A typical separation agreement that provides for post-divorce maintenance will have a number of provisions describing circumstances under which such maintenance can be terminated. One of the more common clauses speaks of the spousal maintenance being terminated where the former spouse is cohabitating with another adult of opposite sex for a period of time. Most separation agreements do not define cohabitation, but the courts have held that in order for cohabitation to take place, there must be a sexual relationship, as well as a degree of economic partnership between the former spouse and the unrelated adult of the opposite sex. In Graev v. Graev, __ N.Y.3d __ (October 21, 2008) the Court of Appeals had to decide whether the term “cohabitation” as included in the parties’ separation agreement was unambiguous, and whether the prior standard utilized by the courts was still valid. In a 4-3 opinion, a divided Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that “cohabitation” is an ambiguous term whose definition for purposes of potential violations of separation and divorce agreements depends on what the parties understood it to mean when making their settlements. While all of the judges agreed that a couple need not share household expenses or function as a single economic unit to be cohabitating, the Court was divided over how to resolve the dispute between Linda and Lawrence Graev and the $11,000 in monthly maintenance fees he contends she forfeited by living with a boyfriend for at least 60 straight days in violation of their separation agreement. Since the Court of Appeals held that the term “cohabitation” as contained in the parties’ separation agreement was ambiguous, it remanded the case back to the trial court to hold a fact-finding hearing to determine what the parties’ understanding of this term was at the time the separation agreement was executed. As the Court of Appeals pointed in the footnote, “[t]he wisest rule, of course, is for parties in the future to make their intentions clear by careful drafting.”
There is a presumption, applicable to child support enforcement proceedings in Family Court that a party, against whom a child support order was issued, has sufficient means to support his/her minor children. See Family Court Act § 437. The evidence that the party directed to pay child support has failed to pay support as ordered, constitutes “prima facie evidence of a willful violation”. Family Court Act § 454(3)(a). Once the petition alleging willful violation of a child support order was filed in the Family Court, the burden then shifts to respondent to adduce some competent, credible evidence of his/her inability to make the required payments. If the requisite showing is not made, the party will be found to have willfully failed to pay child support. Once this finding is made, the party is liable to a range of penalties, including attorneys fees and possible incarceration.
This presumption does not apply to child support enforcement proceedings brought in Supreme Court under the Domestic Relations law. If an enforcement proceeding is brought in Supreme Court, the usual remedies sought are a judgment for any unpaid arrears, attorneys fees and, possibly, a finding of contempt. The burden of proof applicable to contempt proceedings is much higher than that applicable to the proceedings brought under Family Court Act § 437.
The New York courts use a statutory guidelines to determine what child support amount the non-custodial parent is obligated to pay. The guidelines as applicable to the Supreme Court in actions for separation and divorce are contained in Domestic Relations Law §240 and its counterpart for the Family Court is contained in Family Court Act §413. New York child support amounts are based partly on the non-custodial parent’s adjusted gross income and partly on how many children are on the order. The court determines the non-custodial parent’s gross income, and then deducts from that amount Medicare, social security tax, New York City or Yonkers tax, and other allowable deductions to establish the non-custodial parent’s adjusted gross income. An identical calculation is performed with respect to the income of the custodial parent. The court then multiplies the combined adjusted gross income by the standard guideline percentage for the number of children. These percentages are 17% for one child, 25% for two children, 29% for three children, 31% for four children, and at least 35% for five or more children. Subsequently, that child support amount is multiplied by the ratio of non-custodial parent’s adjusted gross income to the combined adjusted gross income.
The standard guideline is applied to most parental earnings up to $80,000 (minus certain local and social security tax amounts). This includes any worker’s compensation, disability payments, unemployment benefits, social security payments, and many other forms of income. Beyond $80,000, the courts determine whether or not to use the percentage guidelines, and may consider other factors in determining the full support amount.
The State of New York provides for interest on missed payments and adjudicated arrears at a rate of 9% per year, but only on arrearages reduced to a money judgment by the courts.
In order for the parent having primary physical residence of the child to seek upward modification of an existing child support obligation, a Family Court petition must present factual allegations representing a substantial change in circumstances. If such allegations are not presented, such petition fails to state a cause of action and is subject to dismissal. In meeting such burden, the party must establish the “’specific increases in the costs associated with the child’s basic necessities’ … ‘as well as the expenses associated with the child’s varied interests and school activities’ and cannot ‘[rely] on generalized claims of increases due to the child’s maturity or inflation’”. Cadwell v. Cadwell, 294 A.D.2d 434 (2d Dept. 2002); Gentry v. Littlewood, 269 A.D.2d 846 (4th Dept. 2000); Greenway v. Greenway, 262 A.D.2d 855 (3rd Dept. 1999).
Therefore, a petition should contain specific allegations addressing the change in the child’s needs and explaining how the parent with whom the child resides is unable to meet them.