New York Family Law Blog
Makris v. Makris, 179 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) is about divorce and maintenance obligations. Spousal maintenance in New York can be terminated under specific conditions defined by state law. One such circumstance is if the recipient spouse remarries, as the obligation to pay maintenance typically ceases upon remarriage. Similarly, the death of either the paying or receiving spouse automatically terminates the maintenance obligation.
Another scenario for termination is if it can be demonstrated that the recipient spouse is self-sufficient or no longer requires financial support. This could result from a significant increase in the recipient spouse’s income or assets, rendering them financially independent. Conversely, if the paying spouse experiences a substantial decrease in income or faces financial hardship, they may petition the court to terminate or modify the maintenance obligation.
Additionally, if there is a significant change in circumstances since the maintenance order was issued, such as a disability affecting either spouse’s ability to work, the court may consider terminating or modifying the maintenance arrangement. Cohabitation by the recipient spouse with a new partner in a relationship similar to marriage may also prompt termination of maintenance, as it suggests the recipient no longer requires financial support.
Courts in New York may also terminate maintenance if the original order was based on fraudulent information or if there has been a violation of the maintenance agreement by either party. However, termination of spousal maintenance is not automatic and typically requires a court order. Both parties must present evidence and arguments to support their case, and the court will make a decision based on the facts and circumstances presented.
Background Facts
Brett and Elaina Makris were married in 1986 and had two children during their marriage. However, their relationship eventually ended, resulting in a divorce judgment issued on September 10, 1998.
As part of the divorce settlement, the court ordered Brett Makris to pay child support and maintenance to Elaina Makris. Specifically, Brett was directed to pay child support in the amount of $544 per month and maintenance in the sum of $272 per month, as outlined in a prior support order dated November 20, 1997.
However, the situation took a legal turn in August 2017 when Elaina initiated proceedings in the Family Court of Westchester County to enforce the maintenance provision of their divorce judgment. Subsequently, in October 2017, Brett filed a petition seeking to terminate his maintenance obligation. He claimed that he and Elaina had orally agreed in June 2001 to end the maintenance payments, leading him to cease payments based on this alleged agreement.
Issue
The key issue in this case was whether Brett Makris should be obligated to pay maintenance arrears as directed by the court’s order dated May 10, 2018, or if his petition to terminate the maintenance obligation should be granted.
Holding
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s decision and granted Brett Makris’s objections. Consequently, the portions of the order dated May 10, 2018, directing Brett to pay maintenance arrears were vacated, and Elaina Makris’s petition to enforce the maintenance provision of the divorce judgment was denied in its entirety.
Rationale
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s decision and granted Brett Makris’s objections because it found that he adequately demonstrated good cause for failing to seek relief from the maintenance obligation earlier. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the alleged oral agreement between Brett and Elaina Makris, where Brett claimed that Elaina waived her right to receive maintenance payments in June 2001. Evidence presented during the hearing indicated that Elaina did not pursue maintenance payments for over 16 years, suggesting an intention to abandon her right to maintenance.
Furthermore, the court found that Elaina’s conduct, including her failure to make written demands for maintenance during this period, supported Brett’s claim of an oral agreement to terminate maintenance. By not actively seeking maintenance for an extended period, Elaina’s actions implied a waiver of her right to receive maintenance payments. The court concluded that Brett provided sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the maintenance obligation, thus warranting the reversal of the Family Court’s decision and the granting of his objections.
Conclusion
The court’s decision highlights the importance of presenting evidence and legal arguments effectively in family court cases. Brett Makris’s successful appeal underscores the significance of diligent representation and thorough understanding of jurisdictional and enforcement laws in divorce proceedings.