Baker v. Baker
| Decision Date | 01 December 1969 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Greta M. BAKER, Respondent, v. Brownell BAKER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eric Gordon, Ogdensburg, for respondent.
Brown & Clements, Ross E. Brown, Morristown, for appellant.
Before REYNOLDS, J.P., and GREENBLOTT, STALEY, COOKE and SWEENEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, St. Lawrence County, entered December 14, 1967, which directed appellant to pay $20 a week for the support of his stepchildren.
While respondent and appellant were married, a support order of the Family Court dated July 9, 1965, directed appellant to pay $10 a week for the support of his stepchildren. The parties entered into a separation agreement on August 12, 1966 which provided in paragraph 4:
'The wife who now has custody of the minor children shall continue to have the custody and control of the minor children and the husband shall pay support for said children according to the order of the St. Lawrence County Family Court and in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.'
On August 23, 1966, appellant obtained a Mexican divorce from respondent, she having appeared by an attorney in that proceeding. The divorce decree provided that the separation agreement would survive the entry of such decree. The support order was subsequently modified by an order entered December 14, 1967 directing appellant to pay support of $20 a week.
Appellant contends that, under the laws of this State, a stepfather's divorce from the child's mother terminates the stepfather's duty to support the stepchild. Since this is so, he urges, the requirement in the separation agreement that he 'shall pay support for said children * * * in accordance with the laws of the State of New York' relieves him of any further duty of support following his divorce from the stepchildren's mother.
There is no doubt that a husband can contract a support obligation in a separation agreement which will survive a divorce, even though any obligation of support would have terminated upon the divorce had there been no separation agreement (see Murray v. Hassman, 26 A.D.2d 647, 272 N.Y.S.2d 490, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 828, 280 N.Y.S.2d 394, 227 N.E.2d 310).
A separation agreement is subject to construction and interpretation the same as any other contract (16 N.Y.Jur., Domestic Relations, § 715). The separation agreement was executed just 11 days prior to the divorce procured...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rainbow v. Swisher
...subject to principles of contract interpretation ( Clayburgh v. Clayburgh, 261 N.Y. 464, 469, 185 N.E. 701; Matter of Baker v. Baker, 33 A.D.2d 812, 305 N.Y.S.2d 395). Where, as here, the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within th......
-
Redenback v. Redenback
...interpretation just as any other contract (see, Slatt v. Slatt, 64 N.Y.2d 966, 488 N.Y.S.2d 645, 477 N.E.2d 1099; Matter of Baker v. Baker, 33 A.D.2d 812, 305 N.Y.S.2d 395; 47 N.Y.Jur.2d, Domestic Relations, § 797, at 287). Where, as here, the agreement * does not unambiguously require cont......
-
Cunningham v. Cunningham
...As separation agreements are subject to the same rules of contract construction and interpretation as other agreements (Baker v. Baker, 33 A.D.2d 812, 305 N.Y.S.2d 395), the court properly considered the plain meaning of the agreement in treating each of the specified "Emancipation Events" ......
-
LaBounty v. LaBounty
...to obligate a stepfather to pay support for his stepchildren even after his divorce from the mother of the children. (Baker v. Baker, 1969, 33 A.D.2d 812, 305 N.Y.S.2d 395, reported in Official Edition Law Reports and Session Laws No. 734, dated February 18, 1970). Yet in each of these deci......