipulations: Is There a Double Standard?
Entering open-court oral stipulations of settlement to a divorce action is treacherous. It’s easy to miss something or be imprecise in language.
However, striking the deal while the iron is hot is a necessary part of matrimonial litigation. Letting the parties walk out of the courthouse without putting the day’s agreement “on the record” may cost the parties their deal. Emotions, particularly in divorce cases, often cause second (and hundredth) thoughts on settlement provisions. Giving friends and family one more opportunity for input may likely undermine the day’s efforts.
However, there are reasons that the typical written settlement stipulation consumes scores of pages. The boilerplate and legalese so offensive to the public is the necessary consequence of the thousands of decisions which interpret the words found in or missing from decades of previous settlements or otherwise requiring attention in any final agreement. Moreover, without reflecting on the written word, it’s easy just to miss things.
Take the recent Second Department decision in Zuchowski v. Zuchowski. The parties’ oral in-court stipulation announced that “all joint bank accounts have been split to the mutual satisfaction of the parties and here and forward each party shall keep any bank accounts in their respective names . . .”Continue Reading The Nature of 529 Education Savings Plans Should Not be Disregarded Under the Guise of Divorce Stipulation Interpretation
Howard v. Laird, a recent decision of New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, highlights the usefulness of a parenting-time calendar when entering a divorce settlement.
In Howard, the appellate court had occasion to reverse an initial post-divorce Supreme Court decision in a visitation dispute, and to send the case back to the lower