Source: https://www.mccarthyfingar.com/pubs_outlines/new-divorce-legislation-no-fault-divorce-maintenance-guidelines-counsel-expert-fees-modification-of-child-support/
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 23:39:07
Document Index: 672156040

Matched Legal Cases: ['§170', '§236', '§237', '§170', '§170', '§236', '§236', '§236', '§3217', '§236']

New Divorce Legislation – No Fault Divorce, Maintenance Guidelines, Counsel & Expert Fees, Modification of Child Support - McCarthy Fingar, LLP Judge Miller, Kathleen Donelli & Dolores Gebhardt, No Fault Divorce Legislation
Home » New Divorce Legislation – No Fault Divorce, Maintenance Guidelines, Counsel & Expert Fees, Modification of Child Support
New Divorce Legislation:
No Fault Divorce, Maintenance Guidelines, Counsel & Expert Fees, Modification of Child Support
and Orders of Protection
Presented by the WWBA Matrimonial Committee
WWBA President: Dolores Gebhardt, Esq.
Co-Chairs of WWBA
Matrimonial Committee: Kathleen Donelli, Esq.
Lonya A. Gilbert, Esq.
914-428-7733
6:00p.m. – 6:10 p.m. Dolores Gebhardt Introduction & Request to Hold Questions for the Panel Discussion
6:10 p.m. – 6:15 p.m. Hon. Sondra Miller No Fault Divorce
6:15 p.m. – 6:20 p.m. Kathleen Donelli Temporary & Permanent Maintenance Guidelines
6:20 p.m. – 6:25 p.m. Lonya Gilbert Counsel & Expert Fees
6:25 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. Patricia Hennessey Modification of Child Support and Extending Orders of Protection for Good Cause or Upon Consent
6:30 p.m. – 6:40 p.m. Hon. Alan D. Scheinkman Overview of the New Divorce Legislation
6:40 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Dinner
Appellate Division, Second Department (Retired) and
Chief Counsel to McCarthy Fingar LLP
smiller@mccarthyfingar.com
Lonya Gilbert, Esq.
nefesh18@hotmail.com
Chief Administrative Judge of the 9th Judicial District
I. Summary and Questions on “No Fault” Divorce …………………………………………… 1
Verified Complaint with new no fault ground under DRL §170(7)…………………….. 2-6
http://www.nycourts.gov/divorce/forms_instructions/ud-2.pdf
II. Maintenance Guidelines
Summary and Questions……………………………………………………………………………. 7-9
1) Temporary Maintenance Guidelines……………………………………………………….. 7
2) 7 Additional Factors for Determining Final or Post-Divorce Maintenance….. 7
3) Law Revision Commission: preliminary report by June, 2011and final recommendations on Post-Divorce Maintenance by December 31, 2011…….. 8
Temporary Maintenance Guidelines A.10984-b (Paulin)/S.8390
Hassell-Thompson ………………………………………………………………………………….. 10-17
Short Form Calculation of Temporary Maintenance …………………………………….. 18
Temporary Spousal Maintenance Guidelines Calculator ……………………………….. 19
19 Factors if Income Exceeds $500,000 …………………………………………………. 20
17 Factors to Adjust an Award if the Court finds the Application
of the formula to income up to $500,000 to be unjust or inappropriate ……….. 21
Temporary Maintenance Guidelines Worksheet ……………………………………………. 22-29
Opt-Out Provision for Temporary Maintenance Under
DRL §236 Part B (5-A) ………………………………………………………………………….. 30-33
New Attorney Fee Bill which amends DRL §§237(a)(b) and 238 …………………… 34-36
Questions …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37
Recent cases awarding Counsel Fees since Prichep v. Prichep,
52 A.D.3d, 61, 858 N.Y.S.2d 667 (2d Dep’t. 2008) ……………………………………….. 38
IV. Modification of Child Support and Extending Orders of Protection
for Good Cause or Upon Consent
Summary and Questions on Modification of Child Support ……………………………. 39
Harriet Cohen and Tim James, Downward Modification In A Troubled
Economy, NYLJ, August 10, 2009 …………………………………………………………….. 40-43
Opt-Out Provision For Modification of Child Support Under New Law …………… 44-48
I. “No Fault” Divorce applies to divorce actions commenced on or after October 12, 2010
Questions on No Fault Divorce
1. If a complaint seeks a divorce under DRL §170(7) by stating under oath that the relationship between Husband and Wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, will counterclaims alleging “fault” under DRL §170 be dismissed as moot?
2. What should be included in an Answer to a Complaint alleging irretrievable breakdown of the marriage?
3. Must you plead cruel and inhuman treatment in order to preserve the issue of “egregious fault” for trial?
4. Will the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage be subject to judicial review?
II. MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES [A.10984-b (Paulin)/S.8390 (Hassell-Thompson)]: This law applies to all matrimonial actions commenced on or after October 12, 2010
1) DRL §236 Part B(5): Temporary Maintenance Guidelines
sets forth a formula for determining the presumptive amount of temporary maintenance awards based on the “payor’s” CSSA income (plus rental income) up to $500,000
Enumerates 17 Factors to be considered if the Court deviates from the presumptive amount of temporary maintenance because it is “unjust or inappropriate.”
2) DRL §236 Part B (6): Factors For Determining Final or Post-Divorce Maintenance Awards
(7) acts by one party against another that have inhibited or contribute to inhibit a party’s earning capacity or ability to obtain meaningful employment. Such acts include but are not limited to acts of domestic violence as provided in section four hundred fifty-nine-a of the Social Services Law;
3) Creates a new subdivision DRL §236 (B) (6-a) directing the New York State Law Revision Commission to study and access the economic consequences of divorce on married couples, to review the spousal maintenance laws and to submit a preliminary report by June, 2011 and a final report to the Legislature and the Governor with recommendations by December 31, 2011.
1. Are temporary maintenance payments taxable to the payee and tax deductible to the payor?
2. Will the Court award temporary maintenance, plus temporary basic child support, plus add ons (mandatory and/or discretionary)?
3. In addition to temporary maintenance, will the Court direct the payor to pay the family’s living expenses, such as carrying charges for the marital residence, automobile expenses and insurance payments?
4. If grounds have been resolved in the Preliminary Conference Order but the Complaint has never been served, can the Plaintiff discontinue as of right under CPLR §3217(a)(1) in order to commence another divorce action after the October 12, 2010 effective date for “temporary maintenance” or “counsel & expert fees”?
5. Under DRL §236(B)5-A(4) income includes:
6. Does “Opt Out” Language need to be included in Preliminary Conference Orders addressing temporary maintenance and/or unallocated temporary support?
7. Will the Court enforce a Stipulation signed by the parties and notarized involving temporary support (e.g., the parties agree to maintain the financial status quo) if it does not contain “opt out” language?
III. Counsel and Expert Fees, effective October 12, 2010, creates a rebuttal presumption that counsel and expert fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse.
Questions on the New Attorney Fee Bill Which Amends
DRL Sections 237 (a)(b) and 238
Where should the counsel fees come from, i.e., pre-commencement assets or post-commencement income?
There is no definition of monied spouse; how much more does a spouse need to earn to be considered the “monied spouse”?
Since the Amendment states specific language regarding the retainer, should the attorneys for the monied spouses ask for a smaller than normal retainer because the non-monied spouse may be awarded the same retainer as the monied spouse has paid?
Does the New Attorney Fee Bill apply to Family Court actions?
IV. Modification of Child Support, effective October 12, 2010, permits the modification of child support upon establishing a substantial change of circumstances or, in addition, after 3 years or if there has been a 15% change in the payor’s or payee’s income, as long as such change has been involuntary and diligent attempts for employment are demonstrated.
1. Does the new law apply to orders granting (or denying) a post-judgment request to modify child support set forth in divorce judgment granted before October 12, 2010?
Orders of Protection, effective August 13, 2010, amends Family Court Act Section 842 and provides that orders of protection may not be denied solely because the acts are not contemporaneous with the application and may be extended
… a court shall not deny an order of protection, or dismiss an application for such an order, solely on the basis that the acts or events alleged are not relatively contemporaneous with the date of the application or the conclusion of the action. The duration of any temporary order shall not by itself be a factor in determining the length or issuance of any final order.
The court may also, upon motion, extend the order of protection for a reasonable period of time upon a showing of good cause or consent of the parties. The fact that abuse has not occurred during the pendency of an order shall not, in itself, constitute sufficient ground for denying or failing to extend the order. The court must articulate a basis for its decision on the record.