Divorce Lawyers New York - Recent Family Law Decisons (23)
RECENT FAMILY LAW DECISIONS (23)
Illustrative Cases
The court would not reduce or terminate the respondent’s support obligations simply because his children had resisted visitation with him where there was sufficient evidence that this resistance was due to his own behavior and not attributable to any interference by the petitioner.
The circuit court abused its discretion in denying wife’s petition to review and extend a temporary maintenance award where, although the former wife may not have begun her efforts toward financial independence as soon as she might have and the marriage was of short duration, she did not have sufficient resources to meet her financial obligations, where the standard of living during the marriage was lavish, where she was in her late forties when the parties were divorced, and where she had worked only two years and eight months in her life, had not, at former husband’s request, worked during the marriage, and had physical and emotional problems which may have prevented her from seeking full-time employment, and where husband had ability to pay maintenance.
Indefinite Maintenance
Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding indefinite maintenance where trial court concluded that it was unlikely wife would be able to increase her income to a level approaching her husband’s.
Jurisdiction
Property rights created by a judgment of dissolution become vested when the judgment is final, and a trial court lacks general jurisdiction to modify an order affecting these rights.
Where modification of decree of dissolution is an agreed order, not contrary to public policy and not shown to have resulted from fraud or coercion, respondent can challenge it on appeal only if the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to enter it.
Where the trial court has not expressly reserved jurisdiction to extend the term of rehabilitative maintenance, the court retains authority to extend the maintenance beyond the original term in view of subsection (a) of this section when the petition for modification is filed during the period set for rehabilitative maintenance.
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to extend the duration of the maintenance award once the original time period for maintenance has expired.
A trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider a respondent’s petition seeking modification of a fixed, limited award of rehabilitative maintenance which was filed after the maintenance obligation had been satisfied, and where the court did not reserve jurisdiction to review such an award.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s petition to modify as to the marital residence when in the interim between the entry of the judgment and the filing of defendant’s petition to modify, the trial court terminated the maintenance provision, leaving nothing further to modify with respect to maintenance.
While the court had jurisdiction to modify the distribution of the proceeds, it was not necessary to reverse and remand to portion of the order which did so.
Trial court has inherent jurisdiction to consider future child support in a dissolution proceeding and need not expressly retain jurisdiction.
Where there were no facts of record that demonstrated whose circumstances had changed, or in what manner, or who accepted what benefits from whom, there could be no estoppel to prevent wife from asserting that the court did not have jurisdiction to modify a divorce decree.
