From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Clark v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1993
198 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Summary

In Matter of Clark v. Clark (198 A.D.2d 599), we considered the effect of the absence of such a statement and concluded that an agreement would remain enforceable despite the omission if in fact the parties were aware of the provisions of the CSSA when they executed the agreement.

Summary of this case from Matter of Sievers v. Estelle

Opinion

November 4, 1993

Appeal from the Family Court of Albany County (Tobin, J.).


On January 10, 1991, when the parties entered into a separation agreement providing, inter alia, that respondent would pay petitioner $200 per week in child support, the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter the CSSA) then in effect required the agreement to include a statement that the parties were aware of the provisions of the CSSA (Family Ct Act § 413 [h], as added by L 1989, ch 567, § 8). Here, the parties' agreement does not contain such language, nor does the record indicate whether they were aware of the CSSA. Thus, we cannot determine if their decision to "opt out" of the CSSA was knowingly made (see, Sloam v Sloam, 185 A.D.2d 808, 809).

Accordingly, we remit this matter to Family Court for a hearing on the issue of the parties' awareness of the provisions of the CSSA. Should the court determine that they were not aware of its provisions, the agreement insofar as it relates to child support is invalid (see, supra, at 810). In such event, Family Court may adhere to its order because it adequately identified the factors that induced it to vary the statutory amount of child support and articulated its reasons for the amount actually awarded (see, Bohnsack v Bohnsack, 185 A.D.2d 533, 535). In the event it finds that the parties were aware of the CSSA, Family Court must dismiss the petition because petitioner did not show that the agreement was unfair or inequitable when entered into, nor did she establish any unanticipated or unreasonable change of circumstances or that the children's needs were not being adequately met (see, Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 72; Matter of Tribley v Tribley, 178 A.D.2d 819, 820).

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Albany County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.


Summaries of

Matter of Clark v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1993
198 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

In Matter of Clark v. Clark (198 A.D.2d 599), we considered the effect of the absence of such a statement and concluded that an agreement would remain enforceable despite the omission if in fact the parties were aware of the provisions of the CSSA when they executed the agreement.

Summary of this case from Matter of Sievers v. Estelle
Case details for

Matter of Clark v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SANDRA S. CLARK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM J. CLARK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 4, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
603 N.Y.S.2d 245

Citing Cases

Rosenberg v. Erber

n granting the plaintiff leave to enter judgment against the defendant in the sum of $48,077.50, (2) deleting…

Matter of Wormuth v. Taylor

Therefore, respondent was not obligated to make support payments pursuant to the CSSA. Furthermore, the…