Hoskins v. Skojec

• Decision Date: 21 October 1999
• Parties: Della D. HOSKINS, Respondent, v. Paul J. SKOJEC, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 303

696 N.Y.S.2d 303

Della D. HOSKINS, Respondent, v. Paul J. SKOJEC, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 21, 1999.

Catherine E. Cronin, Johnson City, for appellant.

Levene, Gouldin & Thompson (Cynthia A.K. Manchester of counsel), Vestal, for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., YESAWICH JR., SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.

GRAFFEO, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Monserrate, J.), entered November 2, 1998 in Broome County, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The parties, who were married in 1953 and have six children, entered into a separation agreement in October 1992 which addressed, inter alia, the equitable distribution of their marital assets and defendant's spousal maintenance obligation. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant's monthly maintenance payment was calculated as one half of the net difference between the parties' respective incomes, taking into consideration sources of income specified in the agreement. The parties further provided for adjustments in the maintenance payments based on increases or decreases in the income streams, except that at no time would "the [h]usband's payment be less than one-half ( 1/2) of the government pension". In addition to his salary from employment, the formula set forth in the agreement encompassed defendant's government sources of income, including his U.S. Air Force pension and Veteran's Administration disability compensation. Defendant retired from his job within a year of the agreement, so his spousal maintenance payments thereafter were derived from his Air Force pension and veteran's disability benefits.

The separation agreement was incorporated into, but not merged with, the judgment of divorce granted in December 1993. Although defendant abided by the terms of the agreement for more than four years, he ceased making maintenance payments in April 1998. Plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action and, after joinder of issue, moved for summary judgment seeking defendant's compliance with the agreement, unpaid maintenance and counsel fees. Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion and this appeal ensued.

Defendant contends that the maintenance provision in the separation agreement is void because the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (10 USC § 1408) prohibits a state court in an action for separation or divorce from awarding division of a veteran's disability benefits as spousal maintenance.

Initially, it is well established that a separation agreement incorporated into but not merged with a divorce decree remains a separate and enforceable contract between the parties (see, Merl v. Merl, 67 N.Y.2d 359, 362, 502 N.Y.S.2d 712, 493 N.E.2d 936; Hewlett v. Hewlett, 243 A.D.2d 964, 965-966, 664 N.Y.S.2d 132, lv. dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 887, 668 N.Y.S.2d 564, 691 N.E.2d 636). Here, the record reveals that the parties freely entered into the separation agreement, each with the benefit of counsel, and its terms were complied with by both parties for more than four years. Furthermore, by accepting the benefits of the agreement and performing his obligations for years, defendant is deemed to have ratified the terms of the agreement (see, Beutel v. Beutel, 55 N.Y.2d 957, 958, 449 N.Y.S.2d 180, 434 N.E.2d 249; Lavelle v. Lavelle, 187 A.D.2d 912, 913, 590 N.Y.S.2d 557; Bonem v. Garriott, 159 A.D.2d 206, 207, 552 N.Y.S.2d 16).

We acknowledge that a court in an action for divorce or separation cannot order as spousal maintenance the allocation of compensation received by a veteran derived from military pay waived in order for the retiree to receive veterans' disability benefits. ¹ However, parties are free to contractually determine the division of these benefits and a court may order a party to pay such moneys to give effect to such an agreement (see, e.g., Matter of Marriage of Stone, 274 Mont. 331, 908 P.2d 670; Dexter v. Dexter, 105 Md.App. 678, 661 A.2d 171, cert. denied 341 Md. 27...