Father Can Not Avoid Obligation to Pay College Expenses by Ignoring Written Communications

Father Can Not Avoid Obligation to Pay College Expenses by Ignoring Written Communications


In Heinlein v Kuzemka, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2008 WL 660010 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the parties agreed to contribute to the children's college expenses, provided that their then-financial circumstances permitted them to do so and that both parents "approve of the educational institution, course of study and living arrangements." The father sought relief from this obligation, asserting that since the mother did not consult him regarding his son's attendance at RPI, he did not approve of that school or any of the child's college-related expenses. The Appellate Division found that his protests were unavailing since, while aware of the child's aspirations to attend RPI, he failed to make any inquiries of the mother and consistently declined to accept registered mail sent by her. Moreover, once the father became aware that his son was attending RPI, he took no action to object to the choice of school or apply to be relieved of his obligations, thus signifying his acquiescence and implicit approval of the decision. The Appellate Division held that the father could not avoid his contractual obligations to pay his son's college expenses, which were imposed by separation agreement that was incorporated, but not merged, into divorce degree, by ignoring the mother's written communications and remaining silent in the face of his admitted knowledge that his son was attending college.

In Absence of Other Evidence Plaintiff's Valuation Should have been adopted by the court.

In Absence of Other Evidence Value of Vehicle in Net Worth Statement Should Have be Adopted by Court


In Winter v Winter, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2008 WL 1722288 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) Supreme Court set spousal maintenance, child support and defendant husband's share of add-on child expenses, allocated marital property and assets subject to certain credits including accounting for wasteful dissipation, denied defendant credit for pendente lite mortgage payments on the marital residence, and ordered defendant to pay 40% of plaintiff's legal fees. The Appellate Division modified, to reduce defendant's obligation with respect to plaintiff's legal fees to 30%, and to reduce the value assigned to the parties' Jeep Cherokee from $15,000 to $11,000. The Appellate Division found that in determining the value of the Jeep Cherokee, the court used the vehicle's 2004 purchase price of $15,000. In her September 30, 2005 net worth statement, plaintiff valued that asset at $11,000. In the absence of any other evidence as to the vehicle's worth, plaintiff's valuation should have been adopted by the court.

Husband Deemed Legal Parent Even though AID Consent Not in Writing

Husband Deemed Legal Parent of Child Born to Wife Conceived as Result of AID Where Consent Not Obtained in Writing


In Laura WW v Peter WW, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2008 WL 991130 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) the Third Department held that a husband can be deemed the legal parent of a child born to his wife, where the child was conceived as a result of artificial insemination by donor during the marriage, but where the husband's consent to the AID was not obtained in writing. Plaintiff wife became pregnant again, as a result of AID, with a third child. A few months into the wife's pregnancy, the parties separated pursuant to an agreement which provided, among other things, that the husband would not be financially responsible for the child. In her subsequent complaint for divorce, the wife alleged that the child was born to the marriage. The parties then entered a settlement agreement which reaffirmed the terms of the separation agreement and calculated the husband's support obligation based on two children. Thereafter, Supreme Court found that the provision in the separation agreement absolving the husband of his support obligation for the child was void as against public policy. Following a hearing on the issue of paternity, Supreme Court held that the husband was the child's legal father and modified the parties' stipulation by increasing the husband's child support obligation based upon three children, instead of two. The Appellate Division affirmed. It agreed with Supreme Court that the provision of the settlement agreement absolving the husband of any support obligation with respect to the child was unenforceable. The parties' agreement, which preceded any determination of legal paternity, to leave the child without the husband's support could not stand (Matter of Gravlin v. Ruppert, 98 N.Y.2d 1, 5 [2002]; see Harriman v. Harriman, 227 A.D.2d 839, 841 [1996] ). The Court rejected the husband's attempt to invoke noncompliance with Domestic Relations Law 73 as a bar to a finding that he was, legally, the child's father. Consistent with our state's strong presumption of legitimacy, as well as the compelling public policy of protecting children conceived via AID, the Court followed the lead of other jurisdictions that impose a rebuttable presumption of consent by the husband of a woman who conceives by AID, shifting the burden to the husband to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. It was not disputed that the husband was fully aware that his wife was utilizing AID to get pregnant. He proffered no evidence that he took any steps before the AID was performed to demonstrate that he was not willing to be the child's father. Under these circumstances, the court found that that the husband failed to rebut the presumption that he consented to bringing a third child into the marriage through AID. The evidence supported Supreme Court's conclusion that the husband consented to his wife's decision to create the child and that he was the child's legal father. Pursuing an alternative avenue, the Court reached the same result, finding that the facts also warranted application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the husband from "seeking to disclaim paternity of the parties' child, whose best interest is paramount".

Court Required to Consider Latest Income Tax Return Where It Never Indicated it was Imputing Income

Where Court Never Indicated it Was Imputing Income to Plaintiff it Was Required to Consider Plaintiff's Latest Income Tax Return in Determining the Child-support Award, Rather than Income-averaging His Reported Income.


In Healy v Healy, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2008 WL 2130379 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) the Appellate Division reversed on the law an order which denied plaintiff husband's motion for a downward modification of his spousal maintenance and child support awards. Following a trial in August of 2005, judgment was entered in February 2007, awarding defendant wife, among other things, a divorce on her counterclaim, custody of the couple's five children, $2,750 in spousal maintenance per month and$2,631 in child support per month. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at trial, and he promptly moved pro se for a downward modification after entry of judgment. At trial, his 2005 income tax return was admitted into evidence, indicating asubstantial decrease in earnings. The court never indicated it was imputing income to plaintiff based on an attempt to avoid obligations or hide income. Accordingly, it was required to consider plaintiff's latest income tax return in determiningthe child-support award, rather than income-averaging his reported income from 2001 to 2004. Plaintiff's most recent tax return should also have been considered in determining the appropriate award for spousal maintenance.

Clear and Unambiguous French PreNuptual Agreement Upheld to Deny Wife Equitable Distribution

Clear and Unambiguous French PreNuptual Agreement Upheld to Deny Wife Equitable Distribution


In Van Kipnis v Van Kipnis, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2007 WL 2003419 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), the Plaintiff wife and defendant husband were married in Paris, France, in 1965. Prior to the ceremony, and at the request of the wife, the parties agreed to execute a "Contrat de Mariage" (Contract), which is a form of prenuptial agreement under the French Civil Code. The expressly stated purpose of the Contract was to opt out of the "community property regime," which is the custom in France, in favor of a "separation of estates" property regime. The first article of the Contract, which is titled "MARITAL PROPERTY SYSTEM," provided: "The future spouses declare that they are adopting the marital property system of separation of estates, as established by the French Civil Code. Consequently, each spouse shall retain ownership and possession of the chattels and real property that he/she may own at this time or may come to own subsequently by any means whatsoever. They shall not be liable for each other's debts established before or during the marriage or encumbering the inheritances and gifts that they receive. The wife shall have all the rights and powers over her assets accorded by law to women married under the separate-estates system without any restriction." Shortly after the marriage the parties moved to New York, where they resided throughout their 38-year marriage. The husband acquired liquid assets of approximately $7 million and the wife of approximately $700,000-$800,000 The parties kept their assets completely separate throughout the course of their marriage. However, the parties jointly owned a country home in Lenox, Massachusetts, valued at $625,000, and a cooperative apartment at 860 Fifth Avenue, in Manhattan valued at $1.8 million. At the hearing, the wife testified that the Contract was executed for the sole purpose of opting out of the community property system of France, and instead adopting a complete separation of estates, whereby each party could not be held liable for the other's debts. She also admitted, however, that the husband executed the Contract at her insistence, that he had no money at the time of the marriage and that she had never moved to set the Contract aside during the marriage. The husband offered a similar understanding of the Contract. Expert testimony established that article 1536 of the French Civil Code provides different choices of matrimonial regimes; that by signing the Contract the parties opted out of France's community property regime and chose a regime of separate property; that the legal effect of this selection was that each
spouse retained the unfettered right to administer, enjoy and freely dispose of his or her separate property throughout the marriage and continuing through its dissolution; and that divorce is never mentioned in a marriage contract. The Referee upheld the Contract., finding that "it is clear that these parties entered into a prenuptial agreement ... which governed the economics of their 38 year marriage, and is likewise applicable in the circumstances of their divorce." Thus, the Referee determined that the parties were to retain ownership of the assets held in their respective names. With respect to the jointly held properties, the Referee recommended that wife be awarded the co-op apartment and reimbursed $75,000 for repairs and furnishings therein, and that the husband be awarded the Massachusetts country home. The Referee also ruled that the Contract did not constitute a waiver by the wife of the right to receive maintenance. In determining the amount and duration of maintenance, the Referee considered, inter alia, the marital standard of living, which it described as "relatively modest," in arriving at a sum of $7,500 per month, payable until either the husband or wife dies or the wife remarries. In
addition, after subtracting the amount of fees allegedly attributable to the wife's challenge to the Contract, which it found were not compensable, the Referee awarded the wife an additional $92,779 in attorneys' fees. On appeal, the wife argued that the enforceability of the Contract was irrelevant since, even if enforceable, it was not applicable to this divorce proceeding, since the intent was to shield each spouse's assets from the other's creditors during the marriage, and not to govern the distribution of property upon divorce. She noted that although the Contract specifically provides that each spouse "shall not be liable for each other's debts established before or during the marriage," it makes no mention of the disposition or distribution of property in the event of divorce, and contains no express waiver of property rights if the parties decided to divorce. She also noted that both parties testified that neither of them understood the Contract as having any relevance to divorce. The First Department held that because the Contract unambiguously provides for separate ownership of property and extrinsic evidence should not have been considered to create an ambiguity or vary its terms, it would affirm that portion of the order which found the contract to be enforceable and applicable. It rejected the wife's argument that the Contract should not be enforced
because it is not "an agreement for the disposition of ... property" within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law [DRL] 236(B)(5). Although the wife was correct that the Contract was not an agreement for the disposition of property, DRL
236(B)(3) authorizes enforcement of agreements that include "(2) provision for the ownership, division or distribution of separate and marital property" (emphasis added). Moreover, DRL 236(B)(1)(d)(4) defines "separate property" as including
"property described as separate property by written agreement of the parties." Thus, the DRL specifically authorizes agreements to treat what might otherwise be marital property as separate property for purposes of equitable distribution. This
is precisely what occurred in this case, where the Contract described each spouse's property held at the time of marriage or acquired thereafter as separate property. The court's award of $7,500 per month in maintenance, which would result in an approximate annual pre-tax incomes of $126,000 for the wife and $335,000 for the husband, was a proper exercise of discretion as was the $92,779.57 in attorneys' fees to the wife. Although the wife requested an additional $177,000 in fees (the husband had already paid $160,000), the Referee correctly ruled that under DRL 237 the wife was not entitled to fees incurred in challenging the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement. Moreover, because the legal bills submitted by the wife's attorney failed to clearly delineate those legal services that were unrelated to the wife's challenge to the agreement, and thus compensable under DRL 237, the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding the amount that it did.