DeVoe v. Erck

• Decision Date: 19 April 1996
• Citation: 226 A.D.2d 1111,641 N.Y.S.2d 961
• Parties: Matter of Barbara DeVOE, Respondent, v. Phillip R. ERCK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 961

641 N.Y.S.2d 961

226 A.D.2d 1111

Matter of Barbara DeVOE, Respondent, v. Phillip R. ERCK, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

April 19, 1996.

Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, Crapsi, J.--Child Support.

Ann Demopoulos (James Renda, of Counsel), Buffalo, for appellant.

Jackson, Wilson & Douglas, by Jon Louis Wilson, Deborah Walker-Dewitt, Lockport, for respondent.

Before PINE, J.P., and WESLEY, BALIO, DAVIS and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Pursuant to a divorce decree dated January 3, 1990, respondent father paid child support to petitioner mother for the parties' three daughters in the amount of $50 per week per child. On January 28, 1994, respondent petitioned Niagara County Family Court for custody of his oldest daughter, Rachel; at that time, he did not seek modification of the support provision in the divorce decree. On February 15, 1994, the court entered a temporary order granting respondent custody of Rachel. On April 4, 1994, the parties stipulated to make that custodial arrangement permanent. On that same day, respondent filed two petitions with regard to support: the first petition sought support from petitioner for Rachel and the second petition sought modification of the support provision in the divorce decree based upon the change in custody. Petitioner also filed a petition seeking an increase in child support based upon respondent's increased earnings since the divorce decree. Petitioner also asked the court to apply the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) in determining support.

Upon appearing before the Hearing Examiner, the parties agreed that the children had no unusual or special needs. They further agreed to submit the matter for the Hearing Examiner's consideration based upon their financial affidavits, their stipulated wages for 1993, and their memoranda of law. Respondent's income in 1993 was $32,869 and petitioner's income for 1993 was $35,848.31.

In his findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner determined that it would be inappropriate to apply the CSSA in this split custody arrangement. The Hearing Examiner also determined that application of the CSSA would reduce the standard of living that the two children who continued to reside with petitioner had enjoyed prior to the modification proceedings, and would further impair the ability of petitioner to provide for her children because she could not claim the children as tax deductions. Despite his stated refusal to apply the CSSA, the Hearing Examiner nevertheless did apply it in part, by multiplying the combined parental income of the parties by the statutory percentage applicable to three children (29%) and then dividing that amount by three to determine a per child support obligation. The Hearing Examiner then subtracted the support obligation for Rachel from the support obligation for her two sisters and directed respondent to pay petitioner the difference, $117.84 per week, retroactive to the date on which the support petitions were filed. The Hearing Examiner never prorated the support obligations between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes (see, Family Ct.Act § 413[1][c][2] ), and he dismissed respondent's petitions. Respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's orders and findings of fact were denied by Family Court.

On appeal, petitioner contends that the Hearing Examiner properly refused to apply the CSSA in this split custody case. We agree with the Third Department that, although application of the CSSA to a split custody case may be "unwieldy", it is nevertheless possible (Kerr...