Opinion
2012-12-13
Joseph MURRAY, Appellant, v. Suzanne MURRAY, Respondent.
Levinson, Reineke & Ornstein, PC, Central Valley (Justin E. Kimple of counsel), for appellant. Michael D. Altman, South Fallsburg, for respondent.
Levinson, Reineke & Ornstein, PC, Central Valley (Justin E. Kimple of counsel), for appellant. Michael D. Altman, South Fallsburg, for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.
GARRY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sackett, J.), entered June 13, 2011 in Sullivan County, ordering, among other things, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, upon a decision of the court.
The parties were married in 1986 and have four children (born in 1987, 1989, 1992 and 1994). Approximately 15 months before the marriage, plaintiff (hereinafter the husband) purchased a residence in Queens County. Following their marriage and some renovations to this property, the parties lived there together for several years. In 1991, the husband conveyed this property to himself and defendant (hereinafter the wife) jointly. The parties thereafter refinanced the Queens County property and used the proceeds to purchase a second residence in the Town of Callicoon, Sullivan County (hereinafter the marital residence). They resided there together and rented out the Queens County property, until 2003, when the husband left the marital residence. In 2004, a Support Magistrate ordered the husband to pay child support and directed that he pay 75% of any unreimbursed medical expenses.
The husband commenced this divorce action in 2005. Following a lengthy trial, Supreme Court, among other things, granted exclusive possession of the marital residence to the wife until the emancipation of the youngest child, ordered the equitable distribution of a motorcycle and the rental income from the Queens County property, and directed the husband to pay weekly child support and—beginning upon the youngest child's emancipation—monthly maintenance to the wife for 10 years or until she remarries. The court further continued the prior order directing the husband to pay 75% of the unreimbursed medical expenses, and also required him to pay the wife a lump sum representing one half of certain wasted marital assets, to maintain life insurance policies and to provide college funds for the unemancipated children. The husband appeals.
Initially, we find that denying the husband a credit for the premarital value of the Queens County property was within Supreme Court's discretion. The transfer of that property into joint ownership created a presumption that it was marital property, placing the burden upon the husband to rebut this presumption with clear and convincing proof that the transfer was solely a matter of convenience ( see Campfield v. Campfield, 95 A.D.3d 1429, 1430, 944 N.Y.S.2d 339 [2012],lv. dismissed20 N.Y.3d 914, 2012 WL 5907166 [Nov. 27, 2012];Burtchaell v. Burtchaell, 42 A.D.3d 783, 787, 840 N.Y.S.2d 449 [2007] ). Here, the husband's testimony regarding the Queens County property—characterized by Supreme Court as evasive and questionable—failed to rebut the presumption ( see Currie v. McTague, 83 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 921 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2011] ). The entire Queens County property was thus part of the parties' marital property and subject to equitable distribution and the court's “substantial discretion in fashioning an award” ( Lurie v. Lurie, 94 A.D.3d 1376, 1378, 943 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2012];see Quinn v. Quinn, 61 A.D.3d 1067, 1069, 876 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2009];Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][c], [d] ). While a credit is often given for the value of the former separate property ( see Lurie v. Lurie, 94 A.D.3d at 1377–1378, 943 N.Y.S.2d 261;Milnarik v. Milnarik, 23 A.D.3d 960, 962, 805 N.Y.S.2d 151 [2005];Myers v. Myers, 255 A.D.2d 711, 716, 680 N.Y.S.2d 690 [1998] ), such credit is not strictly mandated since the property is no longer separate, but is part of the total marital property. “There is no single template that directs how courts are to distribute a marital asset that was acquired, in part or in whole, with separate property funds” ( Fields v. Fields, 15 N.Y.3d 158, 167, 905 N.Y.S.2d 783, 931 N.E.2d 1039 [2010] ). Upon review of the record and the entirety of the equitable distribution award, we are unpersuaded that Supreme Court abused its discretion relative to the Queens County property.
For similar reasons, Supreme Court did not err in ordering the liquidation and equal division of the parties' Verizon stock. The husband testified that he owned at least some of this stock before the marriage, but offered no specific evidence supporting this claim. Most significantly, all of the stock was placed in joint ownership during the marriage. The husband was thus required to rebut the resulting presumption that this asset was marital property by clear and convincing evidence, and his mere assertion that he objected to this transfer did not meet that significantburden ( see Burtchaell v. Burtchaell, 42 A.D.3d at 787, 840 N.Y.S.2d 449;Chiotti v. Chiotti, 12 A.D.3d 995, 996–997, 785 N.Y.S.2d 157 [2004] ). As to the husband's claim that Supreme Court should have considered the tax consequences of this order, the record reveals no request for such consideration nor evidence upon which such an analysis could have been based ( see Cameron v. Cameron, 51 A.D.3d 1165, 1166, 857 N.Y.S.2d 793 [2008],lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 702, 864 N.Y.S.2d 389, 894 N.E.2d 653 [2008];Vicinanzo v. Vicinanzo, 193 A.D.2d 962, 968, 598 N.Y.S.2d 362 [1993] ).
Next, the husband challenges the maintenance award. The amount and duration of this award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed provided that the statutory factors and the parties' predivorce standard of living are considered ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a]; Biagiotti v. Biagiotti, 97 A.D.3d 941, 942, 948 N.Y.S.2d 445 [2012];Roberto v. Roberto, 90 A.D.3d 1373, 1376, 936 N.Y.S.2d 337 [2011] ). Here, in reviewing the pertinent factors, Supreme Court placed particular emphasis on the persistent significant disparity in the parties' incomes, the wife's limited prospects for increased earnings, and the lost income, earning capacity and retirement savings that she incurred by remaining out of the paid work force to raise the parties' children for approximately 17 years during the marriage. In this regard, the court credited the wife's testimony that the husband demanded that she stay at home with the children during this time. Thus, given that “the marriage is of long duration, the recipient spouse has been out of the work force for a number of years [and] has sacrificed her ... own career development or has made substantial noneconomic contributions to the household or to the career of the payor” ( Ndulo v. Ndulo, 66 A.D.3d 1263, 1265, 888 N.Y.S.2d 236 [2009] ), we find Supreme Court's decision to render an award of maintenance well supported by the record ( see O'Connor v. O'Connor, 91 A.D.3d 1107, 1108–1109, 937 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2012];Brzuszkiewicz v. Brzuszkiewicz, 28 A.D.3d 860, 862, 813 N.Y.S.2d 793 [2006] ).
Nonetheless, the structure of the award is inappropriate, as it is wholly deferred until the child support payments cease. Awards of maintenance and child support are based on interrelated factors, but do not serve the same purposes; maintenance is intended for the support of the recipient spouse, while child support is paid for the “care, maintenance and education of any unemancipated child” (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][b] [2]; see Roberto v. Roberto, 90 A.D.3d at 1376, 936 N.Y.S.2d 337). Further, because the interrelated factors upon which awards of support and maintenance are based may change in unanticipated ways, it is inappropriate to provide for future increases or decreases in maintenance “[e]xcept when a judgment provides for an imminentand measurable change” ( Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 494, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 463 N.E.2d 15 [1984] ). Thus, Supreme Court erred in delaying the commencement of the maintenance obligation until the child support payments terminate, and remittal is required for reconsideration of the appropriate amount and duration of the award, and for recalculation of the child support award if required by any resulting adjustments in the parties' income for this purpose ( see O'Brien v. O'Brien, 88 A.D.3d 775, 777–778, 931 N.Y.S.2d 78 [2011];Landgraf v. Neuhaus, 77 A.D.3d 590, 590, 910 N.Y.S.2d 431 [2010];Dawson v. Dawson, 152 A.D.2d 717, 720–721, 544 N.Y.S.2d 172 [1989] ).
Additional issues are posed relative to child support. During the course of the trial, which began in 2007 and ended in 2010, the husband moved for pendente lite reduction of the 2004 child support order based upon the emancipation of the parties' older two children in February 2008 and September 2010, respectively. Supreme Court denied pendente lite relief, stating that appropriate modifications would be made at the conclusion of the action. The findings of fact and conclusions of law issued following the trial continued the 2004 child support order in full force and effect, but recognized the emancipations by reducing the applicable percentage to reflect support for three children as of February 2008, and for two children as of September 2010. As the husband had paid support for the four children throughout the pendency of the action, the court held that he was entitled to credit for overpayments in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The husband now contends that Supreme Court erred in basing the child support on the parties' incomes in 2004, rather than as revealed in the most recent tax returns. We disagree. The husband bore the burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances requiring downward modification of the prior order ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b]; Cheney v. Cheney, 86 A.D.3d 833, 835, 927 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2011];Cynoske v. Cynoske, 8 A.D.3d 720, 722, 778 N.Y.S.2d 105 [2004] ), and emancipation was the only change in circumstances that he alleged. “[A] child support obligation turns on a parent's ability to provide support, rather than the parent's current financial situation” ( Matter of Freedman v. Horike, 68 A.D.3d 1205, 1206, 891 N.Y.S.2d 173 [2009],lv. dismissed and denied14 N.Y.3d 811, 899 N.Y.S.2d 751, 926 N.E.2d 255 [2010];see Matter of Heyn v. Burr, 6 A.D.3d 781, 782, 774 N.Y.S.2d 203 [2004] ). The husband made no showing of “an unexpected and unreasonable change in circumstances” that altered his ability to provide support after 2004 ( Matter of Kelly v. Schoonbeck, 34 A.D.3d 1094, 1096, 824 N.Y.S.2d 689 [2006];see Matter of Broome County Support Collection Unit v. Corey, 44 A.D.3d 1128, 1130, 843 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2007] ). Accordingly, we find no error in Supreme Court's choice to continue the terms of the existing child support order, with limited modifications to reflect the emancipation ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 462; compare Zwickel v. Szajer, 47 A.D.3d 1157, 1157, 850 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2008] ).
Neither this application nor a prior pendente lite motion for downward modification of child support, apparently made by the husband in 2006, were included in the record.
Notably, the record reveals that a primary reason for fluctuations in the husband's income during the pendency of the action was his decision not to rent the Queens County property; this choice does not warrant a reduction of his child support obligation ( see Matter of Bianchi v. Breakell, 48 A.D.3d 1000, 1003, 852 N.Y.S.2d 454 [2008];Hall v. Hall, 22 A.D.3d 979, 981, 802 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2005] ).
For the same reasons, we reject the husband's contention that Supreme Court erred in continuing the prior direction relative to unreimbursed medical expenses rather than recalculating his pro rata share based on more recent figures ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c][5][v]; Matter of Lewis v. Redhead, 37 A.D.3d 469, 470, 830 N.Y.S.2d 238 [2007] ). However, we further note that the court's directions regarding credit for the husband's overpayments were not included within the final judgment of divorce and, thus, the judgment must be modified to correct this omission and the matter remitted for determination of whether any credit is due to the husband for any additional overpayments potentially made in 2011 prior to entry of the final judgment. Finally, we agree with the husband that, as he makes substantial child support payments and thus meets a significant portion of the unemancipated children's financial needs, Supreme Court's determination regarding tax exemptions should be modified to permit him to claim one child annually as an exemption on his tax returns ( see Rich–Wolfe v. Wolfe, 83 A.D.3d 1359, 1361, 922 N.Y.S.2d 593 [2011];Quinn v. Quinn, 61 A.D.3d 1067, 1070, 876 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2009] ).
Next, Supreme Court did not err in deferring the sale of the marital residence until the emancipation of the parties' youngest child. The wife is the custodial parent, the husband did not establish that he was in immediate need of his share of the proceeds of such a sale, and the record reveals that the husband was best able to find an alternate residence and the wife was financially able to manage the costs of the marital residence, having done so without assistance from the husband throughout the pendency of the divorce ( see Sember v. Sember, 72 A.D.3d 1150, 1151, 898 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2010];Nissen v. Nissen, 17 A.D.3d 819, 820, 793 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2005] ).
Supreme Court further properly directed the husband to pay the wife one half of the value of certain wastefully dissipated marital assets ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][d][12]; Roberto v. Roberto, 90 A.D.3d at 1375, 936 N.Y.S.2d 337). The husband admitted that he cashed some of the parties' United States savings bonds while the divorce was pending, and the issues posed by his inconsistent testimony as to the value of these bonds, as well as his claim that the wife cashed additional bonds by forging his signature, were for Supreme Court to resolve ( see Rosenkranse v. Rosenkranse, 290 A.D.2d 685, 687, 736 N.Y.S.2d 453 [2002];Butler v. Butler, 256 A.D.2d 1041, 1044, 683 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1998],lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 805, 689 N.Y.S.2d 429, 711 N.E.2d 643 [1999] ). We find no abuse of the court's considerable discretion in assessing the credibility of these claims ( see Noble v. Noble, 78 A.D.3d 1386, 1388, 911 N.Y.S.2d 252 [2010];Altieri v. Altieri, 35 A.D.3d 1093, 1095, 827 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2006] ).
The husband does not challenge Supreme Court's additional determination that he wasted marital assets by withdrawing approximately $7,000 from a joint checking account.
We reject the husband's contention that Supreme Court improperly ordered him to obtain life insurance without imposing a reciprocal obligation on the wife. A trial court may, in its discretion, secure payments for the support of a dependent spouse or unemancipated children by requiring the purchase of insurance on the life of a spouse who is obliged to make such payments ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 236[B][8][a]; Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 50, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749 [1995];Holterman v. Holterman, 307 A.D.2d 442, 442–443, 762 N.Y.S.2d 152 [2003],affd. 3 N.Y.3d 1, 781 N.Y.S.2d 458, 814 N.E.2d 765 [2004] ). The wife had no such obligation to be secured.
The husband next objects to Supreme Court's judgment directing him to pay $2,500 each semester toward college costs for the unemancipated children. A court may require a parent to make payments toward college costs upon a finding of special circumstances, a determination that is based upon the payor spouse's financial status, the educational background of both parents and the academic ability of the children ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c] [7]; McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 70 A.D.3d 1129, 1133–1134, 895 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2010];Brough v. Brough, 285 A.D.2d 913, 916–917, 727 N.Y.S.2d 555 [2001] ). Here, the court made no such finding, but the record is sufficiently well developed to permit us to exercise our independent authority to review the evidence on this issue ( see generally Matter of Friar Tuck Inn of Catskills v. Town of Catskill, 2 A.D.3d 1089, 1089–1090, 768 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2003] ), and we find that the requisite special circumstances exist. At the time of trial, one of the parties' emancipated children was enrolled in college, and the older of the two unemancipated children, a high school senior, was planning to attend college after graduation. The parties' long-standing intention to assist their children with college costs was revealed by the husband's testimony that their original purpose in buying the previously discussed savings bonds—which were purchased over a period of many years—was to establishcollege funds for the children. As to ability to pay, the husband's income, as previously noted, is substantially greater than the wife's income. Given her limited resources and the parties' mutual commitment to their children's education, there was no abuse of discretion in ordering the husband to contribute to college costs ( see Matter of Healey v. Healey, 190 A.D.2d 965, 968, 594 N.Y.S.2d 90 [1993] ).
Contrary to the husband's claim, no windfall to the wife will result if tuition in any semester is less than $2,500, as the judgment expressly directs that any such excess be applied solely to college-related expenses.
Supreme Court did not err in directing the sale of a motorcycle and equal division of the proceeds, as the husband testified that the motorcycle was purchased during the marriage with marital funds ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][c]; Cease v. Cease, 72 A.D.3d 1450, 1451, 900 N.Y.S.2d 182 [2010] ). As to his claim that he should have been separately credited for payments he made on the purchase loan for the motorcycle after the divorce action was commenced, the record includes no documentation of any such payments, and his testimony on this subject was insufficiently specific to permit a determination as to whether such payments were made and, if so, in what amount.
Finally, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the husband to pay one half of the rental income from the Queens County property to the wife until the sale of the property, without deducting therefrom any expenses or carrying charges. The husband's sole responsibility for expenses related to the Queens County property is balanced by the wife's sole responsibility for the expenses of the marital residence, which—unlike the Queens County property—produces no income. Further, the husband acknowledged that he incurred substantial losses by choosing to leave the property vacant for several years, took full deductions for these losses on his income tax returns without sharing them with the wife, and did not advise the wife or share rentals with her when the property was rented again in 2009. In view of all the circumstances, this aspect of the award was not an abuse of the court's discretion ( see Lurie v. Lurie, 94 A.D.3d at 1378, 943 N.Y.S.2d 261;Owens v. Owens, 288 A.D.2d 782, 783, 734 N.Y.S.2d 646 [2001] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, by (1) reversing so much thereof as awarded defendant monthly maintenance for a 10–year period commencing upon the emancipation of the parties' youngest child and so much thereof as based the calculation of the parties' income for child support purposes upon the deferred maintenance obligation, (2) granting plaintiff the right to claim one of the parties' children as an exemption for federal and state income tax purposes, and (3) granting plaintiff credits in the amount of $6,515 for child support overpayments in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and an additional credit for child support overpayments in 2011, if any; matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.