Barnard v Barnard
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law divorce dispute involving equitable distribution, retroactive child support, maintenance, and counsel fees.
The Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff one year of maintenance at $2,890.35 per month, awarded retroactive child support of $99,683.88 without giving the defendant credit for certain mortgage payments, failed to distribute the plaintiff's checking and savings accounts, and directed the defendant to pay $18,000 in counsel fees.
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by awarding the defendant 50% of the plaintiff's checking and savings accounts as of the commencement date and by deleting the retroactive child support award for recalculation on remittal. The maintenance and counsel fee awards were affirmed.
The plaintiff did not prove that the funds in her accounts were separate property, so they were presumed marital property subject to equitable distribution. The trial court also found that the defendant paid the mortgage through January 2021 but failed to determine and apply the credit that should offset retroactive child support.
Background
The parties married in 2017 and had two children. In July 2020, the plaintiff commenced an action for separation, and the defendant counterclaimed for divorce. The parties later stipulated to a ground for divorce, and the complaint was amended accordingly. After a nonjury trial on maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of divorce, from which the defendant appealed specified portions.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance based on the parties' circumstances and her delay in employment while caring for the children, awarded retroactive child support dating back to the commencement of the action, did not distribute the plaintiff's bank accounts, and awarded counsel fees to the plaintiff.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the maintenance award was a provident exercise of discretion under Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][e][1] [maintenance factors including age, present and future earning capacities, and caregiving circumstances]. It further held that retroactive child support under Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][7][a] [child support is retroactive to the date of application and the court must account for temporary child support paid] required consideration of a credit for the defendant's mortgage payments on the marital home, so the amount had to be recalculated on remittal. The court also held that the plaintiff's checking and savings accounts were presumed marital property under Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][b], [c] [property acquired during the marriage is presumed marital and is subject to equitable distribution unless proven separate], and awarded the defendant a 50% share of those accounts as of the commencement date. The counsel fee award was affirmed under Domestic Relations Law § 237[a] [counsel fees may be awarded based on the equities, financial circumstances, and relative merit of the parties' positions].
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that bank accounts held by one spouse during the marriage will be treated as marital property unless separate-property status is proven. It also underscores that retroactive child support calculations must include appropriate credits for qualifying pendente lite payments such as mortgage carrying charges on the marital residence.
In New York divorce cases, courts must equitably distribute marital bank accounts regardless of title unless separate property is established, and retroactive child support awards must be reduced by proven credits for certain support-related payments made during the litigation.