Howard v. Janowski
| Decision Date | 19 April 1996 |
| Citation | 226 A.D.2d 1087,641 N.Y.S.2d 940 |
| Parties | Matter of Mary Karkut HOWARD, Appellant, v. Joseph S. JANOWSKI, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J.--Maintenance.
Finocchio and English by Vincent Finocchio, Syracuse, for Appellant.
Devorsetz, Stinziano, Gilberti, Heintz & Smith by Patricia Serventi, Syracuse, for Respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, WESLEY, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.
Petitioner instituted this proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act purporting to enforce a "maintenance" provision in the parties' "Opting Out Agreement", which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce. The agreement contains an acceleration clause, which provides that, if respondent fails to make periodic payments when due, the balance of the payments required under the agreement is immediately due and payable. The Hearing Examiner determined that, because respondent had been late in making payments, the acceleration clause should be enforced and directed respondent immediately to pay $279,000 to petitioner.
Family Court properly sustained respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's order upon the ground that the Hearing Examiner had no power under article 4 of the Family Court Act to enforce the acceleration provision. Because Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, it cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute (see, Kleila v. Kleila, 50 N.Y.2d 277, 282, 428 N.Y.S.2d 896, 406 N.E.2d 753). The summary enforcement procedures of Family Court Act article 4 apply only to payments that in fact constitute "support" or "maintenance" (see, Family Ct.Act §§ 411, 451, 453, 454, 460, 466; see also, CPLR 5241, 5242; see generally, Matter of Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 204 A.D.2d 1028, 613 N.Y.S.2d 89; Matter of Kolar v. Kolar, 133 Misc.2d 995, 996, 509 N.Y.S.2d 245). In her post- argument submission, petitioner concedes that the payments required by the agreement are not truly "maintenance". The provision that payments are not to terminate on the death of respondent or on the death or remarriage of petitioner conflicts with the statutory definition of maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][a]; § 248), and it is clear from the structure of the entire agreement that, in reality, the periodic payments constitute part of a property settlement. The obligation to make periodic payments may be enforced either by a plenary action on the contract or an enforcement proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244 in Supreme Court (see, Matter of Kolar v. Kolar, supra, at 996, 509 N.Y.S.2d 245; cf., Melnick v. Melnick, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krier v. Krier
...Matter of Johna M.S. v. Russell E.S. , 10 N.Y.3d 364, 366, 859 N.Y.S.2d 594, 889 N.E.2d 471 [2008] ; Matter of Howard v. Janowski , 226 A.D.2d 1087, 1087, 641 N.Y.S.2d 940 [4th Dept. 1996] ; see also Kleila v. Kleila , 50 N.Y.2d 277, 282, 428 N.Y.S.2d 896, 406 N.E.2d 753 [1980] ), and "[i]t......
-
Burns v. Burns
...the concept of maintenance is unequivocally limited to payments made to an unmarried ex-spouse (see Matter of Howard v. Janowski , 226 A.D.2d 1087, 1088, 641 N.Y.S.2d 940 [4th Dept. 1996] ). And unless the parties contract otherwise, the Dolman rule incorporates this statutory limitation di......
-
Lynda A. H. v. Diane T. O.
...is a court of limited jurisdiction, and it may not exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute (see, Matter of Howard v. Janowski, 226 A.D.2d 1087, 641 N.Y.S.2d 940). The Family Court Act provides that "law guardians shall be compensated and allowed expenses and disbursements in t......
-
Peterson v. Peterson
...to [them] by the State Constitution or statute." 10 In re Russell "RR", 242 A.D.2d 770, 661 N.Y.S.2d 844 (1997); Howard v. Janowski., 226 A.D.2d 1087, 641 N.Y.S.2d 940 (1996). In New York, the family court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify or enforce a separation agreement......