Clanton v. Clanton
| Decision Date | 25 January 1993 |
| Citation | 189 A.D.2d 849,592 N.Y.S.2d 783 |
| Parties | George S. CLANTON, Appellant-Respondent, v. Suzanne M. CLANTON, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Grossbach & Boykoff, Tarrytown (Michael D. Weinstein, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Wand & Farrell, P.C., Smithtown (Carl F. Wand, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated June 26, 1990, as required him to pay (1) child support of $125 per week pendente lite, and (2) the monthly rent for the marital apartment in which the wife resides, and the defendant wife cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied her counsel fees and failed to set a due date for the payment of arrears and retroactive child support.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which directed the plaintiff pay the rent on the marital apartment; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the plaintiff husband that the parties' antenuptial agreement is applicable under the circumstances presented, and forecloses the defendant wife from seeking any award of maintenance from the husband, including maintenance pendente lite (see, Panossian v. Panossian, 172 A.D.2d 811, 569 N.Y.S.2d 182; Cruey v. Cruey, 159 A.D.2d 241, 552 N.Y.S.2d 232). The parties broadly and unequivocally renounced all claims against each other "under any circumstances" for support, maintenance, or alimony, in the event, inter alia, of the "breakup" of the marriage by "separation or otherwise". Since the foregoing provision is applicable, the provision of the order requiring the husband to pay the wife's monthly rental expenses must be vacated. Contrary to the wife's contentions, the record fails to support her assertion that she is "incapable of self-support and therefore is likely to become a public charge" in the event the agreement is enforced (see, General Obligations Law § 5-311 cf., Panossian v. Panossian, 172 A.D.2d 811, 569 N.Y.S.2d 182, supra ).
We disagree with the husband, however, that the court erred when it modified a pre-existing Family Court order by increasing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...parties, who were separated, agreed to waive maintenance in the event of separation, divorce or annulment]; Clanton v. Clanton, 189 A.D.2d 849, 850, 592 N.Y.S.2d 783 [2d Dept.1993] [denying request for temporary maintenance where the prenuptial agreement renounced all claims "under any circ......
-
HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank
...arrangements, are usually effective as between the parties to them, see N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 236; Clanton v. Clanton, 189 A.D.2d 849, 592 N.Y.S.2d 783 (2d Dept.1993). But such transfers do not in and of themselves meet the criteria of § 272 of the Debtor & Creditor Law so as to be ......
-
Rauso v. Rauso
...v. Etzion, 62 A.D.3d 646, 653, 880 N.Y.S.2d 79; Valente v. Valente, 269 A.D.2d 389, 389-390, 703 N.Y.S.2d 206; Clanton v. Clanton, 189 A.D.2d 849, 850, 592 N.Y.S.2d 783). ...
- Hopkins v. Booth
-
§ 4.03A Points of Disagreement and Other Concerns
...A.D.2d 389, 703 N.Y.S.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (noting that the wife thereby would not become a public charge); Clanton v. Clanton, 592 N.Y.S.2d 783 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52B-4. North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 14-03.1-03. Oklahoma: Hudson v. Hudson, 35......