Temporary Maintenance

Subscribe to Temporary Maintenance via RSS

Two days before the parties were married in February, 2011, they executed a prenuptial agreement. In it the wife accepted an agreed-upon maintenance provision. The husband commenced a divorce action in 2019. The wife counterclaimed, seeking an award of maintenance and a judgment setting aside the agreement as invalid.

The husband moved for summary judgment requesting the court deem the agreement valid. The wife opposed the husband’s motion and cross-moved for an award of temporary maintenance and counsel fees. Acting Clinton County Supreme Court Justice Keith M. Bruno partially granted the husband’s motion and dismissed the wife’s second counterclaim disputing the validity of the agreement. Justice Bruno also denied her cross-motion seeking temporary maintenance.

In its June 9, 2022 decision in Spiegel v. Spiegel, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, finding various issues of fact raised by the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement that precluded an award of summary judgment. The Court reported the wife’s allegations concerning the husband’s controlling conduct leading to the execution of the prenuptial agreement. The Court concluded:

We find that the foregoing facts, if established, raise issues concerning whether the wife was meaningfully represented during the abbreviated negotiations, and also raise an inference that the husband did not intend on engaging in a good faith negotiation of the agreement from the outset, which, if true, would be sufficient to establish overreaching on his part.

The Court also found that the wife was improperly denied temporary maintenance, invalidating the maintenance provision of the agreement for failing to comply with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law former §236(B)(5-a)(f).Continue Reading Temporary maintenance provisions in prenuptial agreements entered 2010 to 2015 must contain CSSA-type formula recitation

Despite repeated efforts to bring predictability and consistency to temporary support awards, that goal remains elusive. Consider the December, 2017 decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Rouis v. Rouis.

The parties were married in 1993 and had two children. After the husband departed the marital residence, the wife commenced this action for divorce in 2014. Applying the pre-2015 temporary maintenance formula on the wife’s motion for temporary relief, Sullivan County Supreme Court Justice Mary MacMaster Work granted the wife, among other things, temporary maintenance ($1,958 per month) and child support ($2,720 per month) and required the husband to pay for the carrying costs and upkeep of the marital home ($4,859 per month), private school for the youngest child ($848 per month), health insurance for the family ($1,921 per month), interim counsel fees ($10,000) and the wife’s vehicle and fuel costs ($644 per month). The husband appealed.

Recognizing that the combined monthly awards amounted to an annual award of $155,400 plus $10,000 in interim counsel fees, to be paid from the husband’s annual gross income of $183,300.50 (the wife’s pre-award income was $11,700.00), the Third Department agreed that the temporary awards were excessive and should be modified.

The appellate court noted that the (pre-2015) temporary maintenance formula resulted in a presumptive monthly temporary maintenance amount of $4,387.50. Justice Work also granted the wife’s request that the husband also pay the $4,859 in expenses, including the mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance and upkeep. Justice Work recognized that it would not be equitable to require the husband to pay full maintenance, child support and all carrying costs on the marital home, and therefor essentially credited the husband for one half of the carrying costs on the home ($2,429.50 per month) by reducing the presumptive maintenance award by that amount, resulting in a temporary maintenance award of $1,958 per month. The lower court also ordered the husband to pay the full monthly carrying costs on the home ($4,859) in which he did not reside. The appellate court noted that when the wife’s vehicle expenses were added ($644 per month), the total combined monthly award was $7,461, plus tuition ($848 per month) and child support. The net effect of Supreme Court’s order was that the husband was ordered to pay the full presumptive maintenance award plus one half of the carrying costs on the home and the wife’s vehicle expenses.Continue Reading Do Temporary Support Awards Include Marital Residence Expenses?

In addition to providing a guideline for the amount of a maintenance (alimony) award, New York’s relatively new maintenance (alimony) statute includes a presumptive range for the period of time maintenance is to be paid based upon the length of the marriage. Particularly with short marriages, what should be the impact of the length of the marriage on the award of maintenance while the divorce action is pending? Put differently, should a spouse be able to increase support, just by keeping the divorce action going?

In her August 31, 2017 decision in Barlik v. Barlik, Acting Queens County Supreme Court Justice Elisa S. Koenderman was faced with that issue.

Among the temporary relief sought by the parties in this divorce action, the parties husband cross-moved for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence. The wife moved, in part, for temporary maintenance and child support and for an order directing the husband to pay 100% of the carrying costs of the marital residence; an order appointing a forensic accountant to value the income from the husband’s business as well as a real estate appraiser to value the marital residence, both at the husband’s expense; and for counsel fees.

Justice Koenderman first denied the husband’s motion for exclusive use and occupancy, but granted the wife’s cross-motion for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence.

The Court then granted the wife’s motion for temporary maintenance and child support. As required by the statute, the court calculated the guideline amount by applying the statutory formula to the payor’s income up to the statutory cap of $178,000 (see DRL § 236[B][5-a][b][5] & [6]). Then, the court may adjust the guideline amount of temporary maintenance if it is “unjust or inappropriate” (DRL § 236[B][5-a][h][1]). The court must consider certain enumerated factors, including but not limited to the health and age of the parties; the present or future earning capacity of the parties; and care of children during the marriage that inhibits a party’s earning capacity, as well as any other factor which it finds just and proper to determine “whether and to what extent it will apply the statutory formula” to the payor’s income which exceeds the statutory cap.Continue Reading Considering the Length of the Marriage and Other Factors 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,…

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…

Is a wife entitled to formula temporary maintenance in a divorce action, merely because she is the less-monied spouse? No, says New York County Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper in his October 22, 2014 decision in Joseph M. v. Lauren J.

In this matrimonial action, the wife sought temporary custody of the parties’ child, as well as an order awarding her pendente lite maintenance, child support, and counsel fees. Although the custody applications were premature, the financial issues were ripe for determination.

In many ways, this case highlights the tension that exists when imposing a statutorily prescribed formula for awarding temporary maintenance on a determination that has traditionally been left to the sound discretion of a court.

The parties were married in 1997 and had one child, a daughter, born in 2009. The couple separated eight months after the child’s birth when, in May 2010, the wife left the marital residence in Yonkers to live with a man with whom she had been involved since before the pregnancy. The wife continued to reside with this man and was largely supported by him for almost four years. They recently stopped living together because their church objected to them continuing to cohabit while she was still married to the husband. As a result, the wife had been living for the last few months in a hostel in upper Manhattan.Continue Reading Temporary Maintenance All But Denied to Wife Able to Work and Who Had Lived With Another Man

On the wife’s motion for temporary relief, Supreme Court, New York County Justice Deborah A. Kaplan in Lennox v. Weberman, awarded the wife tax-free maintenance of $38,000 per month, plus the wife’s unreimbursed medical expenses up to $2,000 per month, interim counsel fees of $50,000, and expert fees of $35,000.

By its February 26, 2013 decision, the First Department modified that order, on the facts, to provide that such pendente lite relief would be treated as an advance on the 50 percent of the parties’ joint funds to which the wife is entitled pursuant to the parties’ prenuptial agreement.

Notwithstanding that the wife had waived any claim to a final award of alimony or maintenance in the parties’ prenuptial agreement, Justice Kaplan was entitled, in her discretion, to award pendente lite relief in the absence of an express agreement to exclude an award of temporary maintenance.

As to the amount of the temporary maintenance award, the appellate court found that Justice Kaplan properly applied the new temporary maintenance formula set forth at Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5–a)(c)(2)(a). Specifically, Justice Kaplan had listed all 19 of the enumerated factors, explained how 7 of them supported an upward deviation to $38,000 per month from the $12,500 a month in guideline support, and found that $38,000 per month was not “unjust or inappropriate.”Continue Reading Pendente Lite Award Prospectively Charged as an Advance Against Wife’s Share of Marital Property

Calulator on 100s 3.jpgTwo decisions last month of Queens County Supreme Court Justice Pam Jackman Brown provide insights on how courts might cope with the overlap of the statutory temporary maintenance formula and the payment of marital residence carrying charges.

Yesterdays blog reported upon the Second Department’s November 21, 2012 agreement in Woodford v. Woodford with the First Department in Khaira v. Khaira that the statutory temporary maintenance formula is intended to include the portion of marital residence carrying costs attributable to the nonmonied spouse.

In the November 5, 2012 decision in Liebman v. Liebman, Justice Jackman Brown balanced the factors presented by directing the husband to continue to make the marital residence carrying charge payments, but deducting the full amount of those charges from the presumptive maintenance formula.

The wife had sought an award of temporary maintenance based upon husband’s 2011 W-2 income. The wife also asked that in addition to the calculated temporary maintenance sum, the husband should be directed to continue to pay the maintenance, mortgage and carrying charges on the marital residence.

The Court found that the presumptive temporary maintenance award would be $6,337.70 monthly. However, under the facts presented, Justice Jackman Brown found that the presumptive award would be unjust or inappropriate. Specifically, the Court adjusted the presumptive temporary maintenance award after considering factor: (q) any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper.

The Court noted that the statute is silent regarding whether the Court shall order the presumptive maintenance award in proceedings in which the payor spouse has agreed or is directed to maintain the mortgage and/or carrying charges on the marital residence. In Liebman, it was undisputed that the husband had been paying the carrying charges, including the mortgage, maintenance and insurance, in the sum of $1739.91 monthly.

The Court deducted the sum of $1,739.91 from the husband’s presumptive monthly temporary maintenance obligation $6,337.70, and awarded the wife $4,597.79 monthly. The Court also directed the husband to continue to pay the mortgage, maintenance and insurance on the marital residence.Continue Reading Temporary Maintenance Awards and Marital Residence Carrying Charges: Justice Jackman Brown Weighs In

Calulator on 100s 5.jpgThe statutory temporary maintenance formula is intended to include the portion of marital residence carrying costs attributable to the nonmonied spouse. So concluded the Appellate Division, Second Department in its November 21, 2012 decision in Woodford v. Woodford.

Accordingly, the appellate court vacated so much of Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice James F. Quinn…