Source: https://www.divorceny.com/tag/cap/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:35:58+00:00

Document:
On June 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals in a 5-2 decision, affirmed the ruling discussed below.
It is common in agreements, and often the case in judicial decisions, for the parent paying periodic child support to receive a credit against those payments for college room and board expenses paid by that parent. May parties agree that the credit exceed the amount allocated by the parties to the support of the particular child attending college? No, (probably) said the Appellate Division, First Department, in its April 6, 2017 decision in Keller-Goldman v. Goldman.
The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and Agreement that resolved all issues surrounding their separation. As may be relevant to the court’s determination, although the parties had four unemancipated children, the agreement only provided for support for the three children for whom the wife was deemed the custodial parent (the parties were to share equal time with these three). The husband retained custody of the fourth child, but agreed to receive no support for him from the mother. The opinion noted that had the parties not negotiated the issue of child support, the mother stood to collect $5,000 per month in child support payments, pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act, a fact acknowledged by the agreement. Instead, she agreed to monthly child support payments of $2,500.
Paragraph 10.3 of the parties’ agreement provided for a graduated reduction in the father’s child support payments upon the emancipation of each of the three children. Upon the first emancipation his monthly payment would be reduced by $350 to $2,150 per month; and upon the second emancipation the payment would be reduced to $1,462 per month.
During the period in which a Child is attending a college and residing away from the residences of the parties and [the father] is contributing towards the room and board expenses of that Child, [the father] shall be entitled to a credit against his child support obligations in an amount equal to the amount [the father] is paying for that Child’s room and board. The credit shall be allocated in equal monthly installments against [the father’s] child support payments.
In addition to providing a guideline for the amount of a maintenance (alimony) award, New York’s relatively new maintenance (alimony) statute includes a presumptive range for the period of time maintenance is to be paid based upon the length of the marriage. Particularly with short marriages, what should be the impact of the length of the marriage on the award of maintenance while the divorce action is pending? Put differently, should a spouse be able to increase support, just by keeping the divorce action going?
In her August 31, 2017 decision in Barlik v. Barlik, Acting Queens County Supreme Court Justice Elisa S. Koenderman was faced with that issue.
Among the temporary relief sought by the parties in this divorce action, the parties husband cross-moved for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence. The wife moved, in part, for temporary maintenance and child support and for an order directing the husband to pay 100% of the carrying costs of the marital residence; an order appointing a forensic accountant to value the income from the husband’s business as well as a real estate appraiser to value the marital residence, both at the husband’s expense; and for counsel fees.
Justice Koenderman first denied the husband’s motion for exclusive use and occupancy, but granted the wife’s cross-motion for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence.
The Court then granted the wife’s motion for temporary maintenance and child support. As required by the statute, the court calculated the guideline amount by applying the statutory formula to the payor’s income up to the statutory cap of $178,000 (see DRL § 236[B][5-a][b] & ). Then, the court may adjust the guideline amount of temporary maintenance if it is “unjust or inappropriate” (DRL § 236[B][5-a][h]). The court must consider certain enumerated factors, including but not limited to the health and age of the parties; the present or future earning capacity of the parties; and care of children during the marriage that inhibits a party’s earning capacity, as well as any other factor which it finds just and proper to determine “whether and to what extent it will apply the statutory formula” to the payor’s income which exceeds the statutory cap.
In a lengthy, thoughtful August 29, 2017 opinion in S.M. v. M.R., Richmond County (Staten Island) Supreme Court Justice Catherine M. DiDomenico resolved the financial issues incident to the parties’ divorce. Among the issues were those that arose from parties’ family and financial ties to Egypt, the absence of proof on various financial matters, and the wife’s 1999 medical degree in Egypt, all but abandoned since moving to the United States in 2002 resulting in her current need for rehabilitative maintenance.
The final issue tackled by the Court was the wife’s request for an award of counsel fees in the sum of $43,000 for her attorney’s handling of the entirety of this divorce proceeding. The wife based her claim upon the fact that she was the non-monied spouse in this action (D.R.L. §237[a]). In support of her claim, the wife submitted a copy of her attorneys’ retainer agreement, together with legal billing.
The husband objected to any award on the basis of the language of that retainer agreement: the wife and her attorney had agreed to “cap” counsel fees at the sum of $10,000.
In its December 30, 2016 decision in Peddycoart v. MacKay, the Second Department reduced a father’s obligation to pay child support from $542 to $378 per week by holding that the Family Court should not have imposed the support obligation on the parents’ income in excess of the C.S.S.A. “statutory cap” (then $141,000).
The parties, who were never married, had one daughter together, born in 2009. The father signed an acknowledgment of paternity less than nine days after the child was born. The parties did not have an order of child support for approximately six years. In 2015, the mother filed a petition against the father seeking an award of child support. After a hearing, Support Magistrate Barbara Lynaugh determined that the mother had income of $36,112 and that the father had income of $166,096, for combined parental income of $202,208, exceeding the cap by $61,208.
On June 24, 2015, the New York State Senate passed Bill A7645-2015 relating to the duration and amount of temporary and post-divorce spousal maintenance. The bill passed the State Assembly on June 15th. It awaits approval by Governor Cuomo.
The law’s formulas apply to actions commenced on or after the 120th day after they become law (except for the temporary maintenance formulas which apply to actions commenced on or after the 30th day after they become law). The new law may not be used as a basis to change existing orders and agreements.
The law will undoubtedly be the subject of numerous articles and legal seminars. Years of decisions will be forthcoming that particularly focus on matters of discretion, just as they followed the enactment of the Child Support Standards Act in 1989.
Before getting to the new formulas, the law eliminates a major thorn in side of the matrimonial bench and bar: When equitably distributing the assets of the parties, the court is no longer to consider as a marital asset the value of a spouse’s enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement (however, it may be condidered when making other distributive awards).
Two published decisions last week ruled on the whether to award child support upon combined parental income in excess of the base child support amount. In the first, the Second Department in Beroza v. Hendler, found it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the trial court to have capped the parties’ combined parental income at $255,000.00. On appeal, the Second Department increased the cap to $400,000.00 and awarded the mother the father’s pro rata portion of that capped amount.
In the second case, A.C. v. J.O. (to be the subject of Wednesday’s blog post), Acting Kings County Supreme Court Justice Debra Silber, determined that although the parents had net combined parental income of $423,100.00, the father’s child support obligation would be limited to his pro rata share of the $136,000.00 cap.
In Beroza, the father had commenced this divorce action in 2001 after 11 years of marriage. At that time the oldest of the parties’ three children was 4½ years old and their twins were 18 months old. The parties were both educated professionals. The father was a veterinarian with a private practice devoted to horses and a related horse-boarding business and the mother was a partner in a group anesthesiology practice. Both parties worked throughout the marriage. the family enjoyed an affluent lifestyle in Laurel Hollow.
Underlying the parties’ 2008 divorce judgment, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Ira Warshawsky imputed gross annual income to the father of $259,100.00. The father’s base annual child support obligation was fixed at as 29% of $200,000.00, or $4,833.33 monthly.
On the husband’s appeal from the 2008 judgment, the Second Department agreed with amount of the father’s imputed annual gross income, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court because it had failed to properly set forth the parties’ pro rata shares of child support. Additionally, the lower court failed to adequately explain its application of the “precisely articulated, three-step method for determining child support’” pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (Beroza v Hendler, 71 AD3d 615, 617, 896 N.Y.S.2d 144 ).
On remittitur, Justice Warshawsky re-determined the parties’ respective annual net C.S.S.A. incomes to be $248,721.00 for the father and $487,693.00 for the mother, for net combined parental income of $736,414.00. However, for the purpose of determining the plaintiff’s child support obligation, the court capped combined parental income at $255,000.00.
Justice Warshawsky found that $255,000.00 adequately reflected a support level that met the needs and continuation of the children’s lifestyle, as dictated by the past spending practices of the parties. Justice Warshawsky applied the 29% statutory percentage to combined parental income capped at $255,000.00 ($73,950.00 total support obligation), and the calculated that the husband’s 33.7% pro rata support obligation at $24,921.00, annually, or $2,076.75, monthly.
The Second Department modified. Although he had articulated his analysis pursuant to the three-step method for determining child support embodied in the C.S.S.A. guidelines, Justice Warshawsky, the appellate court held, improvidently exercised his discretion in capping the parties’ combined parental income at $255,000.00.
In a May 8, 2013 decision in Mejia v. Mejia, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified a divorce judgment’s provisions concerning the cap on combined parental income, the disposition of the marital residence, college expenses for three children ages 14, 10 and 6, and judgment inconsistencies with the underlying decision and judgment formalities.
After the parties separated, they each petitioned the Family Court for custody of the children. The parties consented that they share joint legal custody, and that the father have primary physical custody.
After a non-jury trial on certain financial issues, the Family Court considered the first $200,000 of combined parental income in determining child support, based upon, among other things, “the economic reality of life in Rockland County,” and a determination that the gross income of the mother was substantially less than that of the father. The mother’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation was 37% of 29% of the first $200,00 of combined parent income was fixed at $1,789 per month in the 2011 Family Court order.
The marital residence, titled in the parties’ joint names, was awarded to the father and the children, based upon the father’s claim that there was no equity in the house. The court further concluded in its decision that the father should maintain health insurance for the children, and that the mother should pay 37% of the college expenses of the children.
The Second Department lowered to $150,000 the applied cap on combined parental income, “considering the substantial difference between the parties’ income, the fact that the [mother] has less income than the [father], and the amount of parenting time awarded to the [mother].” Calculated on that basis, the mother’s pro rata share of the child support obligation was $1,341 per month.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 236
 § 236
 v. 
 §237
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.