Sprole v. Sprole

• Decision Date: 29 December 2016
• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08911,145 A.D.3d 1367,45 N.Y.S.3d 233
• Parties: Robert R. SPROLE III, Respondent, v. Linda S. SPROLE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

145 A.D.3d 1367
45 N.Y.S.3d 233
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08911

Robert R. SPROLE III, Respondent,
v.
Linda S. SPROLE, Appellant.

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

Dec. 29, 2016.

45 N.Y.S.3d 235

Linda S. Sprole, Ithaca, appellant pro se.

D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Syracuse (John A. Cirando of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR., LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

145 A.D.3d 1367

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ames, J.), entered September 22, 2015 in Tompkins County, ordering, among other things, equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, upon a decision of the court.

Plaintiff (hereinafter the husband) and defendant (hereinafter the wife) were married in 1994 and have two daughters (born in 1996 and 2005). In 2009, the husband moved out of the marital home and commenced this action for divorce. The parties stipulated to the ground for divorce and, in March 2013, an order was entered awarding the parties joint legal custody of the older daughter, with physical custody to the mother, and granting sole legal and physical custody of the younger

145 A.D.3d 1368

daughter to the father. Following a nonjury trial on the remaining issues that divided the parties, Supreme Court issued a judgment of divorce which, among other things, awarded maintenance to the wife in the amount of $8,000 per month for five years, set the husband's monthly child support obligation at $1,997.50, distributed the marital assets and directed the husband to pay $200,000 of the wife's counsel fees. Overall, the parties' marital assets were distributed equally, with the exception of the husband's interest in the closely held company for which he served as the chief executive officer, of which the wife was awarded 30% of the stipulated value to be paid in five annual installments of $60,000 with a balloon payment of $600,000 in the sixth year. The judgment also directed that the marital home be listed for immediate sale, with the net proceeds therefrom to be divided equally between the parties. The wife appeals.

45 N.Y.S.3d 236

We first address the wife's challenge to the award of spousal maintenance. "The amount and duration of a maintenance award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed provided that the statutory factors and the parties' predivorce standard of living are considered" (Robinson v. Robinson, 133 A.D.3d 1185, 1186, 21 N.Y.S.3d 392 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B] [former (6) ]; Cervoni v. Cervoni, 141 A.D.3d 918, 919, 34 N.Y.S.3d 792 [2016] ). The court must set forth a reasoned analysis of the factors it relies upon in fashioning the award, "but it ‘is not required to analyze and apply every factor set forth in [the statute]’ " (Curley v. Curley, 125 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 4 N.Y.S.3d 676 [2015], quoting McAteer v. McAteer, 294 A.D.2d 783, 784, 742 N.Y.S.2d 718 [2002] ; see Robinson v. Robinson, 133 A.D.3d at 1186, 21 N.Y.S.3d 392 ).

Here, Supreme Court fully acknowledged the significant disparity in the parties' income, noting that the husband was earning an annual salary of approximately $415,000 at the time of trial while the wife, having left the workforce in 1996 following the birth of the parties' older child, had no income. The court also recognized, however, that the wife was relatively young, in good health, has a Bachelor's degree and could return to full-time employment given that the child in her custody was 18 years old and attending college, yet she had made no effort to secure employment throughout the six-year period during which this divorce action was pending. Moreover, the husband had been paying the mortgage and carrying costs on the marital residence-which the wife was occupying-during the pendency of this action, and the wife stands to receive substantial sums from the equitable distribution award, including

145 A.D.3d 1369

roughly $200,000 from the sale of the marital residence, $900,000 for her share in the husband's business and nearly $140,000 for her portion of the remaining marital assets. Given Supreme Court's consideration of the relevant factors and mindful that the primary purpose of maintenance "is to encourage rehabilitation and self-sufficiency to the extent possible, while still accounting for a large discrepancy in earning power between the parties" (Quinn v. Quinn, 61 A.D.3d 1067, 1071, 876 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Schwalb v. Schwalb, 50 A.D.3d 1206, 1210, 854 N.Y.S.2d 802 [2008] ), we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court's award of $96,000 in annual maintenance for a five-year period (see Macaluso v. Macaluso, 145 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 43 N.Y.S.3d 599 [2016] ; Doscher v. Doscher, 137 A.D.3d 962, 963–964, 27 N.Y.S.3d 231 [2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 912, 2016 WL 4533153 [2016] ; Musacchio v. Musacchio, 107 A.D.3d 1326, 1331, 968 N.Y.S.2d 664 [2013] ; Quinn v. Quinn, 61 A.D.3d at 1071, 876 N.Y.S.2d 720 ; Milnarik v. Milnarik, 23 A.D.3d 960, 962, 805 N.Y.S.2d 151 [2005] ).

Next, we find no error in Supreme Court's calculation of the husband's child support obligation. The court applied the statutory percentage for one child (the older daughter in the wife's custody) to the first $141,000 of combined parental income, 100% of which was attributable to the husband, resulting in a monthly obligation of $1,997.50. Because the combined parental income of $415,000 exceeded the then-applicable statutory cap, Supreme Court was required to determine what amount, if any, of that excess income would be designated as part of the child support obligation by considering the statutory percentage and/or the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240(1–b)(f) (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][b][3] ; [c][3]; [f];

45 N.Y.S.3d 237

Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3d 1, 10–12, 781 N.Y.S.2d 458, 814 N.E.2d 765 [2004] ; Vantine v. Vantine, 125 A.D.3d 1259, 1262, 4 N.Y.S.3d 375 [2015] ; Sadaghiani v. Ghayoori, 97 A.D.3d 1013, 1013–1014, 948 N.Y.S.2d 566 [2012] ; Smith v. Smith, 1 A.D.3d 870, 872, 769 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2003] ). Supreme Court listed several factors it considered before finding that none of the combined income over the statutory cap should be considered in calculating the husband's child support obligation with respect to the older daughter, including, most notably, that the husband is paying all of the expenses of the younger daughter in his custody, having waived child support from the wife for this child. Also bearing on the court's determination was the fact that the older child was enrolled in college and had access to a college savings account containing...