New York Revises Divorce Law Statutes

Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

A state commission tasked with reviewing a contentious aspect of New York's divorce reform laws is four months behind in delivering an expected report, raising concerns that lawmakers will have little time to address recommendations before their session ends in June.

The independent Law Revision Commission now expects to submit its report May 31. Though the commission's suggestions aren't binding, several legislators have said they are waiting for the report before proposing amendments.

The law was one of a package of 2010 reforms that made New York the last state in the country to adopt no-fault divorce. It set a strict formula for awarding temporary alimony, the money one spouse gives the other during the divorce process.

Since its passage, the statute has come under criticism from many lawyers in the state, who say that the formula may work well for lower-income spouses with few assets but frequently produces lopsided awards for wealthier couples with more complex financial situations.

No independent data on the law have been made public. But a Binghamton Family Lawyer has pointed to numerous cases in which richer spouses, especially men, have been left nearly impoverished by the temporary awards.

Family lawyers, couples and others hoping the Legislature would address the issue before leaving Albany for the year said the opportunity was shrinking.

There are mancy concerns, and the statute has created a lot of issues. However, those involved cannot blame the commission—which has a limited budget and only five members—for the delay. They were given a lot of work to do in likely what was too short of a time period.

The Commission Chairman said that a rough consensus had emerged over months of meetings and outreach, although some numbers were still being analyzed.

For lower-income New Yorkers, the formula is working rather well. But for higher-income couples, rather than promoting settlements, it tends to promote litigation and frustrate settlements. The law currently applies to couples making up to $524,000 a year.

He said it was likely that the commission would recommend a lower-income cutoff where the formulaic approach no longer applies and maybe judicial discretion takes hold. The current income cap for the state's child-support formula of $136,00 was suggested, and $200,000 as possible thresholds.

Interviews with family lawyers across the state revealed continuing disagreement over whether such an adjustment would solve the problem. Some of the state's most influential legal groups also differ over another concern: whether the formula should apply to temporary alimony, be extended to final alimony or be eliminated.

The New York chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers opposes a formula for final alimony at any income level.

Ages of spouses—as well as their education levels, assets and earning capacities—may all vary widely, something that a blind application of a formula can't address.

Even those who support the use of a formula in some instances questioned whether the current iteration was fair. As it stands, many feel that the formula does not result in a fair and equitable resolution.

The Women's Bar Association of the State of New York would support a modified formula for final alimony awards, applying only to couples earning up to $136,000 a year.

The co-supervisor of the Legal Aid Society's family law and domestic violence practice, and one of the original drafters of the legislation, said she hoped the changes to the law would be minimal. But she was most concerned that the formula be extended to cover final alimony awards. She feels that installing a formula for temporary maintenance awards has already made a huge difference for clients.

The report would "probably" address the question of whether the formula should be extended to final alimony, and another proposal that would make the duration of alimony proportional to the length of the marriage. But he declined to say what the recommendations would be.

He also declined to comment on whether the report would recommend that the law address how judges should allocate responsibility for mortgage payments or handle the distribution of income streams other than salary, such as one-time bonuses.


For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.