RECENT DECISIONS AND CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS
October 3, 2011
MATRIMONIAL LAW. MOTIONS. CHILD SUPORT. MAINTENANCE. CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. PHYSICAL DISABILITY. VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS. CREDIT. APPLICABILITY.
Plaintiff (husband) moved seven years after the parties were divorced to terminate his child support and maintenance obligations, and to cancel all his arrears with respect to these obligations, on grounds that two of the children were emancipated, the remaining child was living with him, and that he was physically disabled from working. In support, the plaintiff submitted letters from his physicians to establish his disability. In opposition, the defendant (wife) contended that the plaintiff was actually working in his family’s business and receiving income from it. Order granting the plaintiff’s motion is modified to the extent of denying it with respect to a termination of his maintenance obligation and the cancellation of his child support and maintenance arrears. The plaintiff failed to establish that he became disabled from working subsequent to the entry of the divorce judgment in 2002 because the letters he submitted from his physicians did not indicate whether his physical disabilities, which resulted from his work at the WTC site on and after 9/11, resulted in his becoming disabled either before or after the judgment of divorce was entered. The plaintiff also failed to establish that his child support arrears could be reduced on the ground that his income was less than federal poverty guidelines [Family Court Act §413(1)(g)] because the defendant raised issues of fact as to whether he was working for his family and failed to report the resulting income. The Supreme Court also improperly awarded the plaintiff credits for payments he made for health insurance, cell phones and a car for his children, as voluntary payments for the benefit of children, not made pursuant to a court order, may not be credited against the amounts due pursuant to the judgment of divorce. LiGreci v. LiGreci. Decided 8/30/2011.
Sources: State Bar News
October 3, 2011
MATRIMONIAL LAW. MOTIONS. CHILD SUPORT. MAINTENANCE. CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. PHYSICAL DISABILITY. VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS. CREDIT. APPLICABILITY.
Plaintiff (husband) moved seven years after the parties were divorced to terminate his child support and maintenance obligations, and to cancel all his arrears with respect to these obligations, on grounds that two of the children were emancipated, the remaining child was living with him, and that he was physically disabled from working. In support, the plaintiff submitted letters from his physicians to establish his disability. In opposition, the defendant (wife) contended that the plaintiff was actually working in his family’s business and receiving income from it. Order granting the plaintiff’s motion is modified to the extent of denying it with respect to a termination of his maintenance obligation and the cancellation of his child support and maintenance arrears. The plaintiff failed to establish that he became disabled from working subsequent to the entry of the divorce judgment in 2002 because the letters he submitted from his physicians did not indicate whether his physical disabilities, which resulted from his work at the WTC site on and after 9/11, resulted in his becoming disabled either before or after the judgment of divorce was entered. The plaintiff also failed to establish that his child support arrears could be reduced on the ground that his income was less than federal poverty guidelines [Family Court Act §413(1)(g)] because the defendant raised issues of fact as to whether he was working for his family and failed to report the resulting income. The Supreme Court also improperly awarded the plaintiff credits for payments he made for health insurance, cell phones and a car for his children, as voluntary payments for the benefit of children, not made pursuant to a court order, may not be credited against the amounts due pursuant to the judgment of divorce. LiGreci v. LiGreci. Decided 8/30/2011.
Sources: State Bar News
