Divorce Lawyers New York - Recent Family Law Decisons (24)
RECENT FAMILY LAW DECISIONS (24)
Jurisdiction
A trial court’s order purportedly clarifying the supplemental judgment disposing of the property of the parties pursuant to the dissolution of their marriage, which actually modified the property rights of the husband, and which was entered more than 17 months after the supplemental judgment, was not effective, as the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter such a modification.
Where the petition for modification did not request that any increase be retroactive, and petitioner first requested this relief in a later petition for rehearing which was abandoned, this issue was not properly before the court.
Where an original divorce decree was entirely silent with regard to apportionment of any income tax refund, wife could not by her petition, requesting the award of income taxes withheld from her salary which had been included in a joint income tax return, invoke the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights upon which the final word had already been spoken in the decree.
The property rights created in a divorce decree become vested and after 30 days the court is without jurisdiction to modify them.
Law of the Case
The law of the case doctrine was inapplicable to preclude the court from modifying a maintenance award upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.
Legislative Intent
The legislative purpose behind the adoption of subsection (c) of this section is to allow the parties to a dissolution proceeding to remain liable for the support of children beyond emancipation.
Subsection (b) of this section does not represent an attempt by the legislature to control public morals.
The legislature intended to allow future maintenance to survive the remarriage of the receiving party if the judge approves.
The legislative purpose behind subsection (c) of this section is to permit the parties to agree to remain liable for the support of the child beyond emancipation.
Prior to the enactment of subsection (c) of this section, support orders were of no legal effect after the death of the obligor and, for various reasons, children of a previous marriage often were not included in the obligor’s will; subsection (c) of this section was designed to correct this problem and eliminate the hardship imposed upon children through loss of support by disinheritance.
The purpose of a modification proceeding is to show that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the prior judgment.
The legislative purpose behind subsection (c) of this section is to permit the parties to agree to remain liable for the support of the child beyond emancipation.
Reading subsection (a) and (b) of this section together would disregard the clearly expressed intention of the legislature to establish a new and distinct standard for termination of maintenance.
It was the intention of the legislature to provide for the termination of an ex-spouse’s obligation to pay future maintenance whenever the spouse receiving the maintenance has entered into a husband-wife relationship with another, whether this be by legal or other means.
