|
SELECTED CASES
BENNETT
v.JEFFRIES , 40 N.Y.2d 543 , 387 N.Y.S.2d 821 (1976)
IN
THE MATTER OF MARYANN CASSANO, RESPONDENT, v. DOMINICK CASSANO, APPELLANT.
40 N.Y.2d 543 , 387 N.Y.S.2d 821 (1976)
Decided 1976
*** CASE TEXT WILL BE AVAILABLE SOON .... PLEASE CHECK BACK !!!
85 N.Y.2d 649, 651 N.E.2d 878, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1995).
May 9, 1995
2 No. 102 [1995 NY Int. 113]
Decided May 9, 1995
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Reports.
Perry S. Reich, for Appellant.
Submitted by Michael Dikman, for Respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
The focus of this appeal is the Child Support Standards Act (Family Court Act § 413;
Domestic Relations Law § 240), which includes a numeric formula for calculating the award
of child support, prescribing criteria as to combined parental income under $80,000 and
criteria as to income above that amount. We are asked to review an award determined by
application of the statutory formula to combined parental income exceeding $80,000. We
conclude that the award was proper and affirm the Appellate Division order so holding.
The parties here were divorced in 1986, with two children, one of whom is now
emancipated. Plaintiff mother was awarded custody of the children and defendant father was
ordered to pay $125 per week in child support. In 1989 plaintiff petitioned for an upward
modification of the support award for the nonemancipated child pursuant to the newly
enacted child support statute, and defendant cross-petitioned for a downward modification.
After taking evidence in a two-day hearing relating to the family's income and
expenses, the Hearing Examiner found a substantial increase in the parties' financial
circumstances warranting increased child support. On combined parental income of $99,944
(64.4% of it attributable to the father), the Hearing Examiner ordered defendant to pay
$218 per week. That amount was determined by multiplying the parents' total income by the
statutory percentage (17%) and then allocating 64.4% of that amount to the father. The
Hearing Examiner further ordered defendant to pay his pro rata share of the child's
private school costs expenses.
Before Family Court, the father contended that the Hearing Examiner erred in applying
the statutory percentage to income over $80,000 without setting forth reasons for that
particular award. Family Court concluded that the statute permitted that and, absent good
cause, refused to interfere with the Hearing Examiner's exercise of discretion to apply
the percentage. The Appellate Division agreed with the father that Family Court was
required to state reasons for the award of child support on combined parental income over
$80,000 but found that requirement satisfied by the Hearing Examiner's in-depth
consideration of the parties' circumstances. The Appellate Division additionally affirmed
the award of unreimbursed medical expenses. We now affirm.
The Child Support Standards Act, effective September 15, 1989, replaced a needs-based
discretionary system with a precisely articulated, three-step method for determining child
support. Enactment of this statute after long efforts signalled a new era in calculating
child support awards (see generally, Reichler and Lefcourt, The New Child Support
Standards Act, NY State Bar Journal 36 [February 1990]; Note, The Child Support Standards
Act and the New York Judiciary: Fortifying the 17 Percent Solution, 56 Brooklyn L Rev
1299).
The Act had among its objectives the assurance that both parents would contribute to
the support of the children, and that the children would not "unfairly bear the
economic burden of parental separation" (Governor's Program Bill Memorandum, Bill
Jacket, L 1989, ch 567, at 1). Emphasis was to shift "from a balancing of the
expressed needs of the child and the income available to the parents after expenses to the
total income available to the parents and the standard of living that should be shared
with the child" (Reichler and Lefcourt, NY State Bar Journal, supra, at 44; see also,
Memorandum of the Executive Chamber, Bill Jacket, Assembly Bill No. 2027-A, July 17, 1989
["children will share in the economic status of both their parents"]).
Further, the Legislature perceived that the existing system produced inconsistent,
unpredictable and often seemingly arbitrary results, which undermined the parties'
confidence in the fairness of the process (see, 1989 NY Legis Ann, at 248, citing NY Commn
on Child Support Report at 69). Consequently, the new statute sought to create greater
uniformity, predictability and equity in fixing child support awards, while at the same
time maintaining the degree of judicial discretion necessary to address unique
circumstances (Letter of Assembly Sponsor Helene E. Weinstein to Governor Mario Cuomo,
June 30, 1989; Governor's Program Bill Memorandum, Bill Jacket, L 1989, ch 567, at 5).
As the statute directs, step one of the three-step method is the court's calculation of
"combined parental income" in accordance with Family Court Act §
413(1)(b)(4)-(5) (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 for analogous provisions). Second, the
court multiplies that figure, up to $80,000, by a specified percentage based upon the
number of children in the household--17% for one child--and then allocates that amount
between the parents according to their share of the total income (Family Court Act §
413[1][b][3] and [c]).
Third, where combined parental income exceeds $80,000--the situation at issue in this
case--the statute provides that "the court shall determine the amount of child
support for the amount of the combined parental income in excess of such dollar amount
through consideration of the factors set forth in paragraph (f) of this subdivision and/or
the child support percentage" (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][3]). The "paragraph
(f)" factors include the financial resources of the parents and child, the health of
the child and any special needs, the standard of living the child would have had if the
marriage had not ended, tax consequences, non-monetary contributions of the parents toward
the child, the educational needs of the parents, the disparity in the parents' incomes,
the needs of other nonparty children receiving support from one of the parents,
extraordinary expenses incurred in exercising visitation and any other factors the court
determines are relevant (Family Court Act § 413[1][f]).
Whenever the basic child support obligation derived by application of the formula would
be "unjust or inappropriate," the court must consider the "paragraph
(f)" factors. That is so whether parental income is above or below $80,000 (Family
Court Act §§ 413[1][b][1], 413[1][c][2], 413[1][c][3]). If the formula is rejected, the
statute directs that the court "set forth, in a written order, the factors it
considered"--an unbending requirement that cannot be waived by either party or
counsel (Family Court Act § 413[1][g]).
The question now before us is whether the court must articulate a reason for its award
of child support on parental income exceeding $80,000 when it chooses simply to apply the
statutory percentage. Defendant urges not only that there must be a stated reason but also
that the stated reason must relate to the needs of the child, much as under prior law.
That question has generated uncertainty. Some courts have calculated child support
awards simply by applying the statutory percentages to parental income over $80,000 (see,
e.g., DeBernardo v DeBernardo, 180 AD2d 500, 502-503; Rosen v Rosen, NYLJ,
October 9, 1990, p. 31, col 5; Brown v Brown, NYLJ, July 16, 1990, p. 230, col 2; Steel
v Steel, 152 Misc 2d 880, 884). Others have rejected a "blind application"
of the child support percentage to income over $80,000, requiring express findings as to
the child's actual needs (Harmon v Harmon, 173 AD2d 98, 111 ["a child is not a
partner in the marital relationship, entitled to a 'piece of the action'"]; see also,
Chasin v Chasin, 182 AD2d 862, 863; Colley v Colley, 200 AD2d 839, 841; Panossian
v Panossian, 201 AD2d 983, 983; Slankard v Chahinian, 204 AD2d 529, 531 [all
reversing trial court as to child support]). The caselaw has even been read to limit the
application of the percentages to income below $80,000 (see, Florescue, Relocation of
Custodial Parent, NYLJ, June 14, 1993, p 4, col 6).
Obviously, determining what the Child Support Standards Act requires begins with the
statute itself.
Where combined parental income is less than $80,000 the statute plainly directs that
the court apply the formula percentages (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][2])--thus
implementing the objectives of uniformity and predictability. Only where that amount would
be "unjust or inappropriate" does the Act require the court to set forth
reasons.
As to combined parental income over $80,000, the statute explicitly affords an option:
the court may apply the factors set forth in section 413(1)(f) "and/or the child
support percentage" (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][3]; see also, 1 Tippins, New York
Matrimonial Law and Practice § 5A:20; Reichler and Lefcourt, NY State Bar Journal, supra,
at 40). Pertinent as well to income above $80,000 is the provision that the court may
disregard the formula if "unjust and inappropriate" but in that event, must give
its reasons in a formal written order, which cannot be waived by either party (Family
Court Act § 413[1][g]).
The parties' arguments for and against requiring an elaboration of reasons where the
statutory percentage is applied to income exceeding $80,000 center on the term
"and/or"--a term that has long irked grammarians (see, e.g., Fowler, A
Dictionary of Modern English Usage 29 [2d ed]). In that legislative purpose, not
grammatical perfection, guides our determination, we must seek to give meaning to the term
"and/or," in the context of the statute's overall objective. Defendant's
insistence on an elaboration of needs-based reasons reads the word "or" out of
the section and rolls back the calendar to pre-1989 law. In our view, "and/or"
should be read to afford courts the discretion to apply the "paragraph (f)"
factors, or to apply the statutory percentages, or to apply both in fixing the basic child
support obligation on parental income over $80,000. That interpretation is consistent with
the language of the section and with the objectives of the Child Support Standards Act.
That conclusion does not, however, end our analysis. Given that the statute explicitly
vests discretion in the court and that the exercise of discretion is subject to review for
abuse, some record articulation of the reasons for the court's choice to apply the
percentage is necessary to facilitate that review (see CPLR 4213[b]; Siegel, Practice
Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4213:2, at 336 [meaningful review
is futile if court does not state facts upon which its decision rests]; see also 4
Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac § 4213.07 [court must provide the ultimate facts which
support its conclusions of law "in order to enlighten the parties and to make more
effective the review of judgments on appeal"]). The stated basis for an exercise of
discretion to apply the formula to income over $80,000 should, in sum and substance,
reflect both that the court has carefully considered the parties' circumstances and that
it has found no reason why there should be a departure from the prescribed percentage.
In the present case, the Hearing Examiner conducted a two- day inquiry into the
parties' circumstances and set forth her findings in detail. The Appellate Division was
satisfied, as are we, that there was sufficient record indication that no extraordinary
circumstances were present, and application of the statutory 17% to the $19,214 income
above $80,000 was therefore justified and not an abuse of discretion.
Finally, we affirm as well the Appellate Division's conclusion that the father is
required to pay his pro rata share of the child's unreimbursed medical expenses. The
statute specifies that the court "shall pro rate each parent's share of future
reasonable health care expenses of the child not covered by insurance" (Family Court
Act § 413[1][c][5]). Defendant's insistence that this order constitutes an impermissible
open- ended obligation, as the Second Department earlier held (see, e.g., Chirls v
Chirls, 170 AD2d 641) is meritless in light of the Act.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be
affirmed, with costs.
F O O T N O T E S
Family Court and the Appellate Division, but is not before us on this appeal. approach
(rather than allocating the cost of providing for the child's needs) is that expenses of
children tend to vary according to parents' income (see, 2 Bronstein, New York Practice
Guide, Domestic Relations § 31.03[3][a][ii]). The actual percentages can be traced to a
study of the typical portion of household income generally devoted to the child (see Note,
56 Brooklyn L Rev, supra, at 1316-1319, citing Van der Gaag, On Measuring the Costs of
Children, in III Child Support: Technical Papers [Institute for Research on Poverty,
Special Rep. Series No. SR32C]). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
