New York Divorce Lawyer Blog
In New York family law matters, stipulations of settlement incorporated into divorce judgments are treated with the same force and effect as contracts. The courts typically uphold these agreements unless a party can demonstrate ambiguity, fraud, or a substantial change in circumstances. A recent decision issued in a New York divorce case highlights the challenges of attempting to revise financial obligations absent clear legal justification, as the court ultimately found that the stipulation of settlement in question remained enforceable and that no grounds for modification existed. If you are involved in a dispute over the enforcement of a divorce agreement, you should talk to a New York family law attorney about your options.
Facts of the Case
It is reported that the parties were married in 2005 and later entered into a stipulation of settlement in 2013. Pursuant to the stipulation, the mother was awarded sole legal and residential custody of their three children, and the father was obligated to pay monthly child support, along with the children’s private school tuition.
Allegedly, the father later filed a petition seeking a modification of his support obligations. He asserted that a change in the children’s living arrangements, specifically that the oldest child had come to reside with him, warranted an award of basic child support from the mother. He also reportedly requested that the mother be ordered to contribute to the private school tuition for the oldest child or, alternatively, that his monthly tuition obligation be reduced to reflect that he was only responsible for the younger two children’s tuition.
It is alleged that following a hearing, the Support Magistrate directed the mother to pay monthly basic child support for the oldest child, along with over $25,000 in retroactive support to be paid at a rate of $200 per month. The Support Magistrate imputed income to the mother in the amount of $45,360 per year and found that the father’s adjusted gross income was $227,793.19. However, the court denied the father’s request to compel the mother to contribute to tuition expenses or reduce his tuition payment obligation.
It is reported that the father filed objections to the Support Magistrate’s decision, claiming that the mother’s income had been understated and that the stipulation entitled him to a tuition offset or contribution. In a subsequent order, the trial court rejected these arguments, with the exception of a minor clerical correction. The court reaffirmed the child support award and denied the father’s request for tuition adjustments. The father appealed.
Treatment of Stipulations of Settlement in Divorce Actions
The court analyzed the stipulation of settlement as a contractual document and emphasized that where such a stipulation is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced as written. The court noted that the stipulation did not contain any provision requiring the mother to contribute to tuition for the oldest child or allowing a tuition reduction for the father. The language of the stipulation indicated that the father’s tuition contribution was a fixed monthly rate and subject to modification only upon an increase in his salary or a child’s emancipation. Emancipation, under the agreement, did not automatically reduce the obligation but merely allowed a petition for recalculation.
The court also examined whether the father had demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances that would justify a modification of the existing support terms. Under New York law, such a modification requires a clear showing of changed conditions. While the father argued that his payment of 100 percent of the oldest child’s tuition, in addition to the monthly obligation, was inequitable, the court found that he had voluntarily chosen the school and was financially able to make those payments. There was no evidence that the private school selected by the father was necessary to meet the child’s educational needs or that the prior school had failed to serve her interests.
Further, the court rejected the father’s contention that the Support Magistrate erred in failing to impute more income to the mother. It found that the imputed amount was supported by the record and based on the mother’s education and employment history. The court also dismissed the father’s claim that the Support Magistrate was biased, finding no indication that the proceedings had been unfair or prejudicial.
Speak with a Knowledgeable New York Family Law Attorney
If you are facing a post-judgment dispute regarding child support, tuition contributions, or enforcement of a divorce settlement, you should talk to an attorney about your rights and options. Attorney Ksenia Rudyuk of Rudyuk Law Firm is a knowledgeable New York divorce attorney committed to protecting her clients’ interests through strategic negotiation and strong advocacy in court. To schedule a consultation, call our office at (212) 706-2001 or reach out through our online form.