Divorce

Published on: July 24, 2014

Father Seeks a Downward Modification in Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in accordance with a separation agreement, the husband was obligated to pay $750 per month to the wife as child support for the two infant of their marriage. The couple was granted a conversion divorce and the separation agreement was incorporated but not merged into the judgment.

In February 1985 the husband moved in Nassau County Supreme Court for a downward modification of child support and the wife moved in the same court for enforcement of the judgment and arrears. In settlement of both motions, a so ordered stipulation was entered in Nassau County Supreme Court which determined an allocation of the proceeds upon the sale of the marital premises. The stipulation was read into the record and commenced that both of the proceedings presently before the Court based upon the wife’s application seeking various forms of enforcement relief against the husband, and husband’s application for a downward modification of child support obligation are hereby settled on terms and conditions. It is noted that, pursuant to the terms of the stipulation and settlement, the former marital residence was sold and the husband received the sum of approximately $50,000 from the proceeds, the wife received in excess of $100,000 and the sum of $38,000 was placed in an escrow account to secure the future payment of child support.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that on August 28, 1985, the husband again sought to reduce his child support payments, this time in the Family Court of Nassau County, and the matter was referred to a Hearing Examiner.

Published on: July 12, 2014

Father Appeals Order Increasing Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 wherein the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County dated 7 February 2008 which denied his objections to an order of the same court dated 13 December 2007 granting, after a hearing, the mother’s petition for an upward modification of his child support obligation and directing him, inter alia, to pay child support in the sum of $225 per week.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the court reverses on the law, with costs, the order dated 7 February 2008, sustains the father’s objections, vacates the order dated 3 December 2007 and remits to the Family Court, Nassau County for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Previously, the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation was granted by the Family Court, which had been set in a settlement agreement that was incorporated, but not merged, into the parties’ judgment of divorce. The father’s support obligation was modified to the sum of $50 a month on the basis of the dissolution of his business which occurred through no fault of his own. The downward modification was affirmed by this Court. The mother subsequently petitioned for an upward modification of the father’s child support obligation, alleging there had been a substantial change in circumstances.

Published on: June 22, 2014

Defendant Appeals Judgment Restraining Him from Withdrawing Funds from Investment Account

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to enjoin and restrain him from withdrawing any funds from an investment account into which the proceeds of a medical malpractice action settlement were deposited to the extent of limiting his withdrawals to the sum of only $4,627 per month and denied those branches of his cross motion which were for awards of pendente lite child support and an attorney’s fee.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that the relevant facts are set forth in a related appeal. An appellate court should rarely modify a pendente lite award, and then ” only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires”. Further, pendente lite awards “should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the pre-separation standard of living” “Any perceived inequities in pendente lite support can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored”. Here, in denying that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for an award of pendente lite child support, the Supreme Court properly considered the defendant’s actual reasonable living expenses, and there are no exigent circumstances sufficient to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination on this issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for an award of pendente lite child support.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for an award of an interim attorney’s fee.

Published on: June 21, 2014

Father Requests Downward Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 17, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, (1) directed him to pay the plaintiff wife maintenance in the amount of $2,000 per month for a period of nine years, (2) directed him to pay child support in the amount of $3,097 per month, and (3) awarded the wife a money judgment of $69,043 insofar as it included an award for necessaries, and the plaintiff wife cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as awarded her a money judgment in the amount of only $69,043.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, in another child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated August 10, 2009, which denied his objections to an order of the same court dated June 9, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said the issues in this case are whether the court erred in decreeing the defendant husband to pay the plaintiff wife maintenance in the amount of $2,000 per month for a period of nine years; directed him to pay child support in the amount of $3,097 per month; and awarded the wife a money judgment of $69,043 insofar as it included an award for necessaries; and whether defendant husband is entitled to modification of his child support obligation.

Published on: June 11, 2014

Wife Appeals Denial for Child Support Arrears

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment for child support arrears.

A Nassau County Family attorney said that the plaintiff and the defendant were married in Glendale, New York in 1959. They separated in 1980 when the defendant moved to California, and were divorced by a 1982 judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which awarded custody of the parties’ unemancipated children to the plaintiff. The 1982 judgment was subsequently amended by a judgment, which required the defendant to pay child support in the sum of $50 per week for each unemancipated child.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in 1985 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding in the Nassau County Family Court pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 3-A, the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (hereinafter USDL), seeking an increase in support for the parties’ two youngest sons. The proceeding was thereafter transferred to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and thereafter, that court issued an order directing the defendant to make increased support payments of $300 per month per child until the children reached the age of 18, which is the age of emancipation under California law. When the children reached the age of 18 six months later, the California court terminated the defendant’s obligation to make support payments on his behalf through the court trustee. After the youngest son reached the age of 18 in 1988, the California court trustee administratively closed its case.

Published on: June 9, 2014

Paintiff Requests Order Removing Spouse from the Home

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in an action for divorce, plaintiff wife has made two applications for orders directing defendant to vacate the marital home; to provide support and maintenance for her and the issue of the marriage; and to restrain him from removing furnishings, furniture and personal property from the residence.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said when the motions were originally submitted, the Court discovered that an application which had been made to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for an order of protection was being sent to the Court in Nassau County for determination. An inquiry to the Nassau County Family Court confirmed that information. Since the motions concerned ‘relief associated with the Family Court proceeding’, the Court referred them to that Court for hearing and determination. Then the applications were referred back to the Family Court in Suffolk County. In June 1971, a Judge of that Court, after a discussion with counsel, returned the matters to the Court for determination. The Court have received and carefully reviewed the transcript of the remarks made on that occasion.

A Long Island Family Lawyer said that referral of these motions was not made without authority nor was it intended to enlarge the Family Court’s jurisdiction. That Court has original jurisdiction over support proceedings and the applications for support and custody in matrimonial actions referred to it by this Court. The Family Court Act, recognizing the obvious, i.e., that a husband is chargeable with the support of his wife and a father is obligated to support his children, authorized the Family Court to require him to provide for their support as that court might determine. Furthermore, the Family Court may make an allowance for counsel fees in proceedings seeking support for the wife and children. In actions for divorce, separation or annulment, the Supreme Court on its own motion may refer to the Family Court applications for temporary support or temporary or permanent custody.

Published on: June 8, 2014

Wife Motion for Contempt of Court Against Husband

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff (“Wife”) moves by Order to Show Cause seeking an Order a) holding Defendant (“Husband”) in contempt of Court for his willful failure to comply with the Judgment of Divorce entered in this action, and for his willful refusal to comply with the Judgment of this Court to pay the sum of $43,351.87, together with interest thereon in the sum of $6,394.40, and for the failure to comply with the terms of the So-Ordered Stipulation of the parties; and b) fining and/or imprisoning Husband for such contempt.

A New York Custody lawyer said that the parties were married on November 20, 1987, and there are three children of the marriage. The parties’ marriage was dissolved pursuant to the Judgment of Divorce, which incorporated but did not merge with a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) which states in pertinent part that: The Husband shall pay to the Wife, as and for child support, the sum of $1,785.0 per month. The parties agree that the child support payments will be made through the Nassau County Support Collection Unit.

Pursuant to the Order of the Judge, the Court ordered pendente lite relief awarding to the Wife the sum of $1,400.00 per month temporary maintenance, as well as child support in the sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars per month. The award was retroactive to the date of service, which was July 18, 2006.

Published on: June 7, 2014

Wife Files a Motion for Upward Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a condition of settlement incorporated but not merged into the decision of divorce, a couple agreed to waive their right to fix the support of their child under the standards act for some period, during which time the father, a licensed urologist who was attending law school, would make no payments to the mother for the support of their child. The condition further stated that the husband agrees to pay the wife the support of the child pursuant to the act based upon his earnings at the time. Subsequently, in an order, the father was directed to pay the child support to the mother in the amount of eight hundred eighteen dollars, twice per month, which was based upon the father’s salary that was one hundred twenty five thousand dollars per year as a first year associate in a law firm.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the mother then initiated a proceeding for an upward modification, alleging that the father was now employed as an urologist earning approximately three hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. But, upon dismissal of the proceeding on the ground that the mother failed to state a reason for action for modification, the mother filed objections to the family court, but some of which were denied.

Subsequently, the mother filed an appeal from an order of the family court which denied her objections to so much of three orders of the same court, as denied her cross motion to limit the issues with regard’s the father’s income, granted the branch of the father’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for failure to state a reason for action, and dismissed the proceeding.

Published on: June 6, 2014

Wife Holds Former Husband in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment, the complainant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Nassau County Supreme Court as granted the defendant former wife’s motion to hold him in contempt for failure to comply with the maintenance and child support provisions in the parties’ separation agreement, which was incorporated by reference into the judgment of divorce, directed his incarceration for a period of 90 days in the Nassau County Correctional Facility, permitted him to purge himself of the contempt by paying the sum of $175,000 to the former wife, and denied his cross application for a downward modification of his maintenance and child support obligations.

The appeal from so much of the order as committed the former husband to a term of incarceration of 90 days in the Nassau County Correctional Facility is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of incarceration has expired; and it is further ordered that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Nassau County Supreme Court for a new determination, after a hearing, of the cross application.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the Supreme Court erred in finding that the former husband was in contempt. In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of judgment in a matrimonial action may not stand. The record fails to support a finding that the former husband had the ability to pay his maintenance and child support obligations as set out in the parties’ separation agreement.

Published on: June 5, 2014

Court Hears Paternity Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said complainants initiated a paternity proceeding against a man. An infant had been born and after a denial by the man, preparation for a contested proceeding followed. However, both parties with their attorneys resolved the matter and executed a written agreement.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the main agreement, the man admitted paternity and committed himself to pay $3,500 for the complainant’s counsel fees and blood test expenses. The man also committed to pay the sum of $216.67 per month and to establish a trust fund for the child in the amount of $20,000.

Under the terms of the trust agreement, the interest from the amount was to be used by man to subsidize the monthly child support payments with the amount to be given over to the child when he attained twenty one years or, if the child did not survive, to revert to the man. But, if the man died during the child’s infancy, the complainant mother herself would succeed as trustee.