Spousal Support

Published on: September 2, 2024

Does spousal support obligation survive death? Dean v. Dean, 67 Misc. 3d 325 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Dean v. Dean, 67 Misc. 3d 325 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020), the Supreme Court, Monroe County, considered whether a spousal support order survived the death of the payee spouse. In other words, the court considered whether during a divorce proceeding, the payor spouse was required to continue to pay support to the estate of their deceased spouse. This is an issue that most people may not think about during the divorce process.

Background Facts

The legal proceedings began with a divorce claim initiated by a wife. However, the wife passed away during the process due to severe health issues while confined to a nursing home. Consequently, the divorce action was converted into a spousal support proceeding under Article 4 of the Family Court Act.

Published on: August 14, 2024

Petition to terminate spousal maintenance. Makris v. Makris 179 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: July 31, 2024

Family Court’s authority to modify settlement agreements. Deborah K. v. Richard K., 203 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Deborah K. v. Richard K., 203 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), a father appealed an order regarding child support and spousal support payments. The court’s decision, entered on March 6, 2020, addressed objections raised by both parties regarding previous orders issued by a Support Magistrate.

Background Facts

In the case before the Family Court of New York County, the dispute stemmed from a stipulation of settlement agreement entered into by the parties on February 26, 2013. A stipulation of settlement agreement in New York is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions agreed upon by parties involved in a legal dispute, typically in the context of a divorce or family law matter. It serves as a formal agreement reached through negotiation or mediation, whereby the parties agree to resolve their differences and settle their legal issues outside of court.

Published on: June 24, 2024

Husband challenges Support Magistrate’s order to pay spousal support. Young v. Young, 186 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020

by Stephen Bilkis

In Young v. Young, 186 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020, the Appellate Division consider a case where a husband challenges having to pay his spouse support.

In New York, the Family Court determines spousal support during divorce proceedings by carefully considering various factors related to the financial circumstances of both parties. The court follows a discretionary standard outlined in the relevant statute, typically Family Court Act § 412. This statute mandates that a married person is responsible for supporting their spouse, and the court has the authority to determine a fair and reasonable amount based on the respective circumstances of each party.

Key factors considered by the court include the duration of the marriage, the financial means of both spouses, and each party’s need to maintain a suitable standard of living post-divorce. The court assesses the payor spouse’s ability to provide support while still meeting their own financial obligations. Similarly, it evaluates the payee spouse’s need for financial assistance and their capacity to become self-supporting in the future.

Published on: May 20, 2024

Spousal support claims abates upon the death of either party. Bomer v. Dean, 195 A.D.3d 1518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

Abatement is the act of reducing or nullifying something. There are several different types of abatement. For example, when it comes to a testamentary gift, abatement refers to the reduction in the value of a specific bequest due to insufficient funds in the estate to fulfill all bequests proportionately.

In the context of divorce or family law, abatement upon death refers to the termination or nullification of certain legal actions or claims following the death of one of the parties involved. In Bomer v. Dean, 195 A.D.3d 1518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021), the New York court considered the issue of the abatement of divorce actions upon the death of a party involved.

Background Facts

Published on: September 28, 2022

In a maintenance determination, what amount of earnings is necessary to enable the recipient to become self-supporting? Lorenz v. Lorenz, 881 N.Y.S.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

In divorce cases, the primary purpose of awarding one party to pay another party maintenance is to provide the receiving party temporary financial support to give them time to become self-sufficient. During the support period, the receiving party is expected to finish school or complete other training so that they would have the skills necessary to get a job and support themselves. In Lorenz v. Lorenz, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, was asked to the amount of time and amount of money is necessary to help enable the receiving party to become self-sufficient.

Background

Defendant William Lorenz and Plaintiff Pamela Lorenz were married for 33 years. Pamela filed a petition for divorce. Both parties were 54 years of age. At the time of the divorce, Williams’s income was over $100,000, and Pamela’s income was $20,000. William was in good health, but Pamela had back problems that affected her work as a hairdresser. The Supreme Court of New York, taking into account the couple’s standard of living prior to divorce, awarded Pamela $500 per week in maintenance from William until such time as Pamela can draw full Social Security benefits, apparently when she becomes 66. William appealed.

Published on: February 25, 2018

Palaia v Palaia

by Stephen Bilkis

2018 NY Slip Op 01076

2/14/18

This is an appeal from Westchester County Supreme Court. The order that is under appeal deals with branches of the defendant’s motion which addresses stipulations between the parties from a settlement back in 1997. According to the stipulation, the plaintiff was to receive a 50% share of a 401K as of the date of the stipulation and wasn’t due any portion of a supplemental employee retirement plan. The cross-motion to enforce this stipulation was denied, which directed the defendant to pay the 50% share of the value of the 401K and the employee retirement plan from the date of the plaintiff’s retirement.

Published on: August 13, 2017

Brinkman v Brinkman

by Stephen Bilkis

NY Slip Op 05702

July 19, 2017

Decision

Published on: July 27, 2017

Galanopoulos v Galanopoulos

by Stephen Bilkis

2017 NY Slip Op 05807

July 26, 2017

Published on: March 19, 2017

Ostrower v Ostrower

by Stephen Bilkis

2017 Slip Op. 01705

Decision

This is an appeal for parts of the judgment of divorce from Nassau County Superior Court. The decision failed to award maintenance fees to the plaintiff, but did award the plaintiff’s counsel the amount of $87,000.