Need to Preserve Relationship with Parent Does Not Take Precedence Over Economic Factors in Relocation Cases

In Butler v Hess, 85 A.D.3d 1689 (4th Dept. 2011), petitioner father filed a petition seeking to modify the parties’ existing joint custodial arrangement. Specifically, respondent mother had primary physical residence and the father had visitation. The father sought to prevent the mother from relocating with the child to Pennsylvania and sought sole custody of the child.

The mother filed a cross petition seeking permission for the child to relocate with her to Pennsylvania. The trial court denied mother’s application and prohibited her from relocating to Pennsylvania. The Appellate Division agreed with mother’s contentions that Family Court erred in denying her cross petition.

The Appellate Division found that the record established that, pursuant to the existing arrangement, the father had regularly scheduled visitation with the child. The mother remarried in December 2003, when the child was six years old, and the mother and the child began living with the mother’s husband at that time. In December 2006, the mother lost her job as a result of budget cutbacks and, in July 2007, the mother’s husband lost his job after his position was eliminated. The mother’s husband accepted a job in Pennsylvania in October 2007, which was the basis for the mother’s cross petition seeking permission to relocate with the child to Pennsylvania to join her husband. The Court concluded that the mother established by the requisite preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation would serve the child’s best interests”. Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741 (1996). The Court of Appeals in Tropea held that economic necessity may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move. According to the Appellate Division, the record reflected that the trial court did not adequately, if at all, consider the financial considerations underlying the requested relocation. The mother requested permission to relocate because she and her husband lost their jobs within a relatively short period of time. The mother’s husband testified that both his health insurance, which also covered the mother and the child, and his severance pay ran out in August 2007. After the mother’s husband lost his job, he and the mother depleted their savings and their house was placed into foreclosure. The mother and her husband testified that they unsuccessfully attempted to locate jobs in Western New York and that the mother’s husband accepted the job in Pennsylvania out of financial necessity.

The trial court based its determination primarily on its conclusion that the relocation would “qualitatively affect” the child’s relationship with the father. The Appellate Division held that this was erroneous because the need to give appropriate weight to the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the parent without primary physical custody and [the child through suitable visitation arrangements does not take precedence over the need to give appropriate weight to the economic necessity for the relocation. Further, the record established that the proposed relocation would not have a substantial impact on the visitation schedule. The mother and the husband testified that they would transport the child to and from Pennsylvania every other weekend, and they offered to pay for a hotel for the father in Pennsylvania on his off-weekends so that he could exercise additional access with the child. The mother further testified that the holiday access schedule would remain the same because she and her husband would be returning to Western New York at those times to visit with their respective families, who resided there. In addition, the mother’s husband purchased video conferencing equipment for his household and the father’s household to enable the father and the child to communicate during the week and on the father’s off-weekends.

Thus, the mother established “the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the [father] and child through suitable visitation arrangements” Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 741. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court and permitted relocation.

While the appellate court recognized the mother’s need to relocate, it is unfortunate that it took a situation where the mother and her husband both lost their job and exhausted all of their financial resources and their house went into foreclosure. In my opinion, it would be appropriate for the court to consider the parties’ economic circumstances well before they become dire. It today’s economy, it is likely that we will see these issues addressed by the courts time and time again.

Family Court Referees and Their Authority to Hear Cases

Most of the cases in Family Court are decided by Family Court Judges who preside over most Family Court hearings. The Family Court Judges, here in Monroe County and elsewhere in New York State, typically hear child custody, visitation, adoption, juvenile delinquency and other cases. However, here in Monroe County, Court Attorney Referees hear custody, visitation, and order of protection cases. Family Court Attorney Referees are appointed pursuant to the Family Court Act and CPLR.

One of the first things that takes place in a case before a Family Court Attorney Referee is that the parties and their attorneys will be asked if they will agree to the Referee’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. If the parties agree, the Referee will asked them to sign a stipulation confirming their consent. If the parties do not consent, the case is usually removed and heard by the Family Court Judge.

It is critical for the Referee to make sure that the parties consent to his jurisdiction to hear the case. A recent case, Gale v. Gale, 2011 NY Slip Op 06490 (2nd Dept. 2011), demonstrates what happens if the referee fails to obtain that consent. In Gale, the mother filed a petition seeking to modify provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce. The case was assigned to a Family Court Attorney Referee who heard the case and ultimately modified custody provisions of the judgment of divorce, granting the petitioner sole custody of the children. The father appealed, arguing that the referee lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since the referee had failed to have the parties sign the stipulation or otherwise establish that the parties consented to her jurisidiction. The Appellate Division agreed with the father and reversed.  Specifically, the Appellate Division stated that

Upon review of the record, we find that the parties did not stipulate to a reference in the manner prescribed by CPLR 2104. In any event, there is no indication that there was an order of reference designating the referee who heard and determined the petitions at issue here. Contrary to the mother’s contention, the father did not implicitly consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing his desire to have the matter tried before a judge. Furthermore, a stipulation consenting to a reference to a specified referee, executed by the parties in connection with the father’s previous petition to modify the visitation schedule, expired upon completion of that matter and did not remain in effect for this matter.

Accordingly, the referee had no jurisdiction to consider the father’s petitions related to custody and visitation and the mother’s petition to modify custody, and the referee’s order determining those petitions must be reversed. (citations omitted)

While the parties cannot choose the person who will decide their case, they do not have to agree to the Family Court Attorney Referee to hear and decide it. Sometimes there are reasons to have the case heard by a Family Court Judge, and the parties should consider not agreeing to the referee’s jurisdiction under appropriate circumstances.

Can a Parent Travel with Young Child Abroad Over Custodial Parent’s Objections?

One issue that may come up in custody cases is whether a nonresidential parent has ability to take a child abroad during his or her period of visitation. It is not uncommon for a residential parent to object to such request, and sometimes parties wind up in court seeking a determination whether such travel can be permitted.

In a recent case, Russo v. Carmel, 2011 N.Y. Slip. Op. 05889 (4th Dept. 2011), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, permitted the father to travel to Italy with his two year old child for a period of not more than 15 days on 60 days’ notice to the mother. The mother opposed the request, arguing that the child was never away from the mother for longer than 48 hours, that the father’s visitation was limited to 48 hour periods and that the child would be in an unfamiliar environment with relatives who were unknown to the child.  The court held that the record established that, although the father’s visitation with the child was limited, the father has a close bond with her and, during visitation, he prepared her meals, bathed her, administered medication as necessary and took her on outings. Further, the mother did not express any concerns that the father would abscond with the child. The court concluded that it is in the best interests of the child to travel with the father to Italy to meet her extended family.

While in most cases the court is unlikely to allow a parent to travel abroad with a very young child, in this case, the father was able to present convincing evidence that the trip was intended to introduce the child to her relatives abroad. Further, the mother was unable to present any evidence of the father’s inability to take care of the child and was not afraid that the father would refuse to come back to the United States. In view of these facts, the trial court’s decision and the Appellate Division’s decision were clearly correct.  While the residential parent may have a significant measure of control over non-residential parent’s ability to travel with the child, the residential parent should not raise objections unless there is specific evidence that such travel would be inappropriate and not in the best interests of the child.

Can a Child Bring Petition Seeking Modification of Custody?

While the vast majority of cases petitions seeking to modify custody are brought by parents, can any one else bring a petition seeking to modify custody? I have written previously about petitions brought by non-parents, such as grandparents or someone who has a relationship with a child. A recent decision brought forth yet another party who can bring a petition seeking to modify custody – a child himself. In a recent decision, Trosset v. Susan A., 2011 N.Y. Slip. Op. 21151 (Fam Ct. Otsego Co. 2011), the court held that a child had standing to bring a petition seeking modification of present custodial arrangement. In Trossett, the child’s attorney filed a petition to modify prior court order. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition arguing that child’s attorney lacks standing to file petition concerning custody on behalf of child. The court held that  “[w]hile absence of specific authority regarding custody and visitation is problematic, absence of statute granting child standing, such standing depends upon whether party has alleged facts showing disadvantage to himself or herself.” (citations omitted).  According to the decision, the attorney for child made allegations that directly relate to child’s desire to live with father. The court opined that the child has stake in outcome sufficient to confer standing upon him to file petition, or by child’s attorney on child’s behalf.

The decision does not provide much in a way of facts or legal authority for the court’s decision, however, I would guess that the child was older and, therefore, would have an opportunity to have input on any custody decisions. In addition, I would think that the parties were involved in court proceedings previously since the child had an attorney representing him.

Since the decision dealt with procedural issues related arising out of petition being filed by attorney for the child, we may never know how the case was resolved. However, I suspect that this issue may be appealed in the future and we may learn of further developments in the case.

Statute of Limitations and QDROs

One of the questions that I was asked several times during the last year was whether there is a statute of limitations applicable to Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs)? This question usually come up in situations where one former spouse was entitled to a portion of the other former spouse’s retirement benefits, however, the QDRO was never done, and a substantial period of time has passed. If there was an applicable statute of limitations, the former spouse who has failed to act would lose his or her right to collect a portion of the former spouse’s retirement.

However, a couple of recent decisions made it clear that with respect to QDROs, there is no applicable statute of limitations and a QDRO can be submitted to the court at any time. In Denaro v. Denaro, 2011 N.Y. Slip. Op. 04409 (2nd Dept 2011), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that “the statute of limitations does not bar issuance of the QDRO.”  Relying on Bayen v Bayen, 81 A.D.3d 865 (2nd Dept. 2011), the court held that “[M]otions to enforce the terms of a stipulation of settlement are not subject to statutes of limitation… [B]ecause a QDRO is derived from the bargain struck by the parties at the time of the judgment of divorce, there is no need to commence a separate action in order for the court to formalize the agreement between the parties in the form of a QDRO”. Id. (citations omitted.)

While I would not recommend to anyone delaying preparing and submitting a QDRO, any such submission is not going to be barred by a statute of limitations. At the same time, any late submission is likely to cause another set of problems if the retirement asset is in pay status  and payments are being made to the other spouse.

Can a Divorce on No-Fault Grounds Be Opposed?

One question that so far has not been resolved with any degree of certainty by the courts is whether in a divorce action brought pursuant to the new no-fault divorce statute requires specific proof that the parties’ marriage was irretrievably broken for a period of six months or longer. It is an important question since in the past divorce attorneys were able to challenge grounds for divorce and force plaintiffs to establish that there were adequate grounds for divorce. In a significant number of cases, grounds trials were held for economic reasons, i.e., the monied spouse did not want to divide assets and/or pay spousal maintenance.

Six months after the no-fault statute was enacted by the New York’s legislature, we are learning that the courts are divided on this issue, with some courts requiring proof that the marriage was actually irretrievably broken for a period of six months or longer, and with some courts holding that there is no defense to the no-fault grounds.

In Strack v. Strack, 2011 N.Y. Slip. Op. 21033 (Sup. Ct. Essex Co. 2011), the court held that the question of whether the marriage was irretrievably broken was a question of fact requiring a trial.

The facts in Strack are as follows. The parties were married on May 25, 1963 and plaintiff sought a divorce based upon the no-fault grounds contained within Domestic Relations Law §170 (7). Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, contending (1) that the complaint lacked specificity; (2) that the conduct alleged in the complaint was barred by the five-year statute of limitations; and (3) that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for divorce under Domestic Relations Law §170 (7).

Effective relative to actions commenced on or after October 12, 2010, Domestic Relations Law §170 (7) permits divorce where “[t]he relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath.” This additional ground for divorce has given parties the option of securing a divorce without alleging fault.

Here, the allegations in the complaint were as follows:

The relationship between husband and wife has broken down such that it is irretrievable and has been for a period of at least six months. For a period of time greater than six months, Defendant and Plaintiff have had no emotion in their marriage, and have kept largely separate social schedules and vacation schedules. Each year Plaintiff and Defendant live separately throughout most of the winter months. Though they share the residence for several months out of the year, Plaintiff and Defendant have not lived as husband and wife for a period of time greater than six months. Plaintiff believes the relationship between she and Defendant has broken down such that it is irretrievable and that the relationship has been this way for a period of time greater than six months.

Having decided that the above allegations stated a cause of action and were not barred by the statute of limitations, the court stated that Domestic Relations Law §170 (7) is not a panacea for those hoping to avoid a trial. Rather, it is simply a new cause of action subject to the same rules of practice governing the subdivisions which have preceded it. By referring to Domestic Relations Law §173 which provides that “[i]n an action for divorce there is a right to trial by jury of the issues of the grounds for granting the divorce” and, here, the Legislature failed to include anything in Domestic Relations Law §170 (7) to suggest that the grounds contained therein are exempt from this right to trial.  The court further held that since the phrase “broken down such that it is irretrievable” is nowhere defined in the statute, the determination of whether a breakdown of a marriage is irretrievable is a question to be determined by the finder of fact.

In a more recent decision, A.C. v. D.R., 2011 N.Y Slip. Op. 21113 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 2011), the court held that once the plaintiff makes a sworn allegation that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, a trial not required, and there is no defense to the action. The court held that the only requirement to satisfy the no-fault ground for divorce is a party’s sworn statement alleging that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Specifically, the court stated:

It is sufficient that one or both of the parties subjectively decide that their marriage is over and there is no hope for reconciliation.  In other words, a plaintiff’s self-serving declaration about his or her state of mind is all that is required for the dissolution of a marriage on grounds that it is irretrievably broken.

As the no-fault statute requires, in order for a judgment of divorce to be entered, all the issues relating to the divorce, including equitable distribution, maintenance, child custody and support need to be resolved before a party can be granted a divorce.

While I am not aware of the court decisions on this issue here in Rochester, I hope that the courts will grant divorce solely on the party’s subjective allegation that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Since the trial courts are split on the issue, it is likely that appellate courts will have to address this issue eventually.  I hope that the holding of the more recent case will be widely adopted follwint he Legislature’s intent in creating a true no-fault divorce in New York.

When Can a Marriage Be Terminated by an Annulment?

An annulment is a type of matrimonial action commenced in the New York State Supreme Court under Article 9 of the Domestic Relations Law (§§140-146) to declare a marriage null and void. There are two types of marriages may be subject to an annulment: (1) a void marriage, which is void at its inception, and, therefore, never was legitimate, and (2) a voidable marriage, which can be voided only by a court judgment. A voidable marriage is void from the date the judgment of nullity is entered.

The following types of marriages are void: incestuous; bigamous; and marriages performed by an unauthorized person.  An incestuous marriage occurs between an ancestor and a descendant, such as a father and daughter, between siblings, or between an uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew.  A bigamous marriage occurs when one spouse marries a third person despite the fact that his or her prior spouse is still alive and the marriage has not been dissolved. A marriage performed by an unauthorized person usually involves a marriage that was performed by a civil official or a religious official who does not meet New York’s requirements for officiating a marriage ceremony.

The following types of marriages are voidable: when one or both spouses are under the age of consent, when one or both spouses are mentally incapable to consent to the marriage, when one or both spouses are physically incapable to consent to the marriage, or when one or more spouses is coerced into the marriage.

In order to give a valid consent to marriage in New York State, the person giving such consent must be at least eighteen years old.  In order for someone younger than eighteen to marry, written consent of both of the underage spouse’s parents is required. A person under the age of sixteen may marry, provided that both parental consent and a judge’s order are obtained. No one under the age of fourteen is permitted to marry.

A person under the age of eighteen as well as a parent of the underage spouse and/or the underage spouse’s guardian may seek to have the marriage annulled. It is in the court’s discretion to grant an annulment due to the spouse’s age, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances of the marriage.  The right to seek an annulment due to being under the age of consent terminates when the spouse reaches the age of 18.

In an action to determine a marriage voidable due to want of understanding, the court will decide if the parties were capable of fully understanding the nature of the marital relationship and its consequences.  An annulment action for want of understanding may be based upon the mental retardation or mental illness of a spouse.  An action brought due to mental illness may be brought by the mentally ill spouse when the illness has been cured, so long as he or she does not continue to cohabit with the spouse, which ratifies the marriage, i.e., makes it valid.  The spouse who is not suffering from mental illness may file to have the marriage determined voidable if: the other spouse was mentally ill at the time of the marriage, the non-mentally ill spouse was not aware of the illness, the action was brought as soon as the non-mentally ill spouse learned of the illness and the mental illness is present when the annulment is sought.

A spouse may seek to have a marriage declared voidable when the other is unable to have sexual relations due to an incurable condition (not sterility). It is commonly referred to as a failure to consummate the marriage. An annulment action brought for this cause must be filed within five years after the marriage.

Both parties to a marriage must knowingly consent to the marriage of their own free will. A marriage may be annulled if either party consents to the marriage due to duress, force or fraud. An action for this cause may be brought by a spouse, a parent of a spouse or a relative of a spouse who has an interest in annulling the marriage.

Finally, an action seeking an annulment may be brought by one spouse if the other spouse develops an incurable mental illness lasting five or more years. The mental illness can develop after the marriage.

In my practice, it is not common to see annulment actions since they are subject to very specific legal and factual requirements. If you think that you may be entitled to an annulment, you should discuss these issues with a divorce lawyer.

Multiple Child Support Orders and Change In Circumstances Warranting Modification of Child Support

One of the issues that I periodically see in child support cases is that a party who is already paying child support has another child or children with a different party, resulting in additional child support orders.  Usually in those circumstances, the child who is the subject of the first order is receiving support on the entire income of the payor.  The subsequent children receive child support on the basis of payor’s income after child support payable pursuant to the first order is deducted.  As a result, the child who is the subject of the first order will always receive higher child support amount than the child or children receiving child support under the subsequent orders.  In addition, the payor’s income is subject to multiple orders and can pay half or more of his gross income in child support.

The above approach has been traditionally applied in Family Court cases.  In a recent decision, Demetrius D. v. Lori T., 2011 N.Y. Slip. Op. 21025 (Fam. Ct. Clinton Co. 2011), the court questioned the logic of this approach.  The court noted that:

From the children’s perspective, the fact that one child receives more child support than another child based solely upon which custodial parent obtains the first support order is unfair and irrational. Obviously, the children cannot control which parent applies for support first nor can the child control the speed of litigation. Nevertheless, this is the statutory law of the State of New York. It should be noted that it is not the age of the children, but rather the order in which the children receive a child support order that determines which children will receive preference under the law[FN4]. Of course, it would also be unfair and irrational to give preference to one child over another based solely upon birth order.

Id. at 3.

Further, the court stated that creation of these additional support order may be grounds for modifying the original child support obligation under Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5)(vii)(D):

Subdivision D also raises multiple issues with respect to modification petitions. There is no express provision in the Family Court Act which limits the Subdivision D deduction in modification cases to court orders issued prior to the original order sought to be modified. In other words, in the event that a parent demonstrates a material change of circumstances which warrants the re-application of the Child Support Standards Act, there is no language that excludes new orders issued between the date of the original order and the date of the hearing on modification petition from Subdivision D. Thus, the Court concludes that if there is a material change of circumstances that warrants the new application of the Child Support Standards Act, the non-custodial parent would be entitled to a deduction under Subdivision D for all child support actually paid pursuant to Court orders for other children, whether or not the Court orders for other children were issued before or after the original order for the subject child.

But in Demetrius D., what the court gave with one hand, it took with the other.  The more flexible approach as stated in the decision, was subject to application of general child support modification standards, including a determination that the hardship came as a result of payor’s voluntary actions and was self-inflicted. The court found that having additional children was a self-inflicted hardship that came as a result of his voluntary actions that does not warrant downward modification of payor’s child support obligation.

What is the lesson here for the family law lawyers? If the payor can establish that somehow the act of having more children was involuntary, then the payor may be entitled to a modification of the original child support obligation on the basis of subsequent orders.  It is hard to see the circumstances where it would be remotely possible. On the other hand, under appropriate circumstances, the above approach may help a payor dealing with multiple child support orders.

Does Family Court Have Jurisdiction Over Family Offenses Committed Outside of New York?

In a recent case, the Appellate Division had to decide whether the Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction over family offense proceedings where the alleged acts occurred outside of the state and even outside of the country.  In Richardson v. Richardson, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 07943 (2nd Dept 2010), the court held that Family Court Act §812 grants the Family Court subject matter jurisdiction to hear such proceedings, and that the Family Court properly exercised jurisdiction over the parties’ petitions, despite the fact that the acts alleged occurred on the island territory of Anguilla.

On March 4, 2009, petitioners filed three separate family offense petitions seeking the entry of orders of protection. The alleged family offenses included, inter alia, assault, harassment, and menacing. The petitions detailed certain incidents which allegedly occurred on February 19, 2009, on the island of Anguilla.

The Appellate Division began its decision by stating that the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction constrained to exercise only those powers conferred upon it by the state Constitution or by statute.  Included within the actions and proceedings over which the Family Court has been given subject matter jurisdiction are family offense proceedings. Pursuant to the New York State Constitution, family offense proceedings are to determine “as may be provided by law . . . crimes and offenses by or against minors or between spouses or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” (N.Y. Const, art VI, § 13 [b] [7]). In light of the provision stating “as may be provided by law,” the grant of jurisdiction to the Family Court over family offense proceedings is permissive and requires legislative action to be implemented.

Family Court Act Article 8 delineates the parameters of the Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Family Court Act and the Criminal Procedure Law provide the criminal court and the Family Court with “concurrent jurisdiction” over certain enumerated criminal offenses when allegedly committed by one family member against another. Thus, while a family member may choose to seek redress for a family offense in the Family Court, a parallel criminal proceeding also is available. Indeed, the Legislature has specifically authorized a petitioner to commence a family offense proceeding in either or both Family Court and criminal court. Moreover, each court has the authority to issue temporary or final orders of protection.

Family Court Act § 812(1) provides:

Jurisdiction. The family court and the criminal courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over any proceeding concerning acts which would constitute disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree, harassment in the second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, sexual misconduct, forcible touching, sexual abuse in the third degree, sexual abuse in the second degree as set forth in subdivision one of section 130.60 of the penal law, stalking in the first degree, stalking in the second degree, stalking in the third degree, stalking in the fourth degree, criminal mischief, menacing in the second degree, menacing in the third degree, reckless endangerment, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree or an attempted assault between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household except that if the respondent would not be criminally responsible by reason of age pursuant to section 30.00 of the penal law, then the family court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such proceeding. Notwithstanding a complainant’s election to proceed in family court, the criminal court shall not be divested of jurisdiction to hear a family offense proceeding pursuant to this section.

Furthermore, Family Court Act § 812(2)(b) provides: “[t]hat a family court proceeding is a civil proceeding and is for the purpose of attempting to stop the violence, end the family disruption and obtain protection.” There is no geographic limitation in Family Court Act § 812, or elsewhere in the Family Court Act, as to where a family offense is to have occurred in order to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the Family Court. Family Court Act, Article 8, as enacted in 1962, was intended by the New York State Legislature to provide “practical help” to domestic violence victims through the use of civil proceedings in the Family Court.

The history of Family Court Act § 812, provides no indication that the Legislature intended to prohibit the Family Court from exercising jurisdiction over family offenses where the alleged acts occurred in another state or country. However, a question that arises is whether the geographic or territorial limitation on the jurisdiction of the criminal court also limits the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Criminal Procedure Law § 20.40(1)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person may be convicted in an appropriate criminal court of a particular county, of an offense . . . when conduct occurred within such county sufficient to establish [a]n element of such offense.”

The Appellate Division concluded “[t]hus, to the extent that the appellant contends that the geographic limitation on the jurisdiction of the criminal court also applies to limit the jurisdiction of the Family Court over family offense proceedings, we hold that contention to be without merit.”

Therefore, if an act that would give a rise to an order of protection takes place anywhere, the party against whom it is committed can seek an order of protection in New York’s Family Court, provided that other procedural requirements are met and personal jurisdiction is obtained.

Update of Recent Cases Involving Enhanced Earnings

I have recently written about a trend in court decisions involving enhanced earnings toward reducing non-titled spouse’s interest to less than a 50% share.  A recent decision, Haspel v. Haspel, 2010 N.Y. Slip. Op. 08530 (2nd Dept. 2010) illustrates this issue very well.

In Haspel, the trial court granted to the wife 50% of the husband’s enhanced earnings which resulted from his acquisition of several professional licenses, including, several securities dealer’s licenses and a real estate broker’s license.  The trial court’s decision was appealed, and the Appellate Division modified the trial court’s decision.

Specifically, the Appellate Division held that the wife was entitled to 25% of husband’s enhanced earnings.  While the court did not provide specific reasons for this reduction, the parties were married for nearly 23 years before the divorce action was commenced, they had two children, and at the time of trial, the plaintiff was 52 years old and the defendant was 49 years old.  The wife was also going to receive spousal maintenance, however, this issue was remanded to the trial court for recalculation since the lower court’s decision improperly engaged in double counting of the same income for enhanced earnings calculations and maintenance calculations.

As I have written previously, the trend toward unequal division of enhanced earnings is continuing.  Divorce lawyers and their clients would be well advised to review evidence related to non-titled spouse’s contribution carefully, if an argument is being made that the non-titled spouse should receive more than 25% of such enhanced earnings.