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.”
Child support under Domestic Relations Law §240 or Family Court Act §413 is not difficult to calculate in situations where there is a parent who clearly has a primary physical residence of the child. However, where the child spends equal time with both parents, these issues become a lot more complicated. Domestic Relations Law §240[1-b](f) requires that “The court shall calculate the basic child support obligation, and the non-custodial parent’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation”. Therefore, which parent becomes the non-custodial parent in shared custody situation? This question was addressed in the 1998 case of Baraby v. Baraby, 250 A.D.2d 201 (3rd Dept. 1998).
In Baraby, the Appellate Division held that:
where, as here, the parents’ custodial arrangement splits the children’s physical custody so that neither can be said to have physical custody of the children for a majority of the time, the parent having the greater pro rata share of the child support obligation, determined after application of the three-step statutory formula of the CSSA, should be identified as the “noncustodial” parent for the purpose of support.
Since the statute is silent as to joint custody arrangements, the court ruled that for purposes of complying with the statute, one parent must be deemed “custodial” and the other “non custodial.” This step must be taken before a deviation from the support guidelines could be made under Domestic Relations Law §240[1-b](f) and (g). The parent with higher income is declared to be the non-custodial parent for child support calculations. This result problematic in situations where the parents’ incomes are close to each other.
For parents who are contemplating true shared custody, the issues of child support must be carefully addressed in the separation agreement to provide language explaining the contemplated child support arrangement and the reasons the parents are entering into such arrangement. Baraby does not stand for the proposition that the parent with the higher income must pay full child support. The parents are still free to opt out of the Child Support Standards Act, provided that at least minimum statutory child support is being paid, and the reasons for the opt-out are clearly stated.
If the court is deciding these issues in the contest of child support modification, then the party with the higher income should present information allowing the court to make a deviation from the child support guidelines pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240[1-b](f) and (g).
One of the most common post-divorce scenarios is that the custodial parent wishes to relocate, the other party objects to such proposed move and argues that such move may negatively impact on the other parent’s relationship with the child. Assuming that the parties’ Judgment of Divorce, or separation agreement, does not conclusively address this issue, the party seeking to relocate will typically need to seek the court’s permission to do so.
As laid out in the leading case of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996), the issue is to be determined is whether the proposed relocation is in the best interest in the child. In doing so, the court is to consider the following criteria:
1. Each parent’s reason for either seeking or opposing the relocation;
2. The current state of the relationship between each parent and the child;
3. The impact that the relocation will have on the quality and of the child’s relationship
with the non-custodial parent;
4. The emotional, economic and educational effects that the move will have on the
5. The feasibility of maintaining the relationship between the child and non-custodial
The trial court must weigh all of the factors and determine not what would be best for the parents but, rather, what is in the best interests of the child.
In Noble v. Noble, 52 A.D.3d 490 (2nd Dept. 2008), the mother sought to relocate from relocation from Long Island to upstate NY. The court held that the proposed relocation was in children’s best interests since the proposed move would provide economic, emotional and educational benefits for the mother and parties’ children without precluding meaningful and regular contact between children and father.
In Mallory v. Jackson, 51 A.D.3d 1088 (3rd Dept. 2008), the parties consented to June 2006 order awarding joint legal custody with mother having primary physical residence of the children. In October 2006, mother sought permission to relocate with parties’ children to North Carolina. Mother moved to North Carolina while petition was pending, leaving children with father at maternal grandmother’s home in Schenectady County. Mother was required to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that proposed relocation would be in children’s best interests. Mother alleged that father had failed to provide her financial support throughout their relationship, and she was moving to be near a relative who offered financial assistance. The Appellate Division held that mother, who had already relocated, failed to present evidence at hearing that her financial situation in North Carolina was significantly better than while living in New York. Mother’s remaining extended family continues to reside in New York. The proposed relocation to North Carolina would deprive child of meaningful contact with father and members of their extended family and mother failed to establish existence of compelling reason to justify relocation of children to North Carolina.
If the court does not find the proposed move to be in the best interests of the children, the parent who has the primary physical residence of the children usually has a choice between staying or losing that primary physical residence to the other parent.
A person’s right to the return of wedding presents given in contemplation of a marriage that fails to materialize is governed by §80-b of the Civil Rights Law, which permits the recovery of such gifts. The statute provides that:
Nothing in this article contained shall be construed to bar a right of action for the recovery of a chattel, the return of money or securities, or the value thereof at the time of such transfer, or the rescission of a deed to real property when the sole consideration for the transfer of the chattel, money or securities or real property was a contemplated marriage which has not occurred, and the court may, if in its discretion justice so requires, (1) award the defendant a lien upon the chattel, securities or real property for monies expended in connection therewith or improvements made thereto, (2) deny judgment for the recovery of the chattel or securities or for rescission of the deed and award money damages in lieu thereof.
This statute permits recovery when the sole consideration for the transfer of the chattel, money or securities or real property was a contemplated marriage that has not occurred. It has been held that there is a strong presumption that any gifts made during the engagement period are given solely in consideration of marriage. This presumption is rebuttable, but clear and convincing proof is necessary to overcome it.
In Gaden v. Gaden, 29 N.Y.2d 80 (1971), the Court of Appeals held that fault was irrelevant under Civil Rights Law §80-b, which contemplates situations where one party has directly transferred property to another, as well as situations where the transfer was made by a third party to both of the parties. The Court held that just as the question of fault or guilt has become largely irrelevant to modern divorce proceedings, so should it also be deemed irrelevant to the breaking of the engagement. The purpose of §80-b was to return the parties to the position they were in prior to their becoming engaged, without without rewarding or punishing either party for the fact that the marriage failed to materialize.
Thus, if an engagement does not result in a marriage, the ring or any other gifts given in contemplation of the marriage, should be returned to the party who made the gift. Alternatively, one should be prepared to fight a law suit.
In Mahoney-Buntzman v. Buntzman, 51 A.D.3d 732 (2nd Dept. 2008) the Appellate Division held that the wife should have been awarded 50% credit for student loan debt incurred by husband to obtain a doctoral degree. During the parties’ marriage, the husband took out a student loan in the amount of $48,162.90 to pay for a doctoral degree in education, which was satisfied with marital funds. The wife contended on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to award her a 50% credit with respect to the student loan. The Appellate Division agreed. The husband’s expert testified that the doctoral degree earned by the husband during the marriage did not enhance his earnings, and thus, provided no benefit to the marriage, and there was no distributive award of the value of the doctorate degree to the wife in light of its zero enhanced earning capacity value. As result, the court concluded that the student loan debt was incurred to satisfy the husband’s separate interest and therefore was his own separate obligation. Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to award the plaintiff a 50% credit, or $24,081.45, for the student loan debt incurred by the husband during the marriage to obtain this degree.
The Appellate Division also agreed with wife’s contention that the trial court erred in not crediting her with 50% of the defendant’s pre-marital debts paid with marital funds during the marriage such as maintenance paid to the husband’s first wife in the total amount of $58,545, and $7,000 paid in 1998 as a settlement of a loan for a boat purchased by the husband before the marriage but surrendered to the bank in 1993 prior to the marriage for nonpayment of the boat loan. The husband’s maintenance obligation to his first wife and the boat loan constituted debts incurred by him prior to the parties’ marriage and were solely his responsibility. Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to award the plaintiff additional credits of $29,272.50 as to the maintenance payments to the husband’s first wife and $3,500 as to the boat loan.
Thus, with respect to his doctoral degree, the husband was successful in convincing the trial court that the degree did not enhance his earnings. If the wife was successful in establishing that the degree resulted in enhanced earnings, those enhanced earnings would be subject to distribution. Therefore, the husband would owe something to the wife under either scenario.
Recently, in divorce and custody cases, the so-called “parental alienation” factor has become particularly prominent among the statutory criteria dealing with custody. The court decisions have described “parental alienation” in terms of failure to support the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent. This particular issue has carried a tremendous force in custody cases, and often was used to override the primary caregiver criterion. The significance of “parental alienation can be explained as follows. If “parental alienation” is proven, it often has resulted in a change in custody despite the long-standing parenting arrangements that have been successful otherwise.
The problem with claim of “parental alienation” is that in some cases judges have treated allegations of abuse and neglect that could not be proven as tantamount to “false” allegations maliciously brought to advance an agenda of alienation. This has placed concerned parents between the proverbial rock and the hard place. If they act in good faith to protect their child, they do so at risk of losing custody. If they don’t act, they are abdicating their parental obligation to protect their child. The Legislature has acted in response to this problem and the Governor has signed into law an amendment to DRL § 240 to provide protection for litigating parents who report abuse or neglect in good faith and based on a reasonable belief that the allegation is legitimate.
Domestic Relations Law § 240, subdivision 1 (a) was amended to provide that a good faith allegation of abuse cannot be held against the accuser in child custody proceedings. The amendment to the statute is intended to ensure that the accuser engaging in a good faith effort to protect or seek treatment for the child due to the child abuse or neglect cannot have these actions used against them when determining custody or visitation. If a parent makes a good faith allegation based on a reasonable belief which is supported by facts that the child is the victim of child abuse, child neglect, or the effects of domestic violence, and if that parent acts lawfully and in good faith in response to that reasonable belief to protect the child or seek treatment for the child, then that parent may not be deprived of custody, visitation or contact with the child, or restricted in custody, visitation or contact, based solely on that belief or the reasonable actions taken based on that belief. If an allegation that a child is abused is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then the court must consider such evidence of abuse in determining the visitation arrangement that is in the best interest of the child, and the court may not place a child in the custody of a parent who presents a substantial risk of harm to that child. Laws of 2008, Ch 538, effective September 4, 2008.
In order to obtain a reduction of maintenance, the party seeking the reduction bears the burden of establishing a substantial change of circumstances. Lipow v. Lipow, 110 A.D.2d 756 (2d Dep’t 1985); Patell v. Patell, 91 A.D.2d 1028 (2d Dep’t 1983); Hickland v. Hickland, 56 A.D.2d 978 (3d Dep’t 1977). Some courts have held that an unanticipated medical condition which befalls a party after a judgment of divorce was entered, may be a basis for modifying that party’s maintenance obligation. Bischoff v. Bischoff, 159 A.D.2d 404 (1st Dep’t 1990); Wantuch v. Wantuch, 56 A.D.2d 866 (2d Dep’t 1977).
In Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671 (2d Dep’t 1990), a husband agreed to certain maintenance obligations with knowledge that he had a history of heart disease, heart surgeries and several heart attacks. Thereafter, he suffered a stroke which he claimed rendered him permanently disabled and unable to perform his profession. The husband pointed to that stroke as a basis for modifying his maintenance obligation. In light of his condition at the time of the divorce, the court refused even to grant a hearing, absent additional medical and financial evidence that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred.
If after the judgment of divorce is entered, the party paying maintenance develops a health condition that impairs his/her ability to pay maintenance, any application seeking modification of maintenance must be supported with admissible medical evidence and an evidentiary showing must be made that the health condition has impaired that party’s financial situation.
Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(6)(a) sets forth a number of factors which, in combination, allow the court to determine the appropriate duration and amount of maintenance. The following discussion of recent cases describes how the courts applied statutory criteria to various factual situations.
It is well settled that the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Frost v. Frost, 49 A.D.3d 1150 (4th Dept. 2008); Booth v. Booth, 24 A.D.3d 1238 (4th Dept. 2005). Each case must be considered based on the unique facts and circumstances it presents. Xikis v. Xikis, 43 A.D.3d 1040 (2nd Dept. 2007), appeal denied, 10 N.Y.3d 704 (2008).
When fashioning a maintenance award, the trial court is required to take into account the parties’ pre-separation standard of living. Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 43 A.D.3d 991 (2nd Dept. 2007). The court must also consider the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse, and the pre-separation standard of living in the context of the other factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(6)(a), and then, in its discretion, determine a fair and equitable maintenance award. Id.
In Booth v. Booth, 24 A.D.3d 1238 (4th Dept. 2005), the Fourth Department perceived no abuse of discretion in the award of maintenance to the plaintiff, where the record established that defendant had steady employment and received supplemental income from Air Force disability payments and rental properties. In addition, defendant received Social Security payments for each child based on plaintiff’s disability, and plaintiff had been ordered to pay child support to defendant. In comparison, plaintiff’s income consisted of Social Security disability payments and minimal wages from part-time employment at a fast-food restaurant. Although her income exceeded her expenses, plaintiff had health problems that affected the stability of her employment. The lower court’s award of maintenance to the plaintiff thus was upheld on appeal. Id.
In Pickard v. Pickard, 33 A.D.3d 202 (1st Dept. 2006), appeal dismissed, 7 N.Y.3d 897 (2006), lifetime maintenance of $3,500.00 per month was appropriately awarded to the plaintiff in view of the 23-year duration of the parties’ marriage, plaintiff’s role in raising and educating the parties’ children, plaintiff’s minimal job skills, plaintiff’s extended absence from the workforce, and the parties’ respective financial positions. Id.
Similarly, in Xikis v. Xikis, 43 A.D.3d 1040 (2nd Dept. 2007), appeal denied, 10 N.Y.3d 704 (2008), the parties lived together for 28 years and were married for over 18 years. The defendant was not employed during most of the marriage, had limited education and skills, and was 60 years old at the time of the judgment. In addition to the properties awarded to the defendant by the Supreme Court, in the exercise of discretion and upon consideration of all relevant factors, an award of $1,500 as monthly non-durational maintenance was deemed to be appropriate. Id.
In Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 43 A.D.3d 991 (2nd Dept. 2007), the Supreme Court was found to have providently exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance to the plaintiff-wife in the sum of $3,000 per month until she reached the age of 65.
Likewise, in Nichols v. Nichols, 19 A.D.3d 775 (3rd Dept. 2005), Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in fixing maintenance at $350 per week until the plaintiff turned 62, a period of six years. In rendering its decision, the court noted that the Defendant earned $96,910 annually, while the plaintiff received only $18,056 annually from a disability retirement pension and earnings from part-time employment. The court also considered the plaintiff’s age and poor health, the gross disparity between the parties’ incomes, and the unlikelihood of plaintiff becoming self-supporting. Id.
In Taylor v. Taylor, 300 A.D.2d 298 (2nd Dept. 2002), the defendant contended that the Supreme Court erred in continuing his maintenance obligation until the plaintiff-wife attained the age of 65 or until he retired, whichever occurred later. The parties were married for over 27 years when the action was commenced. The plaintiff had ceased working outside the home to raise the parties’ children, and the parties stipulated that her medical condition precluded gainful employment in the future. In contrast, the defendant was steadily employed during the marriage and had the potential to increase his future earnings. Given the disparity in the parties’ financial circumstances, the lower court was found to have providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay maintenance until the plaintiff became eligible for full Social Security benefits at the age of 65, or until the defendant retired, whichever occurred later, or until the death or remarriage of the plaintiff. The appellate court opined that, considering the factors relevant to an award of maintenance, particularly the plaintiff’s inability to earn any income, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance payments sufficient to meet her reasonable expenses.
In Brzuszkiewitz v. Brzuszkiewitz, 28 A.D.3d 860 (3rd Dept. 2006), the appellate court rejected defendant’s contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion by awarding plaintiff non-durational maintenance. The matrimonial action was filed after the parties had been married for 23 years and had three children, one of whom still was under 21 years of age at the time of the appeal. The record reflected that Supreme Court considered the relevant statutory factors, giving particular emphasis to the disparity between the parties’ incomes, plaintiff’s age, her lack of assets, and defendant’s dissipation of assets. The defendant earned $55,000 per year, and his income was likely to increase before he retired. The plaintiff received only $22,000 per year from her employment and had little prospect of any significant increase before she retired, given that she was 57 years of age at the time of trial and had limited earning capacity due to her arthritis and severe hearing loss. The record also supported Supreme Court’s finding that plaintiff’s income from her pension and Social Security after retirement would be less than her current earnings, which were already insufficient to meet her modest monthly expenses. Those factors all militated in favor of an award of permanent maintenance, and the record showed that the lower court appropriately balanced plaintiff’s needs with defendant’s ability to pay.
Likewise, in Cameron v. Cameron, 51 A.D.3d 1165 (3rd Dept. 2008), inasmuch as the record reflected that Supreme Court gave appropriate consideration to the pertinent factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(6)(a), the appellate court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court abused its discretion in awarding defendant non-durational maintenance.
In Kaplan v. Kaplan, 21 A.D.3d 993 (2nd Dept. 2005), the mother was awarded maintenance in the sum of $7,500 per month for 5 years. Contrary to the father’s contention, the maintenance award was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion, taking into consideration the relevant factors, including the parties’ pre-separation standard of living, the separate property retained by each party and their respective net equitable distributive awards of marital property, the mother’s absence from the work force as a certified social worker for most of the period following the birth of the parties’ special needs child, the mother’s continued role as the primary caretaker of a special needs child, the father’s significantly higher earning capacity as a successful partner in a radiology practice, and the short duration of the parties’ marriage.
In Saylor v. Saylor, 32 A.D.3d 1358 (4th Dept. 2006), the record established that the parties were married for 30 years, that the defendant was the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage, that the plaintiff stayed at home with the children or worked part-time for most of the marriage, thereby delaying her career prospects, and that there was a large disparity in the incomes of the parties. The Fourth Department upheld the lower court’s maintenance award on appeal, determining that the Supreme Court properly set forth the factors it considered in determining the amount and duration of the maintenance award.
Thus, each divorce case where maintenance is sought needs to be carefully evaluated on its merits to establish whether maintenance would be appropriate under the pertinent factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(6)(a).
While a pre-nuptial agreement might restrict or waive a spouse’s right to maintenance and equitable distribution, it may not bar temporary relief, including temporary maintenance, interim counsel fees, and a temporary injunction against the disposing of marital property. Solomon v. Solomon, 224 A.D.2d 331 (1st Dept. 1996). In cases where the parties’ pre-nuptial agreement specifically provides that no maintenance will be awarded pendent lite, however, courts have held that no temporary maintenance should be awarded. See, e.g., Arzin v. Covello, 175 Misc.2d 453 (Sup. Ct., New York County 1998).
In Forsberg v. Forsberg, 219 A.D.2d 615 (2d Dept. 1995), the Second Department upheld the validity of the parties’ pre-nuptial agreement. Nevertheless, the appellate court found that Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife $200.00 per week in temporary maintenance. The Second Department noted that, “Generally, the remedy for any seeming inequity in the award of temporary maintenance is a speedy trial at which the rights of the parties may be fully determined.” Id. at 617.
Thus, any pre-nuptial agreements must be carefully drafted to specifically prohibit any claims for temporary maintenance.