Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decisions of Interest
No Refund of Support Payments After Daughter 'Emancipated'
A father was not entitled to recovery of child support payments made after his daughter became emancipated in accordance with the parents' separation agreement, as public policy generally militates against such refunds, especially where, as here, the definition of emancipation came from a contract rather than from New York policy. J.R. v. S.R., Slip Copy, 2008 WL 3318608 (Fam. Ct., Onondaga Cty. 8/8/08) (Hanuszczak, J.).
After the mother filed a petition in December 2006 seeking modification and enforcement of a December 2002 child support order, the father cross-petitioned, seeking to terminate the child support order based upon his daughter's emancipation. He also sought reimbursement for support payments he made from the date of his daughter's alleged emancipation, in 2006.
Family Court in October 2007 determined that the daughter was not constructively emancipated by law, but she was emancipated as defined in the parties' Separation and Opting Out Agreement, which said the child would be emancipated and the father's support obligations terminated if she was employed for more than a month for more than 30 hours per week. The evidence showed that the daughter did work slightly more than 30 hours per week (an average of 30.08 hours per week) during the period of May 1, 2006 though April 1, 2007. This Court also noted that the daughter became 21 years of age on July 24, 2007 and child support payments ceased. The matter was transferred back to the Support Magistrate for further proceedings.
On July 21, 2008, the Support Magistrate issued a decision concluding that the father was not entitled to recoupment of the child support payments because public policy is against refunding child support monies already spent. In addition, he determined the monies paid in child support were actually necessary for the care and support of the daughter even though she was emancipated by the terms of the separation agreement.
The appellate court found no error in this decision, agreeing that New York's strong public policy against restitution of support overpayments controlled because the obligation of parents to support their children arises out of the policy of law and not out of contract. None of the usual exceptions ' such as mathematical miscalculations ' applied to this case. In addition, although the daughter worked more than 30 hours per week, she was far from self-supporting, as she was still receiving housing, food and health insurance coverage from her mother.
No Refund of Support Payments After Daughter 'Emancipated'
A father was not entitled to recovery of child support payments made after his daughter became emancipated in accordance with the parents' separation agreement, as public policy generally militates against such refunds, especially where, as here, the definition of emancipation came from a contract rather than from
After the mother filed a petition in December 2006 seeking modification and enforcement of a December 2002 child support order, the father cross-petitioned, seeking to terminate the child support order based upon his daughter's emancipation. He also sought reimbursement for support payments he made from the date of his daughter's alleged emancipation, in 2006.
Family Court in October 2007 determined that the daughter was not constructively emancipated by law, but she was emancipated as defined in the parties' Separation and Opting Out Agreement, which said the child would be emancipated and the father's support obligations terminated if she was employed for more than a month for more than 30 hours per week. The evidence showed that the daughter did work slightly more than 30 hours per week (an average of 30.08 hours per week) during the period of May 1, 2006 though April 1, 2007. This Court also noted that the daughter became 21 years of age on July 24, 2007 and child support payments ceased. The matter was transferred back to the Support Magistrate for further proceedings.
On July 21, 2008, the Support Magistrate issued a decision concluding that the father was not entitled to recoupment of the child support payments because public policy is against refunding child support monies already spent. In addition, he determined the monies paid in child support were actually necessary for the care and support of the daughter even though she was emancipated by the terms of the separation agreement.
The appellate court found no error in this decision, agreeing that
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.