Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Support Modification: An Overview and Update
Is there a trend in child support modification matters? The cases we looked at in last month's newsletter granting an upward modification of child support appear clearly to be the exceptional ones. For example, in Kent v. Kent, the level of misconduct on the part of the father was extreme, and it is clear that this egregious behavior was a main focus of the court in awarding the upward modification of his support obligation. In Schonour v. Johnson ' unlike in Lincer, where the court denied to upwardly modify the child-support obligation to include college expenses ' the father had voluntarily agreed to pay for his daughters' college expenses, but the parties' stipulation did not set a cut-off date for his agreement. As a result, this case is not one where the court easily awarded an upward modification of child support; instead, the court can be said to have been clarifying the terms of the parties' stipulation.
The cases in the recent past in which a downward modification was granted are few and, like the cases granting an upward modification, seem to represent the exceptional case. For example, the court in Lonsdale v. McEwen focused on the exceptional decrease in the father's income when granting the downward modification. In Deith and DiPaola, the downward modification was granted based on significant changes in the custody arrangements of the parties ' the total lack of contact between the parent receiving support and the child in one case, and the complete reversal of residential custody in the other. Furthermore, in Martinez v. Torres, the modification was granted based on the fact that the payor's income had fallen below the poverty line. These cases all suggest that the change in circumstances must be significant in order for a downward modification to be granted.
There is another trend worth noting that appears in the cases denying a downward modification, and that is that the courts seem willing to look to a payor's assets and income not from employment when determining whether a party seeking downward modification is in fact able to continue to meet his or her support obligation after losing a job. For example, in Baffi, Freedman v. Horike, and Katerina D., the courts looked to the fathers' assets and earning powers in order to hold that the downward modification was not warranted even though in all three cases the fathers had lost their previous employment. It is important to note that in all three cases the party seeking the modification was found to have failed to use his best efforts in seeking re-employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience. Thus, it seems that when faced with a request for downward modification based on the party's loss of employment, the courts are willing to look at a party's total financial situation, including what assets he or she has which could be used to pay child support, when determining whether he or she can continue to meet child support obligations, at least when the party has failed to use his or her best efforts to seek equivalent employment.
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.