“A man can sleep around, no questions asked, but if a woman makes nineteen or twenty mistakes she's a tramp.” Joan Rivers (1935-)
“I don't believe man is woman's natural enemy. Perhaps his lawyer is.“ Shana Alexander
“You know what I did before I married? Anything I wanted to.” Henny Youngman
I have to hand it to the Hulkster’s wife, Linda Bollea. She not only froze $7 million of his assets, but got just enough unfrozen to hold body and soul together for her divorce lawyer: $400,000. The lawyers and accountants had received $850,000 within the past year, but that was not nearly enough so they got a nice bailout just in time for the New Year. After all, she couldn’t be expected to pony up for her own fees on the $40,000 per month she was receiving in temporary alimony. And just what do you get for that money? A lawyer named A.J. Barranco who tells the world such nonsense as, “This case will be tried in court and we shall see a Smackdown!" What a genius. It’s no wonder The American Hero Kurt Angle settled his divorce easily last October.
When oh when do one’s hands stop being dirty? When all the Borax is used up, or do they ever get clean? “Out damn’d spot. Out I say.” As we all know, divorce is an equitable proceeding, and one cannot seek equity if one has unclean hands. For example, when a married guy gave a $60k engagement ring to some trollop, she got to break the engagement and keep the ring in spite of case law and statutory law to the contrary. Why? Because you cannot use the courts to enforce such an immoral promise. Lowe v. Quinn.[1] So what if a guy lies on his financial statement in his prior divorce just to cheat Wifey number one so he can share the fruits of his marriage with Wifey number 2? When divorce Numero Secundo goes sour, can Wifey number two use the “unclean hands” principle to prevent the husband from making premarital claims? After all, he swore he owned nothing in his prior divorce. According to the First Department, the spot came out, since hubby only just tried to cheat Wifey number one when he lied, and not Wifey number two. Therefore he can make inconsistent claims in this divorce and he can make a separate property claim. Why not? Rachimi v. Rachimi.[2]
Maybe it is just me, but many of the access (visitation) issues seem trivial beyond belief, and really have nothing to do with best interests of children. No one can tell me that it is better for children to return home at 6:00 p.m. on a Sunday versus 8:00 p.m., or that a child is harmed by going to a parent’s home at noon on Christmas versus 10:00 a.m. After all, Guy Richie and Madonna fought for Christmas access just last month in London. It therefore seems even sillier when an appellate court takes up these issues, as the Second Department just did in Gerson v. Gerson.[3] It seems mom was Catholic and Dad was Jewish, but so were my parents. The trial court affirmed a four year old stipulation giving specific weekend access, but directed that if Easter fell on Dad’s weekend, he had to bring the kiddies to church. They were after all Roman Catholic. That was not good enough, so mom appealed and the Second Department reversed, giving her access every Easter Sunday from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Being the jaundiced guy I am, I couldn’t help but notice that the attorney for mom was named Feldman, dad’s was named Cohen and three of the four judges deciding the matter were named Spolzino, Covello and Angiolillo. Couldn’t be, could it? Of course not.
There is a movement afoot to ignore disclosure requests in Family Court. Some people now take the position that a Family Court petition is a “special proceeding” that requires “leave of court” for disclosure. See CPLR §408. The Third Department recently decided a case that implies that leave of court is required except in certain cases. Matter of John H[4] was an Article 10-A permanency placement proceeding and the Third Department granted leave to hear this issue before a final determination. The law guardian sought to take the deposition of the case worker and the Department of Social Services of Greene County objected, claiming leave of court was required. The Third Department allowed the disclosure but only because there is a special section of Article 10 that states that the disclosure provisions of Article 31 of the CPLR relating to disclosure apply to Article 10 proceedings. Family Court Act §1038(d). Does it therefore follow that there is no disclosure absent court order in custody or support matters? That would be my conclusion, but the issue has not been directly addressed, at least not yet. I’m hanging my hat on this language from the decision: “Clearly, the specific provisions of Family Court Act article 10 override the general discovery limitations placed on special proceedings under CPLR 408.” Why say that if it didn’t matter?
Enough of these weighty issues. It is a new year, after all, and just in time is the news that Great Britain leads the world in promiscuity among major Western countries. Blimey.[5] Just beating out Germany and the Dutch, the Brits can finally overcome their recent World Cup failures with this Légion d'Honneur. We came in 6th, but if you count all the countries surveyed Finland beats them all. What else are you going to do if the sun doesn’t set for 73 consecutive days? Snowshoe? God bless the International Sexuality Description Project of Bradley University of Peoria, Illinois for giving us that gem.
Finally a word about another lost colleague, Howard Dimock “Farmer” Clayton who died last month. He was admitted to practice law in my birth year, and was a fine trial lawyer with Donohue and Bohl and later Bohl, Clayton, Komar and Della Rocca during my formative years. Always a gentleman, loved by juries and practitioners alike, and one of the few who could get away with wearing a bow tie to work, which he did every day. What more could one ask for in a life in law?
Happy New Year, or as they say in Finland, Onnellista uutta vuotta
[1] 27 N.Y.2nd 397 (1971)
[2] __ A.D.34d __ (1st Dept., December 11, 2008).
[3] __ A.D.3rd ___ (2nd Dept., December 9, 2008).
[4] __ A.D.3rd ___ ( November 20, 2008)
[5] You can read the whole report here:
http://www.bradley.edu/academics/las/psy/facstaff/schmitt/documents/Schmitt-BBS-2005-Sociosexuality-ALL_000.pdf
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Is You Is or Is You Ain't My Baby
"If she says it's over, it's over, but like I've said before, she is the love of my life, and I expected to spend the rest of my life with her." Hugh Hefner, 2008. Yeah, right.
“I'd marry again if I found a man who had fifteen million dollars, would sign over half to me, and guarantee that he'd be dead within a year.” Bette Davis
“Woman inspires us to great things, and prevents us from achieving them.” Alexander Dumas
Drum roll please. Which state has the highest divorce rate in the country? Nevada of course, with 7.7 divorces per 1,000 people in 2005. Of course that may be a product of its relatively short residency requirement, ninety days, and of course the ease of no-fault grounds. After all, if you really can’t wait, why not spend a few months at the craps tables or pumping those one armed bandits full of quarters? So, who is number two? Arkansas of all places followed by Palinville aka Alasker, and we know that no one goes there for the local culture just to get divorced. After all, both places have mosquitoes as big as your head. Lori Holyfield, a professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the esteemed University of Arkansas speculates that the causes are “asset poverty”[1] and lack of education. However, that does not explain why education rich Massachusetts and Connecticut round out the top five. More likely is the prevalence of a high marriage rate, especially among younger people. However, even if business gets a little slow in our firm, you can bet that I will NOT be going to Arkansas to bolster my 401(k).
Speaking of young marriages, poor Peaches Geldof is getting divorced after only 96 days, saying, “It’s over. I just don’t fancy him anymore.” Duh. Which makes me wonder about the shortest divorces, with numero uno coming in the form of Friedman fave Zsa Zsa Gabor, who married Mexican lawyer turned actor Felipe de Alba in1952 for exactly one day. It seems Zsa Zsa was still married at the time to Michael O’Hara, but who’s counting. Tied at 24 hours are Robin Givens and Svetozar Marinkovic followed by Mother of the Year Britney Spears and Jason Alexander at two days. I love these people. They make Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman seem like icons of marital stability.
Well enough of this trivial stuff. Did you see that South Korea’s Constitutional Court just upheld a 55 year old law criminalizing adultery? Actress Ok So-Ri has tried to get the law overturned since she admitted having an affair with a pop singer. She claims her marriage was empty and loveless. Can you believe those moronic, vacuous people still believe you can be prosecuted for having sex with another person while married? Oh wait.[2]
Remember Louis Jordan? In 1944, he wrote a great song, “Is You Is or Is You Ain’t My Baby?” That sums up the strange and delightful matter of Linda and Lawrence Graev, two former lovebirds who were divorced in 1997 and thereafter engaged in a roller coaster trip to determine whether the word “cohabitation” is or ain’t ambiguous. By a minority of the judges who addressed this issue, it was conclusively determined that it is ambiguous. How can you beat that? The Graevs settled their 24 year marriage by agreement for Lawrence to pay Linda $10,000 per month maintenance unless Linda “cohabited with an unrelated adult for a period of sixty (60) substantially consecutive days” or August 10, 2009, whichever comes first. With so much bling at issue, Lawrence hired a slew of gumshoes to determine if “maybe my baby found somebody new.” In the summer of 2004, they discovered that Linda was living in her summer home with MP, a man whose identity is kept secret in the decisions for obvious reasons, infra. It seems MP lived at Linda’s home for all 60 days but Linda said their relationship was platonic since MP, well, couldn’t perform anymore and anyway she had lost interest in sex.[3] In determining that the term cohabiting is not ambiguous, the trial court found that Linda had not “cohabited” with MP within the meaning of the agreement, especially since MP had his own home, paid none of Linda’s shelter expenses and the United States Postal Service felt that he lived elsewhere. The First Department agreed, but a two judge dissent argued that the unambiguous language required the cessation of maintenance.[4] A two judge dissent is music to my ears as it means an automatic appeal to the Court of Appeals.[5] Last month in a 4-3 decision, it was determined that the term is indeed ambiguous and the case was sent back for a new trial which would include proof of the parties’ intent at the signing of the agreement.[6] Justice Graffeo writing for the dissenters Smith and Pigott, would have let Mr. Graev off the hook because after all living a with a guy you love for 60 days is enough in anyone’s book, except of course for four Court of Appeals judges (Read, Kaye, Ciparek and Jones). So, let’s see. The trial judge and all five Appellate Division justices and three Court of appeals judges held that cohabitation is not an ambiguous term. That would be nine judges. And four judges on the Court of Appeals held that it is ambiguous. So what is the result? Ambiguous of course, and back we go for another trial. I must say, Mr. Graev came closer than most men to a victory in the Court of Appeals. So, “is my baby still my baby too”? Stay tuned.
Speaking of ambiguity, the First Department terminated a husband’s use of a vacation home in a settlement agreement because of his violation of the molestation clause. In Weiner v. Weiner,[7] they deviated from the long line of cases holding that this is a separate clause that does not vitiate the rights and obligations of the rest of an agreement. They did so “under the particular circumstances of this case” invoking equitable principles. And just what were those particular circumstances? Don’t ask, as this is the First Department and they do not explain anything for our benefit. One can tell they are already missing the reasoned counsel of their former colleagues Kavanaugh and Malone, and no, we’re not sending them back.
The Third Department gave us a nice enhanced earnings case justifying a zero award for an engineering degree in a long term marriage for two reasons. In Evans v. Evans,[8] the aforesaid Justice Kavanaugh writing for a unanimous court upheld that an expert determination that the degree did not enhance earnings because the engineer could have attained his job without the degree as “whatever promotions defendant obtained during his employment were likely the product of his professional competence and would have occurred even if defendant had not obtained the degree.” Damned if I know how any accountant could come to that opinion as it seems a factual matter for the trial court, but that opinion was credited by the trial court and affirmed. Second, the Third Department denied any distribution of the degree even if it had a value as the wife’s contributions “while significant, can be seen more as overall contributions to the marriage rather than an additional effort to support defendant in obtaining his license.” This was a nineteen year marriage with two children, one of whom has special needs. So, now we at least have some colorable argument for a minimal or no distribution in these infernal enhanced earnings cases thanks to the Savants of State Street. The maintenance award was set at $1,000 per month until social security eligibility on the husband’s income of $93,500 and the wife’s income of $17,000. This was about 15% of the difference.
Finally thanks to the Second Department for answering that burning question, “Can a court fine a father $250 a day as additional child support for each day of missed visitation?” No, especially if no one asks for it. Papandrea v. Pallan[9]
Happy Holidays and Prosit Neujahr, y’all.
Michael the Divorce Lawyer
[1] A condition where if you sold everything you own, you would still be in debt, apparently quite prevalent in The Natural State.
[2] Penal Law §255.17
[3] She did admit that she and MP had done the Humpty Dance from January to March of 2003, but since then it was just platonic.
[4] Graev v. Graev, 46 A.D.3rd445 (1st Dept., 2007)
[5] CPLR §5601(a)
[6] Graev v. Graev, __ Ny.Y.3rd __ (October 21, 2008).
[7] __ A.D.3rd __ (1st Dept., November 13, 2008).
[8] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd dept., 2008).
[9] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., November 13, 2008).
“I'd marry again if I found a man who had fifteen million dollars, would sign over half to me, and guarantee that he'd be dead within a year.” Bette Davis
“Woman inspires us to great things, and prevents us from achieving them.” Alexander Dumas
Drum roll please. Which state has the highest divorce rate in the country? Nevada of course, with 7.7 divorces per 1,000 people in 2005. Of course that may be a product of its relatively short residency requirement, ninety days, and of course the ease of no-fault grounds. After all, if you really can’t wait, why not spend a few months at the craps tables or pumping those one armed bandits full of quarters? So, who is number two? Arkansas of all places followed by Palinville aka Alasker, and we know that no one goes there for the local culture just to get divorced. After all, both places have mosquitoes as big as your head. Lori Holyfield, a professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the esteemed University of Arkansas speculates that the causes are “asset poverty”[1] and lack of education. However, that does not explain why education rich Massachusetts and Connecticut round out the top five. More likely is the prevalence of a high marriage rate, especially among younger people. However, even if business gets a little slow in our firm, you can bet that I will NOT be going to Arkansas to bolster my 401(k).
Speaking of young marriages, poor Peaches Geldof is getting divorced after only 96 days, saying, “It’s over. I just don’t fancy him anymore.” Duh. Which makes me wonder about the shortest divorces, with numero uno coming in the form of Friedman fave Zsa Zsa Gabor, who married Mexican lawyer turned actor Felipe de Alba in1952 for exactly one day. It seems Zsa Zsa was still married at the time to Michael O’Hara, but who’s counting. Tied at 24 hours are Robin Givens and Svetozar Marinkovic followed by Mother of the Year Britney Spears and Jason Alexander at two days. I love these people. They make Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman seem like icons of marital stability.
Well enough of this trivial stuff. Did you see that South Korea’s Constitutional Court just upheld a 55 year old law criminalizing adultery? Actress Ok So-Ri has tried to get the law overturned since she admitted having an affair with a pop singer. She claims her marriage was empty and loveless. Can you believe those moronic, vacuous people still believe you can be prosecuted for having sex with another person while married? Oh wait.[2]
Remember Louis Jordan? In 1944, he wrote a great song, “Is You Is or Is You Ain’t My Baby?” That sums up the strange and delightful matter of Linda and Lawrence Graev, two former lovebirds who were divorced in 1997 and thereafter engaged in a roller coaster trip to determine whether the word “cohabitation” is or ain’t ambiguous. By a minority of the judges who addressed this issue, it was conclusively determined that it is ambiguous. How can you beat that? The Graevs settled their 24 year marriage by agreement for Lawrence to pay Linda $10,000 per month maintenance unless Linda “cohabited with an unrelated adult for a period of sixty (60) substantially consecutive days” or August 10, 2009, whichever comes first. With so much bling at issue, Lawrence hired a slew of gumshoes to determine if “maybe my baby found somebody new.” In the summer of 2004, they discovered that Linda was living in her summer home with MP, a man whose identity is kept secret in the decisions for obvious reasons, infra. It seems MP lived at Linda’s home for all 60 days but Linda said their relationship was platonic since MP, well, couldn’t perform anymore and anyway she had lost interest in sex.[3] In determining that the term cohabiting is not ambiguous, the trial court found that Linda had not “cohabited” with MP within the meaning of the agreement, especially since MP had his own home, paid none of Linda’s shelter expenses and the United States Postal Service felt that he lived elsewhere. The First Department agreed, but a two judge dissent argued that the unambiguous language required the cessation of maintenance.[4] A two judge dissent is music to my ears as it means an automatic appeal to the Court of Appeals.[5] Last month in a 4-3 decision, it was determined that the term is indeed ambiguous and the case was sent back for a new trial which would include proof of the parties’ intent at the signing of the agreement.[6] Justice Graffeo writing for the dissenters Smith and Pigott, would have let Mr. Graev off the hook because after all living a with a guy you love for 60 days is enough in anyone’s book, except of course for four Court of Appeals judges (Read, Kaye, Ciparek and Jones). So, let’s see. The trial judge and all five Appellate Division justices and three Court of appeals judges held that cohabitation is not an ambiguous term. That would be nine judges. And four judges on the Court of Appeals held that it is ambiguous. So what is the result? Ambiguous of course, and back we go for another trial. I must say, Mr. Graev came closer than most men to a victory in the Court of Appeals. So, “is my baby still my baby too”? Stay tuned.
Speaking of ambiguity, the First Department terminated a husband’s use of a vacation home in a settlement agreement because of his violation of the molestation clause. In Weiner v. Weiner,[7] they deviated from the long line of cases holding that this is a separate clause that does not vitiate the rights and obligations of the rest of an agreement. They did so “under the particular circumstances of this case” invoking equitable principles. And just what were those particular circumstances? Don’t ask, as this is the First Department and they do not explain anything for our benefit. One can tell they are already missing the reasoned counsel of their former colleagues Kavanaugh and Malone, and no, we’re not sending them back.
The Third Department gave us a nice enhanced earnings case justifying a zero award for an engineering degree in a long term marriage for two reasons. In Evans v. Evans,[8] the aforesaid Justice Kavanaugh writing for a unanimous court upheld that an expert determination that the degree did not enhance earnings because the engineer could have attained his job without the degree as “whatever promotions defendant obtained during his employment were likely the product of his professional competence and would have occurred even if defendant had not obtained the degree.” Damned if I know how any accountant could come to that opinion as it seems a factual matter for the trial court, but that opinion was credited by the trial court and affirmed. Second, the Third Department denied any distribution of the degree even if it had a value as the wife’s contributions “while significant, can be seen more as overall contributions to the marriage rather than an additional effort to support defendant in obtaining his license.” This was a nineteen year marriage with two children, one of whom has special needs. So, now we at least have some colorable argument for a minimal or no distribution in these infernal enhanced earnings cases thanks to the Savants of State Street. The maintenance award was set at $1,000 per month until social security eligibility on the husband’s income of $93,500 and the wife’s income of $17,000. This was about 15% of the difference.
Finally thanks to the Second Department for answering that burning question, “Can a court fine a father $250 a day as additional child support for each day of missed visitation?” No, especially if no one asks for it. Papandrea v. Pallan[9]
Happy Holidays and Prosit Neujahr, y’all.
Michael the Divorce Lawyer
[1] A condition where if you sold everything you own, you would still be in debt, apparently quite prevalent in The Natural State.
[2] Penal Law §255.17
[3] She did admit that she and MP had done the Humpty Dance from January to March of 2003, but since then it was just platonic.
[4] Graev v. Graev, 46 A.D.3rd445 (1st Dept., 2007)
[5] CPLR §5601(a)
[6] Graev v. Graev, __ Ny.Y.3rd __ (October 21, 2008).
[7] __ A.D.3rd __ (1st Dept., November 13, 2008).
[8] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd dept., 2008).
[9] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., November 13, 2008).
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Gay Marriages and Modern Art
“I think that everyone should get married at least once, so you can see what a silly, outdated institution it is.” Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie aka Madonna
“Eighty percent of married men cheat in America. The rest cheat in Europe.” Yacov Moshe Maza aka Jackie Mason
"It's not true that I had nothing on. I had the radio on." Norma Jeane Mortenson, baptized Norma Jeane Baker aka Marilyn Monroe
Greetings from the Golden State, where they will vote in a few days to determine whether the state constitution should be amended to ban same sex marriages. All of this is on the heels of the 4-3 California Supreme Court decision last May sanctioning gay divorces on equal protection grounds, finding that there is a fundamental right to marry. [1] Latest Vegas odds favor upholding gay marriages. Then last month the Connecticut Supreme Court decided the same way for similar reasons, again in a 4-3 decision. Compared to the 172 page California decision, this was a pithy 85 pages with 84 footnotes.[2] Of course, our Court of Appeals said “no way” to gay marriages in 2006 in Hernandez v. Robles, a 4-2 decision.[3] All of this begs a few questions. How can something be fundamental right in one state but not another? Are some gays more equal than others, as in Equally Protected? Why does it take judges so much verbiage to express their thoughts, and why do such great minds disagree in each of these decisions? It does seem to be trend at least on the Left and Right Coasts to support gay marriages, and such an issue seems to stir up emotions and money for and against. The California Proposition 8 lobbying has raised over $60 million from both sides. Of course, gay marriage means gay divorce, and that is grist for our mills and we will be looking for the first divorces in New York for people legally married in other states.
Other grist for our mill news? Some Dutch researcher has published an article proving that Turtle Doves commit adultery.[4] Thanks Dr. den Hartog for that one. The financial crisis on Wall Street has caused a threefold increase in sex addiction for financiers, and presumably increased divorces.[5]
The Third Department has returned from their summer slumbers, affirming a whole slew of custody cases and curiously modifying the dispositional phase of a family offense proceeding in Gil v. Gil.[6] It seems Mr. Gil beat his five year old daughter with a belt causing raised welts. That was enough to uphold the finding of harassment and menacing. However, the Order of Protection requiring a full stay away from the home of the mother, the child, and the mother’s workplace were eliminated as it was not proven that he is likely to pose an “immediate and ongoing” danger to a member of the family. “Honey, I’m home!”
Did you ever experience the Father of the Year Syndrome? You know, the dad who ceded the child rearing to the mother while he worked, played golf, went bowling or pursued other women during the marriage. Now, with the beak-up of the marriage, he is suddenly working 35 hours per week, coming home at 5:00 p.m., showing up for his son’s soccer practices and Meet the Teacher nights, all for the first time. He seeks shared or sole custody, as the Epiphany of Fatherhood descends on him immediately after a visit to his local matrimonial attorney for a discussion of the joys of the Child Support Standards Act. It frustrates many litigants as the past is not necessarily prologue, in spite of the decisions made while the marriage was intact. Courts struggle with these issues as there is a desire to encourage parental participation, even if it is newly discovered. Well, the First Department grappled with just such a dad in Tonisha J. v. Paul P.[7] The Referee who decided the matter at trial awarded the father sole custody in spite of the primary responsibility of child rearing by the mother while the parties lived together. Apparently the mother had misbehaved towards the father and his fiancée when she discovered his affair, but she had never misbehaved towards the child and was the “primary custodial parent” in the early years. Although Family Court adopted the Referee’s findings, the First Department reversed, in spite of the recommendations of a forensic social worker. Seizing on the important but often overlooked issue of the roles of the parents while the parties were living together, the court reversed and awarded custody to the mother. It is nice to see recognition of this important standard in a reversal of a trial court when trying to determine the future best interests of children.
You do have to admire the billing efforts of our downstate brethren. I often comment on the inadequacy of fee awards or the charges billed in the Third Department, as for the most part I believe we undervalue our services. The First Department has no such recalcitrance as it recently awarded nearly $30,000 in legal fees just to enforce two money judgments of about $250,000. Schiffer v. Schiffer[8] and, no, it is not THAT Schiffer, unfortunately. Nice work if you can get it. The trial court had denied Mrs. Schiffer’s application as she had received enough in maintenance, equitable distribution and her own earnings. However, what good is that if you have to spend mucho dinero just to get what the court awarded you? In reversing the trial court, the First Department accepted the attorney’s fee application and awarded all such fees for the enforcement, including negotiations, miscellaneous legal fees, and fees for making the fee application. Yeah!
Speaking of legal fees, my favorite modern artist cum divorce litigant, Jeffrey Koons recently lost custody of his child to his former porn star wife “La Cicciolina” aka Ilona Staller in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, of all places. That’s my next court of choice in custodial disputes, you betcha. You may remember her as the only one to volunteer to have sex with Saddam Hussein in 2002 in exchange for world peace saying, “I would do it holding my nose and closing my eyes. I would do it for peace." If only he had taken her up on that offer. I remember Mr. Koons as the guy who had to pay Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison over $3.3 million in fees related to his divorce because he never challenged the bills.[9] Doggone it, for that alone he deserves a “shout out” from yours truly. Can I call you Jeff?
Don’t forget to vote.
[1] In re Marriage Cases, six consolidated appeals, decided May 15, 2008. You can find the whole 172 page decision here. It took about three pages just to list the Respondents’ attorneys!
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF
[2] Carrigan et. al. v. Commisssioner, decided October 10, 2008. Here it is:
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf
[3] 7 NY3rd 338(2006)
[4] Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (2008, October 15). Turtle Doves Commit Adultery. Science Daily. October 18, 2008. You can read the article here in Dutch together with “cooing” noises proving her hypotheses:
http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOA_7kdept
[5] London’s Daily Telegraph, October 19, 2008.
[6] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., October 16, 2008)
[7] __ A.D. 3rd __ (1st Dept., October 16, 2008)
[8] __ A.D.3rd __ (1st Dept., October 14, 2008)
[9] Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison v. Koons, 4 Misc.3rd 447 (N.Y.Co.Sup.Ct., 2004)
“Eighty percent of married men cheat in America. The rest cheat in Europe.” Yacov Moshe Maza aka Jackie Mason
"It's not true that I had nothing on. I had the radio on." Norma Jeane Mortenson, baptized Norma Jeane Baker aka Marilyn Monroe
Greetings from the Golden State, where they will vote in a few days to determine whether the state constitution should be amended to ban same sex marriages. All of this is on the heels of the 4-3 California Supreme Court decision last May sanctioning gay divorces on equal protection grounds, finding that there is a fundamental right to marry. [1] Latest Vegas odds favor upholding gay marriages. Then last month the Connecticut Supreme Court decided the same way for similar reasons, again in a 4-3 decision. Compared to the 172 page California decision, this was a pithy 85 pages with 84 footnotes.[2] Of course, our Court of Appeals said “no way” to gay marriages in 2006 in Hernandez v. Robles, a 4-2 decision.[3] All of this begs a few questions. How can something be fundamental right in one state but not another? Are some gays more equal than others, as in Equally Protected? Why does it take judges so much verbiage to express their thoughts, and why do such great minds disagree in each of these decisions? It does seem to be trend at least on the Left and Right Coasts to support gay marriages, and such an issue seems to stir up emotions and money for and against. The California Proposition 8 lobbying has raised over $60 million from both sides. Of course, gay marriage means gay divorce, and that is grist for our mills and we will be looking for the first divorces in New York for people legally married in other states.
Other grist for our mill news? Some Dutch researcher has published an article proving that Turtle Doves commit adultery.[4] Thanks Dr. den Hartog for that one. The financial crisis on Wall Street has caused a threefold increase in sex addiction for financiers, and presumably increased divorces.[5]
The Third Department has returned from their summer slumbers, affirming a whole slew of custody cases and curiously modifying the dispositional phase of a family offense proceeding in Gil v. Gil.[6] It seems Mr. Gil beat his five year old daughter with a belt causing raised welts. That was enough to uphold the finding of harassment and menacing. However, the Order of Protection requiring a full stay away from the home of the mother, the child, and the mother’s workplace were eliminated as it was not proven that he is likely to pose an “immediate and ongoing” danger to a member of the family. “Honey, I’m home!”
Did you ever experience the Father of the Year Syndrome? You know, the dad who ceded the child rearing to the mother while he worked, played golf, went bowling or pursued other women during the marriage. Now, with the beak-up of the marriage, he is suddenly working 35 hours per week, coming home at 5:00 p.m., showing up for his son’s soccer practices and Meet the Teacher nights, all for the first time. He seeks shared or sole custody, as the Epiphany of Fatherhood descends on him immediately after a visit to his local matrimonial attorney for a discussion of the joys of the Child Support Standards Act. It frustrates many litigants as the past is not necessarily prologue, in spite of the decisions made while the marriage was intact. Courts struggle with these issues as there is a desire to encourage parental participation, even if it is newly discovered. Well, the First Department grappled with just such a dad in Tonisha J. v. Paul P.[7] The Referee who decided the matter at trial awarded the father sole custody in spite of the primary responsibility of child rearing by the mother while the parties lived together. Apparently the mother had misbehaved towards the father and his fiancée when she discovered his affair, but she had never misbehaved towards the child and was the “primary custodial parent” in the early years. Although Family Court adopted the Referee’s findings, the First Department reversed, in spite of the recommendations of a forensic social worker. Seizing on the important but often overlooked issue of the roles of the parents while the parties were living together, the court reversed and awarded custody to the mother. It is nice to see recognition of this important standard in a reversal of a trial court when trying to determine the future best interests of children.
You do have to admire the billing efforts of our downstate brethren. I often comment on the inadequacy of fee awards or the charges billed in the Third Department, as for the most part I believe we undervalue our services. The First Department has no such recalcitrance as it recently awarded nearly $30,000 in legal fees just to enforce two money judgments of about $250,000. Schiffer v. Schiffer[8] and, no, it is not THAT Schiffer, unfortunately. Nice work if you can get it. The trial court had denied Mrs. Schiffer’s application as she had received enough in maintenance, equitable distribution and her own earnings. However, what good is that if you have to spend mucho dinero just to get what the court awarded you? In reversing the trial court, the First Department accepted the attorney’s fee application and awarded all such fees for the enforcement, including negotiations, miscellaneous legal fees, and fees for making the fee application. Yeah!
Speaking of legal fees, my favorite modern artist cum divorce litigant, Jeffrey Koons recently lost custody of his child to his former porn star wife “La Cicciolina” aka Ilona Staller in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, of all places. That’s my next court of choice in custodial disputes, you betcha. You may remember her as the only one to volunteer to have sex with Saddam Hussein in 2002 in exchange for world peace saying, “I would do it holding my nose and closing my eyes. I would do it for peace." If only he had taken her up on that offer. I remember Mr. Koons as the guy who had to pay Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison over $3.3 million in fees related to his divorce because he never challenged the bills.[9] Doggone it, for that alone he deserves a “shout out” from yours truly. Can I call you Jeff?
Don’t forget to vote.
[1] In re Marriage Cases, six consolidated appeals, decided May 15, 2008. You can find the whole 172 page decision here. It took about three pages just to list the Respondents’ attorneys!
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF
[2] Carrigan et. al. v. Commisssioner, decided October 10, 2008. Here it is:
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf
[3] 7 NY3rd 338(2006)
[4] Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (2008, October 15). Turtle Doves Commit Adultery. Science Daily. October 18, 2008. You can read the article here in Dutch together with “cooing” noises proving her hypotheses:
http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOA_7kdept
[5] London’s Daily Telegraph, October 19, 2008.
[6] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., October 16, 2008)
[7] __ A.D. 3rd __ (1st Dept., October 16, 2008)
[8] __ A.D.3rd __ (1st Dept., October 14, 2008)
[9] Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison v. Koons, 4 Misc.3rd 447 (N.Y.Co.Sup.Ct., 2004)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Lap Dance Fees, and Thank God for the Second Department
“If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.” Dorothy Parker (1893-1967)
“I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother and father.” Paul Hamm, Gymnast and linguist
“Don't accept rides from strange men, and remember that all men are strange.” Robin Morgan (1941-)
OK, call me jaundiced. How else do you explain the hundreds of marriage proposals for a police constable in the Rift Valley of Kenya? Just ask Olympic 800 meter gold medalist Pamela Jelimo when she returned home after winning $1,000,000 for six victories in elite track meets. To me, men are all just gold digging slugs looking for a free ride from a woman of accomplishment. But to quote the great Kanye West, “"If you ain't no punk, holla 'We want pre-nup!'"[i] Makes sense to me. So Brad Pitt ponies up $100,000 to support gay marriages in the upcoming California referendum and along comes the Church of Latter Day Saints aka The Mormons to urge their flock to contribute the other way.[ii] This prompts former gay Mormon Bruce Bastian to drop $1 mil on the gay marriage supporters. Match that, Beefcake Boy.
Maybe it’s just been a bad month, with A-Rod resolving his divorce without any splashy testimony and the Office of Confused Adults sponsoring a report to take control of all the justice courts and measurably increase the coffers of the Evil Empire.[iii] So here’s a quiz, which presidential candidate wrote the following, “"She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior. I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening's end, I was in love." Hint: It’s not Cynthia McKinnon or Bob Barr[iv]. Ah, love, stronger than marital fidelity again! At least we’ll always have the Third Department, whenever they wake up from their summer funk. Until then, as they say, love the one you’re with.[v] In this case she is the Second Department, the only true source of amusement until the Vernal Equinox.
For example, they sure mixed things up when they let Joey LaRocca[vi] free for not having the ability to pay his child support. As we know, failure to pay a support order is prima facie proof of a willful violation. I didn’t make that up. It’s in §454(3)(a) of the Family Court Act. So the App Div Second decides, “Wait a minute, here.” We know he didn’t pay. The Family Court Act be damned, let’s let the guy off because, “In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand.” Thanks for clearing that up guys. Maybe I better see if the definition of prima facie has changed since the Fifteenth Century.[vii]
Then they decided it is just fine and dandy to apply the CSSA standards to all $212,000 of a person’s income, joining the Third Department’s $500,000 “cap” in Bean.[viii] They blasted through the ethereal $80,000 statutory cap, virtually without comment in Maharaj-Ellis v. La Roche.[ix] Here is their reasoning for all you tea leaf readers: “The court further providently exercised its discretion in applying the statutory child support percentage to the total sum of $272,550.38 in combined parental income.” What I mean is what I say, nothing more and nothing less. Try to explain that to your next client who comes in wondering what the court will do to his gross income when it comes for support of the kiddies. To add insult to injury they banged Dad for ice skating expenses of all things, “where the evidence demonstrated that she had a special aptitude for the sport.” Who doesn’t, Tanya? I guess that’s what the legislature meant when it awarded “as justice requires” “special, or enriched education for the child.”[x] Is there no end to this stuff?
Apparently not, as the Second Department again held that College Expenses are not to be modified especially if you have a separate paragraph called “College expenses” in an agreement with a paragraph called “Child Support.” Colucci v. Colucci.[xi] I had no idea paragraph headings were so important in the Southern counties, but I’m changing my behavior up here too, just in case.
Just to put more nails in the coffins of moneyed spouses, the Second Department came down with Kilkenny v. Kilkenny.[xii] Poor Mister Kilkenny came into his marriage with $147,000 in separate accounts. He spent $40,000 of this separate money during the marriage on the education of a daughter from a first marriage, reducing the accounts to $107,000. The accounts had $209,000 at commencement. So how much does the missus get? $51,000. Get that? If he had not spent the $40,000 on his child’s education, the increase would be $62,000 and she would get $31,000, but since he paid for his child’s education during the marriage, he gets to pay his wife half of that sum again. Like I say, arithmetic is sure different south of the Tappan Zee Bridge, or to quote John McCain, “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."[xiii] Of yeah, the Kilkenny lassie also gets half of the amount he reduced the principal on his premarital home mortgage during the marriage plus half of the appreciation in the home, even if it is due to market forces. And by the way, that loan for $32,000 for his other child from his first marriage? That’s not a marital debt either.
In a stirring victory for those in uniform, at least the slutty kind, the Second Department reversed an award of custody to the father and restored the child to the mother in a modification proceeding. The Family Court judge had given custody to the father, among other reasons, because the mom came to court in hospital clothing, “as if she were a nurse or other medical professional, but in fact works as a receptionist.” He also held it against her, but not the father, that she was married to another man during the entirety of the parties’ relationship with one another. Horrors! Peroglu v. Baez.[xiv]
Finally a tip of the hat to Scott Robert Irwin, a lawyer after my own heart. Mr. Erwin is the former chairman of the DeKalb County Bar Association pro bono committee, a position yours truly has occupied for the Albany County Bar Association. It seems Barrister Erwin had an arrangement with one of his clients to perform nude dances for him in his office (And at her place of employment: Heartbreakers. I kid you not.) in exchange for legal services for his ecdysiast client and members of her family. When he credited her with only $534 and demanded she pay a bill of $7,000 she blew the whistle on him, no pun intended. Although a grand jury let him off the hook on sexual assault, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission suspended him for 15 months. So just where in our regulations prohibiting sexual relations with our clients is there a proscription for a lap dance or two?[xv] If you find out, send me a wire.
Happy Guy Fawkes Day.
[i] “Gold Digger”, Kanye (Brion) and Foxx, copyright 2005 Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC used here without permission.
[ii] If you don’t believe me, check out ProtectMarriage.com
[iii] http://www.nycourtreform.org/
[iv] John Sidney McCain III in his aptly titled 2002 memoir, “Worth Fighting For”
[v] Stephen Stills, 1970, used again without permission. Sorry Mr. Isely.
[vi] Grasso v. LaRocca, __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., Mom’s Birthday, 2008)
[vii] Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2008.
[viii] 53 A.D.2nd 718 (3rd Dept., 2008).
[ix] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., 2008)
[x] §240(1-b(b)(7) of the Domestic Relations Law
[xi] __ A.D.2nd __ (2nd Dept., September 9, 2008)
[xii] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., September 16, 2008)
[xiii] Des Moines Rotary Club Speech, October 11, 2008.
[xiv] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 19, 2008)
[xv] Code of Professional Responsibility DR-511, 22 NYCRR 1200.29-a
“I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother and father.” Paul Hamm, Gymnast and linguist
“Don't accept rides from strange men, and remember that all men are strange.” Robin Morgan (1941-)
OK, call me jaundiced. How else do you explain the hundreds of marriage proposals for a police constable in the Rift Valley of Kenya? Just ask Olympic 800 meter gold medalist Pamela Jelimo when she returned home after winning $1,000,000 for six victories in elite track meets. To me, men are all just gold digging slugs looking for a free ride from a woman of accomplishment. But to quote the great Kanye West, “"If you ain't no punk, holla 'We want pre-nup!'"[i] Makes sense to me. So Brad Pitt ponies up $100,000 to support gay marriages in the upcoming California referendum and along comes the Church of Latter Day Saints aka The Mormons to urge their flock to contribute the other way.[ii] This prompts former gay Mormon Bruce Bastian to drop $1 mil on the gay marriage supporters. Match that, Beefcake Boy.
Maybe it’s just been a bad month, with A-Rod resolving his divorce without any splashy testimony and the Office of Confused Adults sponsoring a report to take control of all the justice courts and measurably increase the coffers of the Evil Empire.[iii] So here’s a quiz, which presidential candidate wrote the following, “"She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior. I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening's end, I was in love." Hint: It’s not Cynthia McKinnon or Bob Barr[iv]. Ah, love, stronger than marital fidelity again! At least we’ll always have the Third Department, whenever they wake up from their summer funk. Until then, as they say, love the one you’re with.[v] In this case she is the Second Department, the only true source of amusement until the Vernal Equinox.
For example, they sure mixed things up when they let Joey LaRocca[vi] free for not having the ability to pay his child support. As we know, failure to pay a support order is prima facie proof of a willful violation. I didn’t make that up. It’s in §454(3)(a) of the Family Court Act. So the App Div Second decides, “Wait a minute, here.” We know he didn’t pay. The Family Court Act be damned, let’s let the guy off because, “In the absence of proof of an ability to pay, an order of commitment for willful violation of a support order may not stand.” Thanks for clearing that up guys. Maybe I better see if the definition of prima facie has changed since the Fifteenth Century.[vii]
Then they decided it is just fine and dandy to apply the CSSA standards to all $212,000 of a person’s income, joining the Third Department’s $500,000 “cap” in Bean.[viii] They blasted through the ethereal $80,000 statutory cap, virtually without comment in Maharaj-Ellis v. La Roche.[ix] Here is their reasoning for all you tea leaf readers: “The court further providently exercised its discretion in applying the statutory child support percentage to the total sum of $272,550.38 in combined parental income.” What I mean is what I say, nothing more and nothing less. Try to explain that to your next client who comes in wondering what the court will do to his gross income when it comes for support of the kiddies. To add insult to injury they banged Dad for ice skating expenses of all things, “where the evidence demonstrated that she had a special aptitude for the sport.” Who doesn’t, Tanya? I guess that’s what the legislature meant when it awarded “as justice requires” “special, or enriched education for the child.”[x] Is there no end to this stuff?
Apparently not, as the Second Department again held that College Expenses are not to be modified especially if you have a separate paragraph called “College expenses” in an agreement with a paragraph called “Child Support.” Colucci v. Colucci.[xi] I had no idea paragraph headings were so important in the Southern counties, but I’m changing my behavior up here too, just in case.
Just to put more nails in the coffins of moneyed spouses, the Second Department came down with Kilkenny v. Kilkenny.[xii] Poor Mister Kilkenny came into his marriage with $147,000 in separate accounts. He spent $40,000 of this separate money during the marriage on the education of a daughter from a first marriage, reducing the accounts to $107,000. The accounts had $209,000 at commencement. So how much does the missus get? $51,000. Get that? If he had not spent the $40,000 on his child’s education, the increase would be $62,000 and she would get $31,000, but since he paid for his child’s education during the marriage, he gets to pay his wife half of that sum again. Like I say, arithmetic is sure different south of the Tappan Zee Bridge, or to quote John McCain, “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."[xiii] Of yeah, the Kilkenny lassie also gets half of the amount he reduced the principal on his premarital home mortgage during the marriage plus half of the appreciation in the home, even if it is due to market forces. And by the way, that loan for $32,000 for his other child from his first marriage? That’s not a marital debt either.
In a stirring victory for those in uniform, at least the slutty kind, the Second Department reversed an award of custody to the father and restored the child to the mother in a modification proceeding. The Family Court judge had given custody to the father, among other reasons, because the mom came to court in hospital clothing, “as if she were a nurse or other medical professional, but in fact works as a receptionist.” He also held it against her, but not the father, that she was married to another man during the entirety of the parties’ relationship with one another. Horrors! Peroglu v. Baez.[xiv]
Finally a tip of the hat to Scott Robert Irwin, a lawyer after my own heart. Mr. Erwin is the former chairman of the DeKalb County Bar Association pro bono committee, a position yours truly has occupied for the Albany County Bar Association. It seems Barrister Erwin had an arrangement with one of his clients to perform nude dances for him in his office (And at her place of employment: Heartbreakers. I kid you not.) in exchange for legal services for his ecdysiast client and members of her family. When he credited her with only $534 and demanded she pay a bill of $7,000 she blew the whistle on him, no pun intended. Although a grand jury let him off the hook on sexual assault, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission suspended him for 15 months. So just where in our regulations prohibiting sexual relations with our clients is there a proscription for a lap dance or two?[xv] If you find out, send me a wire.
Happy Guy Fawkes Day.
[i] “Gold Digger”, Kanye (Brion) and Foxx, copyright 2005 Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC used here without permission.
[ii] If you don’t believe me, check out ProtectMarriage.com
[iii] http://www.nycourtreform.org/
[iv] John Sidney McCain III in his aptly titled 2002 memoir, “Worth Fighting For”
[v] Stephen Stills, 1970, used again without permission. Sorry Mr. Isely.
[vi] Grasso v. LaRocca, __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., Mom’s Birthday, 2008)
[vii] Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2008.
[viii] 53 A.D.2nd 718 (3rd Dept., 2008).
[ix] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., 2008)
[x] §240(1-b(b)(7) of the Domestic Relations Law
[xi] __ A.D.2nd __ (2nd Dept., September 9, 2008)
[xii] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., September 16, 2008)
[xiii] Des Moines Rotary Club Speech, October 11, 2008.
[xiv] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 19, 2008)
[xv] Code of Professional Responsibility DR-511, 22 NYCRR 1200.29-a
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Hulkster, Maitenance and Other Thoughts
“Men aren’t attracted to me by my mind. They’re attracted to me by what I don’t mind.” Rose Louise Hovick aka Gypsy Rose Lee (1911-1970)
“We're a collection of caring, bright do-gooders who want everyone to love us. But we're also voyeurs and mischievous thieves who take advantage of the unsuspecting and make money because our clients are angry, hurt, and greedy." Norman Sheresky, J.D.
"The first thing they get is a net-worth statement. Then they make sure they get your total net worth." Ronald Lindner, divorced plastic surgeon
The doldrums of the Third Department descend upon us each August, with the trickle of decisions having nothing to do with the glories of matrimonial practice. The true horse latitudes of matrimonial practice, spiced this week by two thrilling negligence cases in favor of plaintiffs with stinging dissents by two justices and nary a whiff of marital discord to be resolved by the Genii of the Fifth Floor. For that matter, the Fourth Department has virtually given up, taking off the entire month of August like some German autoworker migrating to the Amalfi Coast for a few weeks of epidermis broiling and Il Baccala’ in Casseruola con Patate. Schade as they say im Burgenland. So, to quote the late great Hunter Thompson, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” So here it goes.
When we last left the gay former Governor and current seminarian James McGreevey, his wife was seeking about $30,000 in yearly maintenance from his $48,000 yearly salary. She also wanted a piece of the $1,400,000 her expert valued as the ex-Gov’s “Celebrity Goodwill”. During the trial Mrs. McGreevey testified that she can no longer afford to shop at Nordstrom and Nieman Marcus, and now had to stoop to clothing herself at the Gap and T.J. Maxx. You’re breaking my heart, honey. So, the court gave her nothing for alimony and a mere $110,000 in equitable distribution. How much did that cost her? Legal fees alone totaled $525,468 for the former First Lady of the Garden State. Shucks, I could have gotten her that kind of an award for less than $400,000. Seems like a deal to me. Not so fortunate, at least not yet, was the Hulkster, aka Terrence Gene Bollea who was ordered to pay $40,000 per month in temporary alimony to the lovely Linda Bollea. Seems like only yesterday but it was January 23, 2003 that we were at the Pepsi Arena watching Mr. Hogan knock out Vince McMahon with a single punch to the delight of thousands at the WWE Smackdown! Remember? Hopefully Ms. Hulkster’s legal fees will be a tad shy of a half a million. Of course all this demonstrates that the amount and duration of maintenance is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. the judge, and there are really no guidelines that one can safely cite to a client to determine the true outcome after trial. Like they say, the weird turn pro.
So, what little baubles does the Second Departments give us this summer? Well how about our old friend the Child Support Standards Act. As the Third Department told us last month, if there is not an adequate recitation of what the CSSA standards would be for child support and the reason for any deviation, then an agreement is null and void[i], or not null and void[ii]. Got it? Well, in Cimons v. Cimons[iii] everyone agreed that the opting out provisions did not comply with the statute and needed to be set aside, but what about the agreement to pay for college education? Does that get thrown out with the baby’s bath water too? Apparently not, as it is discretionary to award educational expenses and such awards are not pro rated like the other “add ons” of uninsured health and child care.[iv] Since educational obligations are not connected to basic child support, they are enforceable even if the other provisions are not.
Speaking of the Child Support Standards Act, the Second Department in Uriarte v. Ippolito[v], joined the Third Department for a change in holding that a parent need not use in-service providers when seeking reimbursement for uninsured health related expenses. Of course, no tip of the hat to the Third Department’s Wetherby[vi] case of a few months prior, as though they thought it up all by themselves.
The Second Department also answered the burning question of whether payments of maintenance to a mother by a father should be included in her income when determining the amount of child support she has to pay the custodial father. I thought it was quite novel of the mother to suggest that she had no income for the support of the bambino even though she was receiving $100,000 per year in maintenance. You see, the child moved in with dad after the divorce, but of course that had no effect on his maintenance obligation to her. Income is income saith the Second Department so her maintenance money was fair game for the child support percentages. Krukenkamp v. Krukenkamp.[vii] Here’s where the math gets a little squirrely however, as the Second Department tells us it was inappropriate to apply the percentage of 17% above the statutory $80,000 cap because (a) dad earns a lot more than she does and (b) she has to support other family members. Putting aside for a moment whether these are valid reasons to cap the support obligation, the Second Department set the support at $338 per week without explanation how they came up with that peculiar amount. By my calculations that is $17,565 per year or the support obligation of a person earning about $106,000! I’ve known for years that the bean counters downstate are different from the bean counters up here, but I thought mathematics was a more objective standard. I’m dying to see how they came up with that sum, but being the Second Department they don’t tell us. It’s just one of life’s mysteries, I guess, like the Eleusian Mysteries. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Happy New Zealand Fathers Day, all you Kiwis.
[i] Usenza v. Swift, 52 A.D.3rd 876 (3rd Dept., 2008)
[ii] Groesbeck v. Groesbeck, 52 A.D.3rd 903 (3rd dept., 2008)
[iii] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., June 17, 2008)
[iv] Domestic Relations Law Section 240(1-b)(c)(4) and (5)
[v] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 12, 2008)
[vi] 50 A.D.3rd 1226 (2008)
[vii] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 5, 2008).
“We're a collection of caring, bright do-gooders who want everyone to love us. But we're also voyeurs and mischievous thieves who take advantage of the unsuspecting and make money because our clients are angry, hurt, and greedy." Norman Sheresky, J.D.
"The first thing they get is a net-worth statement. Then they make sure they get your total net worth." Ronald Lindner, divorced plastic surgeon
The doldrums of the Third Department descend upon us each August, with the trickle of decisions having nothing to do with the glories of matrimonial practice. The true horse latitudes of matrimonial practice, spiced this week by two thrilling negligence cases in favor of plaintiffs with stinging dissents by two justices and nary a whiff of marital discord to be resolved by the Genii of the Fifth Floor. For that matter, the Fourth Department has virtually given up, taking off the entire month of August like some German autoworker migrating to the Amalfi Coast for a few weeks of epidermis broiling and Il Baccala’ in Casseruola con Patate. Schade as they say im Burgenland. So, to quote the late great Hunter Thompson, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” So here it goes.
When we last left the gay former Governor and current seminarian James McGreevey, his wife was seeking about $30,000 in yearly maintenance from his $48,000 yearly salary. She also wanted a piece of the $1,400,000 her expert valued as the ex-Gov’s “Celebrity Goodwill”. During the trial Mrs. McGreevey testified that she can no longer afford to shop at Nordstrom and Nieman Marcus, and now had to stoop to clothing herself at the Gap and T.J. Maxx. You’re breaking my heart, honey. So, the court gave her nothing for alimony and a mere $110,000 in equitable distribution. How much did that cost her? Legal fees alone totaled $525,468 for the former First Lady of the Garden State. Shucks, I could have gotten her that kind of an award for less than $400,000. Seems like a deal to me. Not so fortunate, at least not yet, was the Hulkster, aka Terrence Gene Bollea who was ordered to pay $40,000 per month in temporary alimony to the lovely Linda Bollea. Seems like only yesterday but it was January 23, 2003 that we were at the Pepsi Arena watching Mr. Hogan knock out Vince McMahon with a single punch to the delight of thousands at the WWE Smackdown! Remember? Hopefully Ms. Hulkster’s legal fees will be a tad shy of a half a million. Of course all this demonstrates that the amount and duration of maintenance is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. the judge, and there are really no guidelines that one can safely cite to a client to determine the true outcome after trial. Like they say, the weird turn pro.
So, what little baubles does the Second Departments give us this summer? Well how about our old friend the Child Support Standards Act. As the Third Department told us last month, if there is not an adequate recitation of what the CSSA standards would be for child support and the reason for any deviation, then an agreement is null and void[i], or not null and void[ii]. Got it? Well, in Cimons v. Cimons[iii] everyone agreed that the opting out provisions did not comply with the statute and needed to be set aside, but what about the agreement to pay for college education? Does that get thrown out with the baby’s bath water too? Apparently not, as it is discretionary to award educational expenses and such awards are not pro rated like the other “add ons” of uninsured health and child care.[iv] Since educational obligations are not connected to basic child support, they are enforceable even if the other provisions are not.
Speaking of the Child Support Standards Act, the Second Department in Uriarte v. Ippolito[v], joined the Third Department for a change in holding that a parent need not use in-service providers when seeking reimbursement for uninsured health related expenses. Of course, no tip of the hat to the Third Department’s Wetherby[vi] case of a few months prior, as though they thought it up all by themselves.
The Second Department also answered the burning question of whether payments of maintenance to a mother by a father should be included in her income when determining the amount of child support she has to pay the custodial father. I thought it was quite novel of the mother to suggest that she had no income for the support of the bambino even though she was receiving $100,000 per year in maintenance. You see, the child moved in with dad after the divorce, but of course that had no effect on his maintenance obligation to her. Income is income saith the Second Department so her maintenance money was fair game for the child support percentages. Krukenkamp v. Krukenkamp.[vii] Here’s where the math gets a little squirrely however, as the Second Department tells us it was inappropriate to apply the percentage of 17% above the statutory $80,000 cap because (a) dad earns a lot more than she does and (b) she has to support other family members. Putting aside for a moment whether these are valid reasons to cap the support obligation, the Second Department set the support at $338 per week without explanation how they came up with that peculiar amount. By my calculations that is $17,565 per year or the support obligation of a person earning about $106,000! I’ve known for years that the bean counters downstate are different from the bean counters up here, but I thought mathematics was a more objective standard. I’m dying to see how they came up with that sum, but being the Second Department they don’t tell us. It’s just one of life’s mysteries, I guess, like the Eleusian Mysteries. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Happy New Zealand Fathers Day, all you Kiwis.
[i] Usenza v. Swift, 52 A.D.3rd 876 (3rd Dept., 2008)
[ii] Groesbeck v. Groesbeck, 52 A.D.3rd 903 (3rd dept., 2008)
[iii] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., June 17, 2008)
[iv] Domestic Relations Law Section 240(1-b)(c)(4) and (5)
[v] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 12, 2008)
[vi] 50 A.D.3rd 1226 (2008)
[vii] __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 5, 2008).
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Caps and Clowns
"This marriage is forever. We have a foundation of love and honesty and respect, and we're a real team. Peter is the greatest father, so involved. He's our Rock of Gibraltar." Christie Brinkley, Good Housekeeping, July, 2004.
“Once we got together, we knew it was meant to be." Peter Cook, People Weekly, January 9, 1995.
“Easy is an adjective used to describe a woman who has the sexual morals of a man.” Nancy Linn-Desmond
“If you’re only going to have ten rules, I don’t know if adultery should be one of them.” Ted Turner
It’s been a tough month. What with the loss of U. Utah Phillips, the Golden Voice of the Great Southwest and the beloved clown of my childhood. No not Jesse Helms. Bozo, of course. But the real loss was the death of Tom Brown, the former president of the Albany County Bar Association, state assemblyman, and the former Fordham Flash as a top distance runner for CBA and Fordham University. All this was before I met Mr. Brown when I was toiling as a young insurance defense lawyer in downtown Albany. For the next thirty years I knew him as a capable trial attorney, a man of his word, a friend to all and a true gentleman. I often rail about the lack of civility among lawyers and sometimes members of the judiciary. I just wish everyone could have spent time with a Tom Brown to see how a real lawyer is supposed to act. He was always interested in me and a slew of other young lawyers, and he couldn’t pass you in the hall or even a running race without some word of encouragement. I wish we had more of the Tom Browns of the world in our courthouses. The practice of law was a lot sweeter with him around.
Did you catch the latest issue of the Journal of Human Resources? In case you missed it, there’s a nifty article called The Effect of Marital Breakup on the Income Distribution of Women with Children by Elizabeth Ananat and Guy Michaels. Their conclusion? “Having a female firstborn child significantly increases the probability that a woman’s first marriage breaks up.” So the next time someone asks you the cause of divorce, lay that one on them. They also conclude that divorce has little mean effect on women’s mean household income. Some win, and some lose, but inequality and poverty often result. This is clearly contrary to the studies of a few decades ago showing decreased economic circumstances in women of divorce. .Similar results were found by Kelly Bedard and Olivier Deschenes in the same journal in their study Sex Preferences, Marital Dissolution, and the Economic Status of Women. Overall they found that women who divorce have greater household income than women who never divorce. Makes you wonder about the impact of the CSSA and similar state laws on the economics of divorce.
I was pondering all this when I read about the fate of David Bean in his trip to the Appellate Division, Third Department. In a case decided on July 3[1], our beloved App Div decided once and for all the burning question of the day: At what point should a court stop applying the CSSA percentages to high income taxpayers? After all, above the $80,000 “cap” it becomes a game of needs versus income and at some point Little Johnny doesn’t need any more money for child support, does he? Eventually it becomes Asset Reallocation, Blood Money, Bimbo Ransom, Freedom Juice, or what have you. It certainly has nothing to do with needs of children. Just how high is this number? After all, the Court of Appeals told us in Cassano[2] that “The stated basis for an exercise of discretion to apply the formula to income over $80,000 should, in sum and substance, reflect both that the court has carefully considered the parties' circumstances and that it has found no reason why there should be a departure from the prescribed percentage.” Ok, I understand. But “careful consideration of the parties’ circumstances” is in the eye of the beholder, and Mr. Bean’s bean muscles must have tightened a little when the trial justice in Albany County held that 17% of his entire $1,000,000 income is an appropriate support amount after due consideration of the aforesaid circumstances. Re-considering the circumstances of the case My Favorite Appellate Division reduced Beanie’s child support nut to a mere $7,083.33 per month or a mere 17% of $500,000 of daddy’s income. I bet that was a relief! You’ve got to hand it to the Third Department, they sure do have a sense of humor. So, the next time a court suggests that the cap should phase out at some ethereal point such as the legislative suggestion of $130,000, slide the Bean case under the Support Magistrate’s nose as an example of true grit by the Oracles of the Fifth Floor. Don’t be a piker here. Go for the gold. Did I mention the maintenance award, by the way? Forget deducting it from income before applying the percentages. No siree. How about reducing the trial court’s award to a mere $20,000 per month until the equitable distribution is paid and then just $15,000 per month until death or remarriage, i.e. for life. Hardly enough to keep body and soul together, when coupled with the equitable distribution award of God knows how much. As they say in Germany, Arbeit macht das Leben süß, or “keep paying Mr. Bean, because your son and former wife need to be among those whose household incomes just might have increased post divorce.” I daresay the Bean award will offset several hundred thousand awards of $25 per month in poverty households to keep that mean income of divorced women really, really, high. Take that Ms. Anant and Mr. Michaels!
Finally, what is so rare as a day in June[3], other than a matrimonial decision from our beloved Court of Appeals. It must have given the plaintiff husband the Heebie Jeebies when the Court of Appeals granted leave in spite of the Second Department’s unanimous decision in Mesholam v. Mesholam.[4] After all, the Court of Appeals had already given its pro-husband decision of the century in Spencer, and this was decades before the next one is scheduled. At issue here was the valuation date for equitable distribution. The parties were married in 1969 and in 1994 the wife sued but ultimately discontinued her divorce action against the husband. However, the parties never reconciled. In 1999 the husband sued for divorce, and asserted that the “equitable” thing to do would be to use the 1994 date for valuation of his pension. Domestic Relations Law Section 236B(4)(b) states that “The valuation date or dates may be anytime from the date of commencement of the action to the date of trial.” The Court of Appeals held that the prior discontinued action cannot be the date of commencement and threw the additional five years of Mr. Mesholam’s pension into the marital estate. They did remand however, so perhaps the court can fashion an “equitable” award that uses the later valuation date and provides the wife with something less than 50% of the assets. After all, equitable does not necessarily mean equal, does it?
Fröhliche Schweizer Bundesfeier for all my Swiss friends, or for you Romansch fans, Happy Fiasta Naziunala Svizra.
[1]__ A.D.3d __ (3rd Dept., 2008)
[2] 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995)
[3] With apologies to Robert Russell Lowell, for all you American Romantic Poetry fans, like me.
[4] __ N.Y.3rd __ (June 26, 2008) reversing 25 A.D.2nd 670 (2nd Dept., 2006)
“Once we got together, we knew it was meant to be." Peter Cook, People Weekly, January 9, 1995.
“Easy is an adjective used to describe a woman who has the sexual morals of a man.” Nancy Linn-Desmond
“If you’re only going to have ten rules, I don’t know if adultery should be one of them.” Ted Turner
It’s been a tough month. What with the loss of U. Utah Phillips, the Golden Voice of the Great Southwest and the beloved clown of my childhood. No not Jesse Helms. Bozo, of course. But the real loss was the death of Tom Brown, the former president of the Albany County Bar Association, state assemblyman, and the former Fordham Flash as a top distance runner for CBA and Fordham University. All this was before I met Mr. Brown when I was toiling as a young insurance defense lawyer in downtown Albany. For the next thirty years I knew him as a capable trial attorney, a man of his word, a friend to all and a true gentleman. I often rail about the lack of civility among lawyers and sometimes members of the judiciary. I just wish everyone could have spent time with a Tom Brown to see how a real lawyer is supposed to act. He was always interested in me and a slew of other young lawyers, and he couldn’t pass you in the hall or even a running race without some word of encouragement. I wish we had more of the Tom Browns of the world in our courthouses. The practice of law was a lot sweeter with him around.
Did you catch the latest issue of the Journal of Human Resources? In case you missed it, there’s a nifty article called The Effect of Marital Breakup on the Income Distribution of Women with Children by Elizabeth Ananat and Guy Michaels. Their conclusion? “Having a female firstborn child significantly increases the probability that a woman’s first marriage breaks up.” So the next time someone asks you the cause of divorce, lay that one on them. They also conclude that divorce has little mean effect on women’s mean household income. Some win, and some lose, but inequality and poverty often result. This is clearly contrary to the studies of a few decades ago showing decreased economic circumstances in women of divorce. .Similar results were found by Kelly Bedard and Olivier Deschenes in the same journal in their study Sex Preferences, Marital Dissolution, and the Economic Status of Women. Overall they found that women who divorce have greater household income than women who never divorce. Makes you wonder about the impact of the CSSA and similar state laws on the economics of divorce.
I was pondering all this when I read about the fate of David Bean in his trip to the Appellate Division, Third Department. In a case decided on July 3[1], our beloved App Div decided once and for all the burning question of the day: At what point should a court stop applying the CSSA percentages to high income taxpayers? After all, above the $80,000 “cap” it becomes a game of needs versus income and at some point Little Johnny doesn’t need any more money for child support, does he? Eventually it becomes Asset Reallocation, Blood Money, Bimbo Ransom, Freedom Juice, or what have you. It certainly has nothing to do with needs of children. Just how high is this number? After all, the Court of Appeals told us in Cassano[2] that “The stated basis for an exercise of discretion to apply the formula to income over $80,000 should, in sum and substance, reflect both that the court has carefully considered the parties' circumstances and that it has found no reason why there should be a departure from the prescribed percentage.” Ok, I understand. But “careful consideration of the parties’ circumstances” is in the eye of the beholder, and Mr. Bean’s bean muscles must have tightened a little when the trial justice in Albany County held that 17% of his entire $1,000,000 income is an appropriate support amount after due consideration of the aforesaid circumstances. Re-considering the circumstances of the case My Favorite Appellate Division reduced Beanie’s child support nut to a mere $7,083.33 per month or a mere 17% of $500,000 of daddy’s income. I bet that was a relief! You’ve got to hand it to the Third Department, they sure do have a sense of humor. So, the next time a court suggests that the cap should phase out at some ethereal point such as the legislative suggestion of $130,000, slide the Bean case under the Support Magistrate’s nose as an example of true grit by the Oracles of the Fifth Floor. Don’t be a piker here. Go for the gold. Did I mention the maintenance award, by the way? Forget deducting it from income before applying the percentages. No siree. How about reducing the trial court’s award to a mere $20,000 per month until the equitable distribution is paid and then just $15,000 per month until death or remarriage, i.e. for life. Hardly enough to keep body and soul together, when coupled with the equitable distribution award of God knows how much. As they say in Germany, Arbeit macht das Leben süß, or “keep paying Mr. Bean, because your son and former wife need to be among those whose household incomes just might have increased post divorce.” I daresay the Bean award will offset several hundred thousand awards of $25 per month in poverty households to keep that mean income of divorced women really, really, high. Take that Ms. Anant and Mr. Michaels!
Finally, what is so rare as a day in June[3], other than a matrimonial decision from our beloved Court of Appeals. It must have given the plaintiff husband the Heebie Jeebies when the Court of Appeals granted leave in spite of the Second Department’s unanimous decision in Mesholam v. Mesholam.[4] After all, the Court of Appeals had already given its pro-husband decision of the century in Spencer, and this was decades before the next one is scheduled. At issue here was the valuation date for equitable distribution. The parties were married in 1969 and in 1994 the wife sued but ultimately discontinued her divorce action against the husband. However, the parties never reconciled. In 1999 the husband sued for divorce, and asserted that the “equitable” thing to do would be to use the 1994 date for valuation of his pension. Domestic Relations Law Section 236B(4)(b) states that “The valuation date or dates may be anytime from the date of commencement of the action to the date of trial.” The Court of Appeals held that the prior discontinued action cannot be the date of commencement and threw the additional five years of Mr. Mesholam’s pension into the marital estate. They did remand however, so perhaps the court can fashion an “equitable” award that uses the later valuation date and provides the wife with something less than 50% of the assets. After all, equitable does not necessarily mean equal, does it?
Fröhliche Schweizer Bundesfeier for all my Swiss friends, or for you Romansch fans, Happy Fiasta Naziunala Svizra.
[1]__ A.D.3d __ (3rd Dept., 2008)
[2] 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995)
[3] With apologies to Robert Russell Lowell, for all you American Romantic Poetry fans, like me.
[4] __ N.Y.3rd __ (June 26, 2008) reversing 25 A.D.2nd 670 (2nd Dept., 2006)
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Anger Management and Client Pandering
"If you ain't got no money, ain't nobody calls you honey.” The great Bo Diddley (1928-2008)
“Divorced men are more likely to meet their car payments than their child support obligations.” Susan Faludi
“Conrad Hilton was very generous to me in the divorce settlement. He gave me 5000 Gideon Bibles.” Sári E. Gábor aka Zsa Zsa Gabor
Sometimes you’re mad as hell, and you’re just not going to take it anymore.[1] Maybe it’s the tenth application to sanction you in the year, or the judge who denies your request for an adjournment, or the adversary who sends your answer back because it is served a few days late. Then an application comes in for some kind of relief and you spew forth a venomous ad hominem attack that best belongs in the recycle bin on your desktop computer. It’s not easy being a matrimonial lawyer, and sometimes you get justifiably a little frustrated with the whole thing. But resist you must, lest you demean the practice, your client or yourself. No such restraint affected Cal Dunlap of Reno, Nevada last month when the Governor of the Sagebrush State made an application for a no fault divorce and a sealed record so he and First Lady Teresa Dawn Snelling Gibbons could get on with more important issues like support, equitable distribution and who gets to occupy the Governor’s Mansion. You know, the usual stuff. When Governor Gibbons sued on the grounds of incompatibility, Barrister Dunlap asked for a Bill of Particulars! In response to the divorce application, Mr. Dunlop made public a 33 page motion with the following denoted “facts”:[2] “After more than twenty years of marriage, the Plaintiff has deserted, abandoned, and has shunned his wife without justification for that behavior…despite his disingenuous, shallow, and transparent protestations that his relationship with another man’s wife is a mere friendship, his infatuation and involvement with the other woman is the real, concealed and undisclosed reason for his voluntary departure from the marriage and from the Mansion where he occasionally resided…his castaway wife, by the actions of the Plaintiff, was not even given an opportunity to be heard, on the secrecy issue, while his handlers, spinmeisters and staff wittingly, or unwittingly, as his tools, mislead the Public in vain attempts to preserve the marginal favorable Public Opinion regarding him that might still exist.” You get the gist. After saying “lust is the real villain here”, he called the Plaintiff “one of the most if not the most scandal ridden Governor in the history of this State.” Then Cal called his client the “poster child” of why trials should be made public. Does anyone think this is effective advocacy, or is the sideshow more important than the merits, hoping against hope that the public excoriation of a litigant will engender a more favorable offer to resolve this mess? If the latter, then the attorney has stepped over the line, and the pandering to the client or the press in anything other than a cogent argument for specific relief should be met with some judicial or public rebuke. And just who is Mr. Dunlap? A former prosecutor who was named Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2007 by the Nevada Justice Association. Whoopee. He also once held a fundraiser featuring women in negligees and swimsuits. When asked if there was some legitimate criticism of his motion papers, he said, “I suspect some who are critical of me are politically aligned with Governor Gibbons.” Not me Cal, I never voted for him in my life. It did remind me of a matter I had involving a public figure a few decades ago, where the plaintiff’s lawyer requested and received a jury trial in spite of my withdrawal of any opposition to the fault ground on the record. That was also a pleasant experience for all involved, especially the two young children.
Oh well, on to more important things, like my friends at the Unified Court System. To make it much easier on us, they have developed an online database of quick and easy forms we can download for Family Court and Divorce matters.[3] Very nice of those chaps indeed. So the other day when I resolved a violation petition I checked in and tried to download Form 4-12b, aka Order of Disposition (Violation of Support Order). Try it yourselves if you like. The only thing that you get is a Petition form dating to 2007. Can’t say they don’t have a sense of humor.
Let’s see what our beloved Third Department has taught us theses days. They definitively determined whether someone can challenge the propriety of an unappealed support order years after it has been in place within the context of a violation proceeding. In Matter of Groesbeck v. Groesbeck,[4] they wrote, “Having failed to appeal from all prior orders setting forth his child support obligation, respondent’s attack on the propriety of those orders in the context of this proceeding is nor properly before us.” OK, I got it, thanks. That same day, the Third Department decided Matter of Usenza v. Swift,[5] where a father failed to appeal from his prior support order but attacked its propriety in a violation proceeding a year or so later. Surprise, surprise, a completely different determination holding, “the father’s failure to raise this defect by way of a timely objection to the July 2005 order is not fatal.” Even though a years old consent order was never appealed since it was by consent and there were no findings required, the old order was set aside since the “findings” did NOT say the parties were advised of “all of the relevant provisions of the CSSA” although the guidelines amount was stated on the record and there was no drivel that “the application of the statute would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded.” I daresay most of the consent orders in New York do not have these provisions in findings of fact. Therefore the original order was declared unenforceable, allowing the father to skip on all his support obligations for years as there can be no enforcement or violation proceedings. They remanded it to determine his modification proceeding, but if I was him I’d withdraw that one before you can say, “res judicata.” Then he owes nothing until Mom gets herself to the courthouse, but by then he has skipped out on oodles of past due support. So if you are really clever, try to skirt the CSSA guidelines for opting out and have your client not pay for as long as possible because the order is unenforceable and of course hope that you get the right five judges on the Appellate Division when the thing comes up for review. Of the eleven different judges now on the court, the five who decided Groesbeck are different from the five who decided Usenza. Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Finally kudos to another former First Lady, Dina Matos McGreevey, who is having her own widely publicized divorce from the former Governor of the Garden State. She has just made an application for temporary support saying she needs a mere $51,000 per month to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. How does she get there? Well, a mere $8,000 per month for a guard and a secretary for starters, and $17k for household help of course. These figures came from her CPA expert Kalman Barson, who also said the governor’s celebrity goodwill status was worth $1.5 million. Countering this of course was a “celebrity goodwill” expert Sharyn Maggio who said it was worth bupkes. I now know what I want to be when I grow up: Celebrity Goodwill Expert.
Happy Bastille Day.
[1] Network, Howard Beale’s (Peter Finch) delicious rant of 1976.
[2] You can find the whole distasteful thing here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/30/us/final_gibbons_motion.pdf
[3] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/forms/familycourt/childsupport.shtml
[4] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
[5] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
“Divorced men are more likely to meet their car payments than their child support obligations.” Susan Faludi
“Conrad Hilton was very generous to me in the divorce settlement. He gave me 5000 Gideon Bibles.” Sári E. Gábor aka Zsa Zsa Gabor
Sometimes you’re mad as hell, and you’re just not going to take it anymore.[1] Maybe it’s the tenth application to sanction you in the year, or the judge who denies your request for an adjournment, or the adversary who sends your answer back because it is served a few days late. Then an application comes in for some kind of relief and you spew forth a venomous ad hominem attack that best belongs in the recycle bin on your desktop computer. It’s not easy being a matrimonial lawyer, and sometimes you get justifiably a little frustrated with the whole thing. But resist you must, lest you demean the practice, your client or yourself. No such restraint affected Cal Dunlap of Reno, Nevada last month when the Governor of the Sagebrush State made an application for a no fault divorce and a sealed record so he and First Lady Teresa Dawn Snelling Gibbons could get on with more important issues like support, equitable distribution and who gets to occupy the Governor’s Mansion. You know, the usual stuff. When Governor Gibbons sued on the grounds of incompatibility, Barrister Dunlap asked for a Bill of Particulars! In response to the divorce application, Mr. Dunlop made public a 33 page motion with the following denoted “facts”:[2] “After more than twenty years of marriage, the Plaintiff has deserted, abandoned, and has shunned his wife without justification for that behavior…despite his disingenuous, shallow, and transparent protestations that his relationship with another man’s wife is a mere friendship, his infatuation and involvement with the other woman is the real, concealed and undisclosed reason for his voluntary departure from the marriage and from the Mansion where he occasionally resided…his castaway wife, by the actions of the Plaintiff, was not even given an opportunity to be heard, on the secrecy issue, while his handlers, spinmeisters and staff wittingly, or unwittingly, as his tools, mislead the Public in vain attempts to preserve the marginal favorable Public Opinion regarding him that might still exist.” You get the gist. After saying “lust is the real villain here”, he called the Plaintiff “one of the most if not the most scandal ridden Governor in the history of this State.” Then Cal called his client the “poster child” of why trials should be made public. Does anyone think this is effective advocacy, or is the sideshow more important than the merits, hoping against hope that the public excoriation of a litigant will engender a more favorable offer to resolve this mess? If the latter, then the attorney has stepped over the line, and the pandering to the client or the press in anything other than a cogent argument for specific relief should be met with some judicial or public rebuke. And just who is Mr. Dunlap? A former prosecutor who was named Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2007 by the Nevada Justice Association. Whoopee. He also once held a fundraiser featuring women in negligees and swimsuits. When asked if there was some legitimate criticism of his motion papers, he said, “I suspect some who are critical of me are politically aligned with Governor Gibbons.” Not me Cal, I never voted for him in my life. It did remind me of a matter I had involving a public figure a few decades ago, where the plaintiff’s lawyer requested and received a jury trial in spite of my withdrawal of any opposition to the fault ground on the record. That was also a pleasant experience for all involved, especially the two young children.
Oh well, on to more important things, like my friends at the Unified Court System. To make it much easier on us, they have developed an online database of quick and easy forms we can download for Family Court and Divorce matters.[3] Very nice of those chaps indeed. So the other day when I resolved a violation petition I checked in and tried to download Form 4-12b, aka Order of Disposition (Violation of Support Order). Try it yourselves if you like. The only thing that you get is a Petition form dating to 2007. Can’t say they don’t have a sense of humor.
Let’s see what our beloved Third Department has taught us theses days. They definitively determined whether someone can challenge the propriety of an unappealed support order years after it has been in place within the context of a violation proceeding. In Matter of Groesbeck v. Groesbeck,[4] they wrote, “Having failed to appeal from all prior orders setting forth his child support obligation, respondent’s attack on the propriety of those orders in the context of this proceeding is nor properly before us.” OK, I got it, thanks. That same day, the Third Department decided Matter of Usenza v. Swift,[5] where a father failed to appeal from his prior support order but attacked its propriety in a violation proceeding a year or so later. Surprise, surprise, a completely different determination holding, “the father’s failure to raise this defect by way of a timely objection to the July 2005 order is not fatal.” Even though a years old consent order was never appealed since it was by consent and there were no findings required, the old order was set aside since the “findings” did NOT say the parties were advised of “all of the relevant provisions of the CSSA” although the guidelines amount was stated on the record and there was no drivel that “the application of the statute would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded.” I daresay most of the consent orders in New York do not have these provisions in findings of fact. Therefore the original order was declared unenforceable, allowing the father to skip on all his support obligations for years as there can be no enforcement or violation proceedings. They remanded it to determine his modification proceeding, but if I was him I’d withdraw that one before you can say, “res judicata.” Then he owes nothing until Mom gets herself to the courthouse, but by then he has skipped out on oodles of past due support. So if you are really clever, try to skirt the CSSA guidelines for opting out and have your client not pay for as long as possible because the order is unenforceable and of course hope that you get the right five judges on the Appellate Division when the thing comes up for review. Of the eleven different judges now on the court, the five who decided Groesbeck are different from the five who decided Usenza. Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Finally kudos to another former First Lady, Dina Matos McGreevey, who is having her own widely publicized divorce from the former Governor of the Garden State. She has just made an application for temporary support saying she needs a mere $51,000 per month to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. How does she get there? Well, a mere $8,000 per month for a guard and a secretary for starters, and $17k for household help of course. These figures came from her CPA expert Kalman Barson, who also said the governor’s celebrity goodwill status was worth $1.5 million. Countering this of course was a “celebrity goodwill” expert Sharyn Maggio who said it was worth bupkes. I now know what I want to be when I grow up: Celebrity Goodwill Expert.
Happy Bastille Day.
[1] Network, Howard Beale’s (Peter Finch) delicious rant of 1976.
[2] You can find the whole distasteful thing here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/30/us/final_gibbons_motion.pdf
[3] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/forms/familycourt/childsupport.shtml
[4] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
[5] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Parental Access Guidelines (Visitation) in New York
When you talk to matrimonial lawyers in other states, they marvel at our peculiar practices. Fault divorces, let alone jury trials for fault divorces, always raise an eyebrow or two. Then you explain about enhanced earnings,[1] child support to age 21 including college contributions,[2] no recoupment of child support overpayments,[3] double dipping of child support and enhanced earnings[4] and guideline recalculations every two years in spite of agreements to the contrary.[5] No one believes you. So, I was not surprised to learn that other states have more progressive rules about custodial access, known as visitation in the Domestic Relations Law.[6] After all, if there are Child Support Guidelines, why not Parental Access Guidelines?
Our child support guidelines are the product of national child support enforcement regulations, essentially mandating that state legislatures have some standards for the determination of support.[7] There is no such impetus from Congress or the New York Legislature for parental access guidelines. The Melonas Commission and the 2006 Matrimonial Commission[8] did not address this issue among the myriad of suggested reforms. However, other states and municipalities have addressed these issues in an effort to set minimum standards of access and to avoid protracted litigation over such trivial issues as times for pick up and drop off, and standards for telephone access and clothing exchanges. The Third Department determined custodial schedules a few years ago in overruling minimal alternating weekend access in favor of more expanded midweek and full weekend access.[9] However, such cases are few and far between and are often the product of specific circumstances.[10] There are no generally recognized standards for parental access in New York, leaving it to judges to fashion schedules based on their own proclivities, experiences and prejudices. Appellate Courts are loathe to overturn a parental schedule, leaving such awards to the “sound discretion of the trial judges.”[11] At best, visitation schedules are remanded to the trial court to fashion an appropriate schedule.[12] Experts can provide no help as there is little scientific evidence to suggest that trained professionals have the expertise or training to establish parenting schedules.[13]
For the most part, the custodial guidelines of other states grant minimal access to noncustodial parents. In excruciating detail they deal with access for very young children, holidays, telephone calls and clothing exchanges. The Arizona Model Parenting Guidelines[14] breaks it down into three to four year intervals of a child’s life, and all require that the parents live within 150 to 200 miles for significant access. However, most guidelines have an alternating weekend schedule from Friday evening to Sunday evening and a midweek dinner visit. Indiana,[15] Arizona, Oklahoma,[16] Utah,[17] South Dakota,[18] Delaware,[19] and some courts in Mississippi,[20] Ohio,[21] and Florida[22] follow such rules. We have come a long way since the Draconian conclusions of Beyond the Best Interests of the Child,[23] where Goldstein, Freud and Solnit recommended the identification of the psychological parent and the essential disappearance of the other parent. However, in a country of two working parent households, custodial schedules do not mirror the shared parental responsibilities when parents separate. “Traditional” families of working spouse/homemaker spouse are no longer the norm in America. In 1940, 60% of American families had this traditional structure,[24] but the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 62 percent of families with children now have two working parents.[25]
Much judicial energy is spent on litigating access schedules that often have little to do with a child’s best interests. Are there any statistics that show a child does significantly better if the drop off time is 6:00 p.m. Sunday versus Monday morning or if a child spends midweek overnight with the non primary parent? Of course not. Yet these issues are litigated with a vengeance as parents fight for every minute of parenting time in an effort to obtain favorable child support considerations[26] or just to deny access to the offending spouse. Is it not more sensible to have parenting guidelines that try to mirror the child’s contacts with both parents in the intact household, if for no other reason than to limit the needless litigation of these issues that are so important for parents and so insignificant for many children? I am guessing a semester or two of college education expenses are often spent to determine whether there should be a phone call every day at 7:00 p.m. or whether a parent should return a child at 10:00 a.m. or noon on Christmas Day. Any law guardian with more than two weeks experience will tell you that the child’s best interests are served by a settlement of custodial schedules as opposed to a particular date or time for pick up and drop off. I am therefore proposing the following guidelines in the hopes that someday, someway children of separating parents can be spared the needless stress associated with parental access litigation. Maybe then we can start eliminating the useless trials over sole versus joint custody, but I leave that for another day.
I realize that these can only be guidelines, and the actual schedule may have to altered based on working schedules, out of town parents or for very young children. However, I believe this or some semblance thereof should be the “default” schedule for most families in the throes of custodial litigation. This should be the “presumptive” schedule and a parent who wishes to deviate should have to show good cause in the best interests of the child.
Proposed New York Parental Access Guidelines
1. WEEKENDS: Each parent shall have access on alternate weekends from Friday after school or at 3:00 p.m. if there is no school until Monday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the mother/father at 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. If Monday is a school holiday, then access shall end Tuesday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the mother/father at 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. Monday school holidays have precedence over the weekday schedule.
2. WEEKDAY: If both parents worked full time prior to separation, the mother/father shall have access from Monday at 9:00 a.m. until Wednesday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the father/mother 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. Then the father/mother shall have access from Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. until Friday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the father/mother 3:00 p.m. if there is no school. If one parent worked part time or not at all prior to separation, then the full time working parent shall have access every Wednesday after school or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school until Thursday morning when the child shall be brought to school or 9:00 a.m. if there is no school.
3. HOLIDAYS: Holidays shall take precedence of over Weekend and Weekday access. The father shall have the holidays in Column1 n odd-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in the even-numbered years. The mother shall have the children on the holidays in Column 1 in the even-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in odd-numbered years:
Column 1
Column 2
Fourth of July Spring BreakHalloweenChristmas Day
ThanksgivingWinter BreakChristmas Eve
The Fourth of July shall be from 9:00 a.m. on July 4 to 9:00 a.m. on July 5. Halloween shall be October 31 after school or noon if there is no school until November 1 to school or 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. Thanksgiving shall be from the Wednesday before after school or noon if there is no school until the Friday after Thanksgiving at 9:00 a.m. Christmas Eve shall be from noon on December 24 until noon on December 25. Christmas Day shall be from noon on December 25 until noon on December 26. Spring and Winter break shall commence when the child ends school immediately prior to the break until the child enters school following the break.
4. MOTHER'S/FATHER'S DAY: On Mother's Day and Father's Day, the children shall be with the appropriate parent from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. This shall take precedence over weekend access.
5. SUMMER VACATION: Each parent shall have access for two weeks of summer access to be communicated to the other parent in writing on or before April 1 of each year. However, summer vacation shall not abut the regular access. Therefore the child shall not have more than 14 days without seeing the other parent.
6. TELEPHONE/MAIL: Neither parent shall interfere with telephone or mail contact between the children and the other parent.
[1] O’Brien v. O’Brien, 66 N.Y.2nd 576 (1985)
[2] Domestic Relations Law Section 240(1-b)(b)(2)
[3] Annette M.R. v. John W.R., __ A.D.3rd __, 845 N.Y.S.2nd 616 (4th Dept., 2007))
[4] Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3rd 1 (2004)
[5] Tompkins County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 99 N.Y.2nd 328 (2003)
[6] Domestic Relations Law Section 240
[7] Collectively known as the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (CSEA), Pub. L. 98-378, 98 Stat. 1305, amending 42 U.S.C. §§ 657-662.
[8] The full report can be found at http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/matrimonialcommissionreport.pdf
[9] Somerville v. Somerville, 307 A.D.2nd 481 (3rd Dept., 2003); Valentine v. Valentine, 3 A.D.3rd 646 (3rd Dept., 2003).
[10] See the recent case of Vincent v. Anna Tomaino, 848 N.Y.S.2nd 437 (3rd Dept., 2007), where the Third Department overturned a schedule of no overnight visitation as inappropriate.
[11] Thompson v. Yu-Thompson, 41 A.D.3rd 487 (2nd Dept., 2007).
[12] Hugh H. v. Fhara L., 44 A.D.3rd 192 (1st Dept., 2007)
[13] “Should the Mental Health Evaluator Decide child Custody?”, Family Court Review, May 2005 and "Empirical and Ethical Problems with Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance," Family Court Review of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts by Professor Timothy Tippins and Jeffrey Wittmann, Ph.D.
[14] http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/Pdf/Parenting_Time_Plan_Final.pdf
[15] http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/parenting/
[16] http://www.oscn.net/forms/aoc_form/adobe/Form.76.pdf
[17] http://www.divorcenet.com/states/utah/ut_art01
[18] http://www.sdjudicial.com/index.asp?title=sharing_parental_guidelines&category=public_info&nav=91
[19] http://courts.state.de.us/How%20To/Custody%20and%20Visitation/?visitation.htm
[20] http://15thchancerydistrictms.org/images/visitation%20guidelines.pdf
[21] http://domestic.cuyahogacounty.us/Rules/Rule18.htm
[22] http://www.jud6.org/ContactInformation/familyLaw/non%20primary%20res%20parent%20visitation%20sched%202001.pdf
[23] The Free Press, 1972
[24] Economic Policy Foundation, "American Workplace: Labor Day 1997 Report; Bureau of Labor Statistics
[25] “Trends in Labor Force Participation of Married Mothers of Infants.” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, February, 2007.
[26] Somerville v. Somerville, 5 A.D.3rd 878 (3rd Dept., 2004)
Our child support guidelines are the product of national child support enforcement regulations, essentially mandating that state legislatures have some standards for the determination of support.[7] There is no such impetus from Congress or the New York Legislature for parental access guidelines. The Melonas Commission and the 2006 Matrimonial Commission[8] did not address this issue among the myriad of suggested reforms. However, other states and municipalities have addressed these issues in an effort to set minimum standards of access and to avoid protracted litigation over such trivial issues as times for pick up and drop off, and standards for telephone access and clothing exchanges. The Third Department determined custodial schedules a few years ago in overruling minimal alternating weekend access in favor of more expanded midweek and full weekend access.[9] However, such cases are few and far between and are often the product of specific circumstances.[10] There are no generally recognized standards for parental access in New York, leaving it to judges to fashion schedules based on their own proclivities, experiences and prejudices. Appellate Courts are loathe to overturn a parental schedule, leaving such awards to the “sound discretion of the trial judges.”[11] At best, visitation schedules are remanded to the trial court to fashion an appropriate schedule.[12] Experts can provide no help as there is little scientific evidence to suggest that trained professionals have the expertise or training to establish parenting schedules.[13]
For the most part, the custodial guidelines of other states grant minimal access to noncustodial parents. In excruciating detail they deal with access for very young children, holidays, telephone calls and clothing exchanges. The Arizona Model Parenting Guidelines[14] breaks it down into three to four year intervals of a child’s life, and all require that the parents live within 150 to 200 miles for significant access. However, most guidelines have an alternating weekend schedule from Friday evening to Sunday evening and a midweek dinner visit. Indiana,[15] Arizona, Oklahoma,[16] Utah,[17] South Dakota,[18] Delaware,[19] and some courts in Mississippi,[20] Ohio,[21] and Florida[22] follow such rules. We have come a long way since the Draconian conclusions of Beyond the Best Interests of the Child,[23] where Goldstein, Freud and Solnit recommended the identification of the psychological parent and the essential disappearance of the other parent. However, in a country of two working parent households, custodial schedules do not mirror the shared parental responsibilities when parents separate. “Traditional” families of working spouse/homemaker spouse are no longer the norm in America. In 1940, 60% of American families had this traditional structure,[24] but the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 62 percent of families with children now have two working parents.[25]
Much judicial energy is spent on litigating access schedules that often have little to do with a child’s best interests. Are there any statistics that show a child does significantly better if the drop off time is 6:00 p.m. Sunday versus Monday morning or if a child spends midweek overnight with the non primary parent? Of course not. Yet these issues are litigated with a vengeance as parents fight for every minute of parenting time in an effort to obtain favorable child support considerations[26] or just to deny access to the offending spouse. Is it not more sensible to have parenting guidelines that try to mirror the child’s contacts with both parents in the intact household, if for no other reason than to limit the needless litigation of these issues that are so important for parents and so insignificant for many children? I am guessing a semester or two of college education expenses are often spent to determine whether there should be a phone call every day at 7:00 p.m. or whether a parent should return a child at 10:00 a.m. or noon on Christmas Day. Any law guardian with more than two weeks experience will tell you that the child’s best interests are served by a settlement of custodial schedules as opposed to a particular date or time for pick up and drop off. I am therefore proposing the following guidelines in the hopes that someday, someway children of separating parents can be spared the needless stress associated with parental access litigation. Maybe then we can start eliminating the useless trials over sole versus joint custody, but I leave that for another day.
I realize that these can only be guidelines, and the actual schedule may have to altered based on working schedules, out of town parents or for very young children. However, I believe this or some semblance thereof should be the “default” schedule for most families in the throes of custodial litigation. This should be the “presumptive” schedule and a parent who wishes to deviate should have to show good cause in the best interests of the child.
Proposed New York Parental Access Guidelines
1. WEEKENDS: Each parent shall have access on alternate weekends from Friday after school or at 3:00 p.m. if there is no school until Monday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the mother/father at 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. If Monday is a school holiday, then access shall end Tuesday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the mother/father at 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. Monday school holidays have precedence over the weekday schedule.
2. WEEKDAY: If both parents worked full time prior to separation, the mother/father shall have access from Monday at 9:00 a.m. until Wednesday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the father/mother 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. Then the father/mother shall have access from Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. until Friday morning when the child shall be brought to school or to the father/mother 3:00 p.m. if there is no school. If one parent worked part time or not at all prior to separation, then the full time working parent shall have access every Wednesday after school or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school until Thursday morning when the child shall be brought to school or 9:00 a.m. if there is no school.
3. HOLIDAYS: Holidays shall take precedence of over Weekend and Weekday access. The father shall have the holidays in Column1 n odd-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in the even-numbered years. The mother shall have the children on the holidays in Column 1 in the even-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in odd-numbered years:
Column 1
Column 2
Fourth of July Spring BreakHalloweenChristmas Day
ThanksgivingWinter BreakChristmas Eve
The Fourth of July shall be from 9:00 a.m. on July 4 to 9:00 a.m. on July 5. Halloween shall be October 31 after school or noon if there is no school until November 1 to school or 9:00 a.m. if there is no school. Thanksgiving shall be from the Wednesday before after school or noon if there is no school until the Friday after Thanksgiving at 9:00 a.m. Christmas Eve shall be from noon on December 24 until noon on December 25. Christmas Day shall be from noon on December 25 until noon on December 26. Spring and Winter break shall commence when the child ends school immediately prior to the break until the child enters school following the break.
4. MOTHER'S/FATHER'S DAY: On Mother's Day and Father's Day, the children shall be with the appropriate parent from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. This shall take precedence over weekend access.
5. SUMMER VACATION: Each parent shall have access for two weeks of summer access to be communicated to the other parent in writing on or before April 1 of each year. However, summer vacation shall not abut the regular access. Therefore the child shall not have more than 14 days without seeing the other parent.
6. TELEPHONE/MAIL: Neither parent shall interfere with telephone or mail contact between the children and the other parent.
[1] O’Brien v. O’Brien, 66 N.Y.2nd 576 (1985)
[2] Domestic Relations Law Section 240(1-b)(b)(2)
[3] Annette M.R. v. John W.R., __ A.D.3rd __, 845 N.Y.S.2nd 616 (4th Dept., 2007))
[4] Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3rd 1 (2004)
[5] Tompkins County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 99 N.Y.2nd 328 (2003)
[6] Domestic Relations Law Section 240
[7] Collectively known as the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (CSEA), Pub. L. 98-378, 98 Stat. 1305, amending 42 U.S.C. §§ 657-662.
[8] The full report can be found at http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/matrimonialcommissionreport.pdf
[9] Somerville v. Somerville, 307 A.D.2nd 481 (3rd Dept., 2003); Valentine v. Valentine, 3 A.D.3rd 646 (3rd Dept., 2003).
[10] See the recent case of Vincent v. Anna Tomaino, 848 N.Y.S.2nd 437 (3rd Dept., 2007), where the Third Department overturned a schedule of no overnight visitation as inappropriate.
[11] Thompson v. Yu-Thompson, 41 A.D.3rd 487 (2nd Dept., 2007).
[12] Hugh H. v. Fhara L., 44 A.D.3rd 192 (1st Dept., 2007)
[13] “Should the Mental Health Evaluator Decide child Custody?”, Family Court Review, May 2005 and "Empirical and Ethical Problems with Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance," Family Court Review of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts by Professor Timothy Tippins and Jeffrey Wittmann, Ph.D.
[14] http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/Pdf/Parenting_Time_Plan_Final.pdf
[15] http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/parenting/
[16] http://www.oscn.net/forms/aoc_form/adobe/Form.76.pdf
[17] http://www.divorcenet.com/states/utah/ut_art01
[18] http://www.sdjudicial.com/index.asp?title=sharing_parental_guidelines&category=public_info&nav=91
[19] http://courts.state.de.us/How%20To/Custody%20and%20Visitation/?visitation.htm
[20] http://15thchancerydistrictms.org/images/visitation%20guidelines.pdf
[21] http://domestic.cuyahogacounty.us/Rules/Rule18.htm
[22] http://www.jud6.org/ContactInformation/familyLaw/non%20primary%20res%20parent%20visitation%20sched%202001.pdf
[23] The Free Press, 1972
[24] Economic Policy Foundation, "American Workplace: Labor Day 1997 Report; Bureau of Labor Statistics
[25] “Trends in Labor Force Participation of Married Mothers of Infants.” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, February, 2007.
[26] Somerville v. Somerville, 5 A.D.3rd 878 (3rd Dept., 2004)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Heather Mills: The Gold Standard of Need
“The old theory was marry an older man, because they're more mature. But the new theory is: Men don't mature. Marry a younger one." Rita Rudner
“The trouble with my wife is that she is a whore in the kitchen and a cook in bed”
Geoffrey Gorer (1905-1985), Anthropologist
“A lot of guys think the larger a woman's breasts are, the less intelligent she is. I think the larger a woman's breasts are, the less intelligent the men become.” Anita Wise
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.[i] Really. After all, where can you claim that one cannot possibly make ends meet for child support and maintenance on a tad over $7,485,000 per year? Why jolly old London of course. Next time you are filling out that silly Statement of Net Worth form so favored by the wonks at OCA, think of dear Heather Mills, the Gold Standard of needs and wants. After all, I often say that no one costs more to feed than the clients of one of our favorite downtown Albany law firms, but even they are pikers compared to the modest and demure Ms. Mills. Just how do you get there? Let’s start with the niggardly sum of $69,000 per year for helicopters for vacations. Or how about the seven full time housekeepers ($128,000) or my personal favorite: just shy of a quarter mil per annum for clothes. Like I say, it’s a wonderful world. Unfortunately, Mr. Justice Bennett wasn’t buying it and awarded her only a fraction of that to keep body and soul together, saying, “If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly overeggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget." Man would I like to see the Third Department write something like that some day. Overegg the pudding?
Into this surrealism wandered Allan Chapin the other day, and the First Department gave us a doozie just in time for Easter.[ii] Do you know him? He’s a former partner in Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the largest law firms in the world, founded in the 19th Century. Of course, he gave up that lucrative gig when his marriage Numero Duo went sour. Who wouldn’t? It seems Mr. Chapin and Ms. Janet Johnson married in the Episcopal Church of Heavenly Rest[iii] in NYC and nine months and one hour later had a bouncing baby boy. Within three years Janet quit her job as a lawyer for the Walt Disney Company (of course) and Allan kept earning about $2.1 million yearly at S&C and after that the investment bankers Lazard Freres & Company. He also had a tidy income from being on a bunch of corporate boards and was an adviser to my beloved Toronto Blue Jays. So, what does such a Captain of Industry do in his spare time? What they all do: renovate a country home in Claverack, New York, a dippy little town in Columbia County best known as the home of Ollie North.[iv] Mr. Chapin owned the farm before he married Ms. Johnson, but sank $1.9 million into the property to increase its value a little less than $1.6 million. What a financial genius. In any event the trial court gave her half the increase which was reduced by the First Department to 25% because of passive appreciation I guess. They do not really explain that rationale, but she did after all order pizza and coffee for the renovation workers. Here’s where things got really squirrelly. It seems that Allan owed his first wife some money pursuant to his divorce judgment, namely $584,000 in maintenance and $690,000 in equitable distribution for a nice total of $1,274,000. Being the good spouse, he paid it all during the marriage to the former Mrs. Chapin. So when it came time for Equitable Distribution, the current Mrs. Chapin aka Janet Johnson made the rather silly argument: “Wait a minute. If he hadn’t paid the $1.2 million to the first Mrs. Chapin, then we would have had an extra $1.2 million in our marital estate. Yeah, I knew about this obligation when I married him, but so what? Give it back to me, or at least half. Please. Pretty please.” Well, Dammit Janet, there’s a fire in their heart and you’ve fanned it. So they reduced Allan’s separate property credits by half or over $600,000 and slid that over to Janet’s half of the equation. Wow!
Remember last week when I asked the First Department to lay off my beloved Third Department when writing a decision that not so respectfully disagreed with their Northerly brethren? Well, maybe they took the article to heart but the venom spilled over their black robes into this decision in the form of the majority opinion and the dissent by Mr. Justice James McGuire, a Pataki gift from Queens to the First Department in 2006. He was joined by Mr. Justice David Friedman, no relation to my learned brother of the same name. Putting aside the snide remarks the majority foisted on the dissenters, the heavily footnoted dissent sent shivers through my spine in its excoriation of the majority, however wrong they may be. Here is a sample: “I respectfully disagree with virtually everything the majority has to say… The majority's assertion that Ms. Costello ‘gave testimony which supported [the wife's] position’ is breathtakingly wrong… Not surprisingly, the majority offers nothing by way of an attempt to respond to any of the points I make regarding its erroneous reliance on the CFO's testimony… The majority does not and cannot dispute this critical fact. Indeed, the majority ignores it.” Boy, I would have loved to be in the room when this baby was argued by the Court. Given the two judge dissent, one can only wonder what magic the Court of Appeals will work with these facts. Did I mention that Allan had to pay $800,000 of Janet’s legal fees? Just slipped my mind I guess. Not bad for a 14 day trial. I really must be doing something wrong.
In any event, aside from the juicy stuff about child support and maintenance, the really novel idea here is to get a credit for half of a spouse’s premarital debt paid during the marriage. How ‘bout them student loans? Pay them during the marriage, and get them back at the end. Dammit, Janet, it really is a wonderful world.
I know the Office of Confused Adults has little money for judicial pay raises and the like, but who came up with the idea to put little numbered labels on everything in the courthouse? Have you noticed that every chair, flag stand, telephone and bauble has a new label with the words “Office of Court Administration, ___ Judicial District, No.___” pasted on the personalty. I wonder if the robes and shoes of the judges have numbered labels. Isn’t there something better these guys can do?
By the way, is the Third Department becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Third Judicial District? We now have four new judges and three are from the Third District giving us 2/3 of the App Div and further depleting our trial bench with the loss of Justice Stein. Can’t the other two districts chip in a judge or two to balance things out? Happy Conch Republic Independence Day, the only place where this all makes sense.
[i] Of course, with a tip of the hat to Bob Thiele aka George Douglas and George David Weiss. Did you know Clear Channel made the song persona non grata just after 9/11?
[ii] Johnson v. Chapman, __ A.D.3rd __ (1st Dept., March 13, 2008)
[iii] For those of you who accuse me of making this stuff up, see The New York Times, January 13, 1991. I’ll lend you my copy.
[iv] The most famous graduate of Ockawamick High School.
“The trouble with my wife is that she is a whore in the kitchen and a cook in bed”
Geoffrey Gorer (1905-1985), Anthropologist
“A lot of guys think the larger a woman's breasts are, the less intelligent she is. I think the larger a woman's breasts are, the less intelligent the men become.” Anita Wise
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.[i] Really. After all, where can you claim that one cannot possibly make ends meet for child support and maintenance on a tad over $7,485,000 per year? Why jolly old London of course. Next time you are filling out that silly Statement of Net Worth form so favored by the wonks at OCA, think of dear Heather Mills, the Gold Standard of needs and wants. After all, I often say that no one costs more to feed than the clients of one of our favorite downtown Albany law firms, but even they are pikers compared to the modest and demure Ms. Mills. Just how do you get there? Let’s start with the niggardly sum of $69,000 per year for helicopters for vacations. Or how about the seven full time housekeepers ($128,000) or my personal favorite: just shy of a quarter mil per annum for clothes. Like I say, it’s a wonderful world. Unfortunately, Mr. Justice Bennett wasn’t buying it and awarded her only a fraction of that to keep body and soul together, saying, “If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly overeggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget." Man would I like to see the Third Department write something like that some day. Overegg the pudding?
Into this surrealism wandered Allan Chapin the other day, and the First Department gave us a doozie just in time for Easter.[ii] Do you know him? He’s a former partner in Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the largest law firms in the world, founded in the 19th Century. Of course, he gave up that lucrative gig when his marriage Numero Duo went sour. Who wouldn’t? It seems Mr. Chapin and Ms. Janet Johnson married in the Episcopal Church of Heavenly Rest[iii] in NYC and nine months and one hour later had a bouncing baby boy. Within three years Janet quit her job as a lawyer for the Walt Disney Company (of course) and Allan kept earning about $2.1 million yearly at S&C and after that the investment bankers Lazard Freres & Company. He also had a tidy income from being on a bunch of corporate boards and was an adviser to my beloved Toronto Blue Jays. So, what does such a Captain of Industry do in his spare time? What they all do: renovate a country home in Claverack, New York, a dippy little town in Columbia County best known as the home of Ollie North.[iv] Mr. Chapin owned the farm before he married Ms. Johnson, but sank $1.9 million into the property to increase its value a little less than $1.6 million. What a financial genius. In any event the trial court gave her half the increase which was reduced by the First Department to 25% because of passive appreciation I guess. They do not really explain that rationale, but she did after all order pizza and coffee for the renovation workers. Here’s where things got really squirrelly. It seems that Allan owed his first wife some money pursuant to his divorce judgment, namely $584,000 in maintenance and $690,000 in equitable distribution for a nice total of $1,274,000. Being the good spouse, he paid it all during the marriage to the former Mrs. Chapin. So when it came time for Equitable Distribution, the current Mrs. Chapin aka Janet Johnson made the rather silly argument: “Wait a minute. If he hadn’t paid the $1.2 million to the first Mrs. Chapin, then we would have had an extra $1.2 million in our marital estate. Yeah, I knew about this obligation when I married him, but so what? Give it back to me, or at least half. Please. Pretty please.” Well, Dammit Janet, there’s a fire in their heart and you’ve fanned it. So they reduced Allan’s separate property credits by half or over $600,000 and slid that over to Janet’s half of the equation. Wow!
Remember last week when I asked the First Department to lay off my beloved Third Department when writing a decision that not so respectfully disagreed with their Northerly brethren? Well, maybe they took the article to heart but the venom spilled over their black robes into this decision in the form of the majority opinion and the dissent by Mr. Justice James McGuire, a Pataki gift from Queens to the First Department in 2006. He was joined by Mr. Justice David Friedman, no relation to my learned brother of the same name. Putting aside the snide remarks the majority foisted on the dissenters, the heavily footnoted dissent sent shivers through my spine in its excoriation of the majority, however wrong they may be. Here is a sample: “I respectfully disagree with virtually everything the majority has to say… The majority's assertion that Ms. Costello ‘gave testimony which supported [the wife's] position’ is breathtakingly wrong… Not surprisingly, the majority offers nothing by way of an attempt to respond to any of the points I make regarding its erroneous reliance on the CFO's testimony… The majority does not and cannot dispute this critical fact. Indeed, the majority ignores it.” Boy, I would have loved to be in the room when this baby was argued by the Court. Given the two judge dissent, one can only wonder what magic the Court of Appeals will work with these facts. Did I mention that Allan had to pay $800,000 of Janet’s legal fees? Just slipped my mind I guess. Not bad for a 14 day trial. I really must be doing something wrong.
In any event, aside from the juicy stuff about child support and maintenance, the really novel idea here is to get a credit for half of a spouse’s premarital debt paid during the marriage. How ‘bout them student loans? Pay them during the marriage, and get them back at the end. Dammit, Janet, it really is a wonderful world.
I know the Office of Confused Adults has little money for judicial pay raises and the like, but who came up with the idea to put little numbered labels on everything in the courthouse? Have you noticed that every chair, flag stand, telephone and bauble has a new label with the words “Office of Court Administration, ___ Judicial District, No.___” pasted on the personalty. I wonder if the robes and shoes of the judges have numbered labels. Isn’t there something better these guys can do?
By the way, is the Third Department becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Third Judicial District? We now have four new judges and three are from the Third District giving us 2/3 of the App Div and further depleting our trial bench with the loss of Justice Stein. Can’t the other two districts chip in a judge or two to balance things out? Happy Conch Republic Independence Day, the only place where this all makes sense.
[i] Of course, with a tip of the hat to Bob Thiele aka George Douglas and George David Weiss. Did you know Clear Channel made the song persona non grata just after 9/11?
[ii] Johnson v. Chapman, __ A.D.3rd __ (1st Dept., March 13, 2008)
[iii] For those of you who accuse me of making this stuff up, see The New York Times, January 13, 1991. I’ll lend you my copy.
[iv] The most famous graduate of Ockawamick High School.
The Governors' Wives and other thoughts
"If you ain't got no money, ain't nobody calls you honey.” The great Bo Diddley (1928-2008)
“Divorced men are more likely to meet their car payments than their child support obligations.” Susan Faludi
“Conrad Hilton was very generous to me in the divorce settlement. He gave me 5000 Gideon Bibles.” Sári E. Gábor aka Zsa Zsa Gabor
Sometimes you’re mad as hell, and you’re just not going to take it anymore.[1] Maybe it’s the tenth application to sanction you in the year, or the judge who denies your request for an adjournment, or the adversary who sends your answer back because it is served a few days late. Then an application comes in for some kind of relief and you spew forth a venomous ad hominem attack that best belongs in the recycle bin on your desktop computer. It’s not easy being a matrimonial lawyer, and sometimes you get justifiably a little frustrated with the whole thing. But resist you must, lest you demean the practice, your client or yourself. No such restraint affected Cal Dunlap of Reno, Nevada last month when the Governor of the Sagebrush State made an application for a no fault divorce and a sealed record so he and First Lady Teresa Dawn Snelling Gibbons could get on with more important issues like support, equitable distribution and who gets to occupy the Governor’s Mansion. You know, the usual stuff. When Governor Gibbons sued on the grounds of incompatibility, Barrister Dunlap asked for a Bill of Particulars! In response to the divorce application, Mr. Dunlop made public a 33 page motion with the following denoted “facts”:[2] “After more than twenty years of marriage, the Plaintiff has deserted, abandoned, and has shunned his wife without justification for that behavior…despite his disingenuous, shallow, and transparent protestations that his relationship with another man’s wife is a mere friendship, his infatuation and involvement with the other woman is the real, concealed and undisclosed reason for his voluntary departure from the marriage and from the Mansion where he occasionally resided…his castaway wife, by the actions of the Plaintiff, was not even given an opportunity to be heard, on the secrecy issue, while his handlers, spinmeisters and staff wittingly, or unwittingly, as his tools, mislead the Public in vain attempts to preserve the marginal favorable Public Opinion regarding him that might still exist.” You get the gist. After saying “lust is the real villain here”, he called the Plaintiff “one of the most if not the most scandal ridden Governor in the history of this State.” Then Cal called his client the “poster child” of why trials should be made public. Does anyone think this is effective advocacy, or is the sideshow more important than the merits, hoping against hope that the public excoriation of a litigant will engender a more favorable offer to resolve this mess? If the latter, then the attorney has stepped over the line, and the pandering to the client or the press in anything other than a cogent argument for specific relief should be met with some judicial or public rebuke. And just who is Mr. Dunlap? A former prosecutor who was named Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2007 by the Nevada Justice Association. Whoopee. He also once held a fundraiser featuring women in negligees and swimsuits. When asked if there was some legitimate criticism of his motion papers, he said, “I suspect some who are critical of me are politically aligned with Governor Gibbons.” Not me Cal, I never voted for him in my life. It did remind me of a matter I had involving a public figure a few decades ago, where the plaintiff’s lawyer requested and received a jury trial in spite of my withdrawal of any opposition to the fault ground on the record. That was also a pleasant experience for all involved, especially the two young children.
Oh well, on to more important things, like my friends at the Unified Court System. To make it much easier on us, they have developed an online database of quick and easy forms we can download for Family Court and Divorce matters.[3] Very nice of those chaps indeed. So the other day when I resolved a violation petition I checked in and tried to download Form 4-12b, aka Order of Disposition (Violation of Support Order). Try it yourselves if you like. The only thing that you get is a Petition form dating to 2007. Can’t say they don’t have a sense of humor.
Let’s see what our beloved Third Department has taught us theses days. They definitively determined whether someone can challenge the propriety of an unappealed support order years after it has been in place within the context of a violation proceeding. In Matter of Groesbeck v. Groesbeck,[4] they wrote, “Having failed to appeal from all prior orders setting forth his child support obligation, respondent’s attack on the propriety of those orders in the context of this proceeding is nor properly before us.” OK, I got it, thanks. That same day, the Third Department decided Matter of Usenza v. Swift,[5] where a father failed to appeal from his prior support order but attacked its propriety in a violation proceeding a year or so later. Surprise, surprise, a completely different determination holding, “the father’s failure to raise this defect by way of a timely objection to the July 2005 order is not fatal.” Even though a years old consent order was never appealed since it was by consent and there were no findings required, the old order was set aside since the “findings” did NOT say the parties were advised of “all of the relevant provisions of the CSSA” although the guidelines amount was stated on the record and there was no drivel that “the application of the statute would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded.” I daresay most of the consent orders in New York do not have these provisions in findings of fact. Therefore the original order was declared unenforceable, allowing the father to skip on all his support obligations for years as there can be no enforcement or violation proceedings. They remanded it to determine his modification proceeding, but if I was him I’d withdraw that one before you can say, “res judicata.” Then he owes nothing until Mom gets herself to the courthouse, but by then he has skipped out on oodles of past due support. So if you are really clever, try to skirt the CSSA guidelines for opting out and have your client not pay for as long as possible because the order is unenforceable and of course hope that you get the right five judges on the Appellate Division when the thing comes up for review. Of the eleven different judges now on the court, the five who decided Groesbeck are different from the five who decided Usenza. Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Finally kudos to another former First Lady, Dina Matos McGreevey, who is having her own widely publicized divorce from the former Governor of the Garden State. She has just made an application for temporary support saying she needs a mere $51,000 per month to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. How does she get there? Well, a mere $8,000 per month for a guard and a secretary for starters, and $17k for household help of course. These figures came from her CPA expert Kalman Barson, who also said the governor’s celebrity goodwill status was worth $1.5 million. Countering this of course was a “celebrity goodwill” expert Sharyn Maggio who said it was worth bupkes. I now know what I want to be when I grow up: Celebrity Goodwill Expert.
Happy Bastille Day.
[1] Network, Howard Beale’s (Peter Finch) delicious rant of 1976.
[2] You can find the whole distasteful thing here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/30/us/final_gibbons_motion.pdf
[3] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/forms/familycourt/childsupport.shtml
[4] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
[5] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
“Divorced men are more likely to meet their car payments than their child support obligations.” Susan Faludi
“Conrad Hilton was very generous to me in the divorce settlement. He gave me 5000 Gideon Bibles.” Sári E. Gábor aka Zsa Zsa Gabor
Sometimes you’re mad as hell, and you’re just not going to take it anymore.[1] Maybe it’s the tenth application to sanction you in the year, or the judge who denies your request for an adjournment, or the adversary who sends your answer back because it is served a few days late. Then an application comes in for some kind of relief and you spew forth a venomous ad hominem attack that best belongs in the recycle bin on your desktop computer. It’s not easy being a matrimonial lawyer, and sometimes you get justifiably a little frustrated with the whole thing. But resist you must, lest you demean the practice, your client or yourself. No such restraint affected Cal Dunlap of Reno, Nevada last month when the Governor of the Sagebrush State made an application for a no fault divorce and a sealed record so he and First Lady Teresa Dawn Snelling Gibbons could get on with more important issues like support, equitable distribution and who gets to occupy the Governor’s Mansion. You know, the usual stuff. When Governor Gibbons sued on the grounds of incompatibility, Barrister Dunlap asked for a Bill of Particulars! In response to the divorce application, Mr. Dunlop made public a 33 page motion with the following denoted “facts”:[2] “After more than twenty years of marriage, the Plaintiff has deserted, abandoned, and has shunned his wife without justification for that behavior…despite his disingenuous, shallow, and transparent protestations that his relationship with another man’s wife is a mere friendship, his infatuation and involvement with the other woman is the real, concealed and undisclosed reason for his voluntary departure from the marriage and from the Mansion where he occasionally resided…his castaway wife, by the actions of the Plaintiff, was not even given an opportunity to be heard, on the secrecy issue, while his handlers, spinmeisters and staff wittingly, or unwittingly, as his tools, mislead the Public in vain attempts to preserve the marginal favorable Public Opinion regarding him that might still exist.” You get the gist. After saying “lust is the real villain here”, he called the Plaintiff “one of the most if not the most scandal ridden Governor in the history of this State.” Then Cal called his client the “poster child” of why trials should be made public. Does anyone think this is effective advocacy, or is the sideshow more important than the merits, hoping against hope that the public excoriation of a litigant will engender a more favorable offer to resolve this mess? If the latter, then the attorney has stepped over the line, and the pandering to the client or the press in anything other than a cogent argument for specific relief should be met with some judicial or public rebuke. And just who is Mr. Dunlap? A former prosecutor who was named Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2007 by the Nevada Justice Association. Whoopee. He also once held a fundraiser featuring women in negligees and swimsuits. When asked if there was some legitimate criticism of his motion papers, he said, “I suspect some who are critical of me are politically aligned with Governor Gibbons.” Not me Cal, I never voted for him in my life. It did remind me of a matter I had involving a public figure a few decades ago, where the plaintiff’s lawyer requested and received a jury trial in spite of my withdrawal of any opposition to the fault ground on the record. That was also a pleasant experience for all involved, especially the two young children.
Oh well, on to more important things, like my friends at the Unified Court System. To make it much easier on us, they have developed an online database of quick and easy forms we can download for Family Court and Divorce matters.[3] Very nice of those chaps indeed. So the other day when I resolved a violation petition I checked in and tried to download Form 4-12b, aka Order of Disposition (Violation of Support Order). Try it yourselves if you like. The only thing that you get is a Petition form dating to 2007. Can’t say they don’t have a sense of humor.
Let’s see what our beloved Third Department has taught us theses days. They definitively determined whether someone can challenge the propriety of an unappealed support order years after it has been in place within the context of a violation proceeding. In Matter of Groesbeck v. Groesbeck,[4] they wrote, “Having failed to appeal from all prior orders setting forth his child support obligation, respondent’s attack on the propriety of those orders in the context of this proceeding is nor properly before us.” OK, I got it, thanks. That same day, the Third Department decided Matter of Usenza v. Swift,[5] where a father failed to appeal from his prior support order but attacked its propriety in a violation proceeding a year or so later. Surprise, surprise, a completely different determination holding, “the father’s failure to raise this defect by way of a timely objection to the July 2005 order is not fatal.” Even though a years old consent order was never appealed since it was by consent and there were no findings required, the old order was set aside since the “findings” did NOT say the parties were advised of “all of the relevant provisions of the CSSA” although the guidelines amount was stated on the record and there was no drivel that “the application of the statute would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded.” I daresay most of the consent orders in New York do not have these provisions in findings of fact. Therefore the original order was declared unenforceable, allowing the father to skip on all his support obligations for years as there can be no enforcement or violation proceedings. They remanded it to determine his modification proceeding, but if I was him I’d withdraw that one before you can say, “res judicata.” Then he owes nothing until Mom gets herself to the courthouse, but by then he has skipped out on oodles of past due support. So if you are really clever, try to skirt the CSSA guidelines for opting out and have your client not pay for as long as possible because the order is unenforceable and of course hope that you get the right five judges on the Appellate Division when the thing comes up for review. Of the eleven different judges now on the court, the five who decided Groesbeck are different from the five who decided Usenza. Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Finally kudos to another former First Lady, Dina Matos McGreevey, who is having her own widely publicized divorce from the former Governor of the Garden State. She has just made an application for temporary support saying she needs a mere $51,000 per month to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. How does she get there? Well, a mere $8,000 per month for a guard and a secretary for starters, and $17k for household help of course. These figures came from her CPA expert Kalman Barson, who also said the governor’s celebrity goodwill status was worth $1.5 million. Countering this of course was a “celebrity goodwill” expert Sharyn Maggio who said it was worth bupkes. I now know what I want to be when I grow up: Celebrity Goodwill Expert.
Happy Bastille Day.
[1] Network, Howard Beale’s (Peter Finch) delicious rant of 1976.
[2] You can find the whole distasteful thing here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/30/us/final_gibbons_motion.pdf
[3] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/forms/familycourt/childsupport.shtml
[4] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
[5] __ A.D.3rd __ (3rd Dept., June 5, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
