Silver v. Silver
| Decision Date | 26 March 1975 |
| Citation | 327 N.E.2d 816,367 N.Y.S.2d 777,36 N.Y.2d 324 |
| Parties | , 327 N.E.2d 816 In the Matter of Susan SILVER, Respondent, v. William SILVER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
William F. Reilly and Julia Perles, New York City, for appellant.
Simon M. Koenig, New York City, Michael A. Chatoff, Jamaica, and Herbert Carr, New York City, for respondent.
In 1970, the parties entered into a separation agreement pursuant to which the respondent husband agreed to pay the petitioner wife, Inter alia, the sum of $1,250 per month for a period of three years. Shortly thereafter, this separation agreement was incorporated, but not merged, in a bilateral Mexican divorce decree. After the expiration of the three-year term, the wife initiated this proceeding in Family Court to modify the decree so as to obligate the husband to continue to make monthly payments in the amount of $1,250 until her death or remarriage. The sole issue before us is whether this Mexican decree was, after the expiration of the three-year term, a decree 'granting alimony or support' so as to give the Family Court jurisdiction to enforce or modify the decree pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 466 of the Family Court Act.
The powers of the Family Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, are restricted to those granted it by the precise language of the statute. While no legislative history instructive as to this precise issue has been found, the language of this section *, read against this back- ground of limited jurisdiction, suggests that the Family Court is without jurisdiction unless, at the time the proceeding is commenced, there is a currently effective support or alimony provision. In our view it is not sufficient that the decree at one time provided for support or alimony payments. We are of the opinion that the legislative intention was merely to provide a quick remedy for a spouse who finds that the particular level of support then in effect under the foreign decree is no longer adequate. We do not think that the Legislature intended to empower the Family Court to order support or alimony in a situation where the spouse is not currently entitled to any support or alimony at all under the existing foreign divorce decree.
Beyond this holding as to the narrow issue of Family Court jurisdiction, we do not pass on any other issues raised by the parties. Resolution of those issues is properly reserved until such time as petitioner, if she be so advised, seeks legal or equitable relief in an appropriate forum.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Appellate Division and reinstate the order of the Family Court dismissing the petition.
I dissent and would hold that the Family Court does have jurisdiction.
By the clear wording of subdivision (c) of section 466 of the Family Court Act, the Family Court is empowered to entertain jurisdiction to modify a decree in those cases where a foreign court Granted an award of alimony or support. There exists no basis, therefore, for the majority view that jurisdiction of the Family Court is dependent upon a showing of a 'currently effective support or alimony provision'. Such a requirement may be determinative of the merits of the action, but is not relevant to a finding of jurisdiction.
When the words of the statute are unamibiguous, that meaning should be applied,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jane H. v. Phillip H.
...Family Court. The Family Court is a court of enumerated jurisdiction. (N.Y.Const., art. VI, § 13.) In Matter of Silver v. Silver (36 N.Y.2d 324, 326, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816), which held that section 466 of the Family Court Act did not confer the claimed jurisdiction, the Court of ......
-
Pearson v. Pearson
...provisions of foreign divorce decrees, irrespective of the grounds upon which the decrees were granted (Matter of Silver v. Silver, 36 N.Y.2d 324, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816; Beaverson v. Beaverson, 72 A.D.2d 963, 422 N.Y.S.2d 259; Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 50 A.D.2d 879, 376 N.Y.S.2d......
-
In The Matter Of H.M v. E.T
...see Matter of Pearson v. Pearson, 69 N.Y.2d 919, 921, 516 N.Y.S.2d 629, 509 N.E.2d 324 [1987]; Matter of Silver v. Silver, 36 N.Y.2d 324, 326, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816 [1975]; Family Ct. Act § 115) or the State Constitution see N.Y. Const., art. VI, § 13). In addition, Family Court ......
-
Villano v. Villano
...of Gardner v. Gardner, 40 A.D.2d 153, 338 N.Y.S.2d 639, aff'd. 33 N.Y.2d 899, 352 N.Y.S.2d 626, 307 N.E.2d 823. Silver v. Silver, 36 N.Y.2d 324, 367 N.Y.S.2d 777, 327 N.E.2d 816 and Wertheimer v. Wertheimer, 50 A.D.2d 879, 376 N.Y.S.2d 638, do not hold to the contrary. They limit the author......