HALLOREN v. HALLOREN (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Robert A. Onofry, J.), dated August 25, 2022.  The judgment of divorce, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of the same court dated April 4, 2022, made after a nonjury trial, (1) declined to award the plaintiff a credit for certain carrying charges and payments for repairs allegedly made toward a home the parties owned in Texas, (2) awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $1,417 per month for a period of 24 months, and (3) awarded the defendant basic child support in the sum of $1,017 per month on a combined parental income in the sum of $275,000, with an increase in the child support obligation upon the termination of the maintenance obligation.

ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provisions thereof awarding the defendant maintenance in the sum of $1,417 per month for a period of 24 months and awarding the defendant basic child support in the sum of $1,017 per month on a combined parental income in the sum of $275,000, with an increase in the child support obligation upon the termination of the maintenance obligation;  as so modified, the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new hearing and determination of the plaintiff's child support obligation and the defendant's request for maintenance, and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment of divorce thereafter;  and it is further,

ORDERED that pending a new determination by the Supreme Court, Orange County, of the plaintiff's child support obligation, the plaintiff's child support obligation as set forth in the judgment of divorce shall remain in effect.

The parties were married in July 2014 and are the parents of one child, born in 2016.  On May 29, 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief.  Pursuant to a so-ordered custody stipulation, the parties agreed to joint legal and physical custody of the child.  After a nonjury trial on the outstanding issues of, inter alia, equitable distribution, child support, and maintenance, the Supreme Court issued a decision dated April 4, 2022.  The court subsequently entered a judgment of divorce dated August 25, 2022, which incorporated the parties' stipulation and the April 4, 2022 decision.  The plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment of divorce as (1) declined to award him a credit for certain carrying charges and payments for repairs he allegedly made toward a home the parties owned in Texas, (2) awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $1,417 per month for a period of 24 months, and (3) awarded the defendant basic child support in the sum of $1,017 per month on a combined parental income in the sum of $275,000, with an increase in the child support obligation upon the termination of the maintenance obligation.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his request for a credit for certain carrying charges and payments for repairs related to the parties' home in Texas.  Although “[i]t is generally the responsibility of both parties to maintain the marital residence and keep it in good repair during the pendency of a matrimonial action” (Uttamchandani v. Uttamchandani, 175 AD3d 1457, 1459;  see Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle, 214 AD3d 922, 925), here, the plaintiff failed to produce evidence supporting his claim that he made any payments for the carrying costs or repairs to the home (see Tzu Ching Kao v. Bonalle, 214 AD3d at 925;  Curran v. Curran, 192 AD3d 985, 987).

The plaintiff correctly contends that the Supreme Court made numerous errors when calculating his basic child support obligation under the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) and in awarding the defendant maintenance.  As the court noted in its decision dated April 4, 2022, the “proper resolution of numerous issue[s] is rendered difficult, if not possible [sic], by the lack of evidence beyond the parties' often vague testimony at trial.”  At trial, the parties failed to submit, inter alia, their most recent tax returns or pay stubs, and the plaintiff failed to submit an updated statement of net worth.

The CSSA “sets forth a three-step method for determining the appropriate amount of support and each parent's respective share of that obligation” (Matter of Smisek v. DeSantis, 209 AD3d 142, 145, citing Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c];  see Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723, 726–727).  Under the CSSA guidelines, a court calculates the basic child support obligation by:  (1) determining the combined parental income (subject to certain deductions), and (2) multiplying the combined parental income, up to the statutory cap, by the appropriate child support percentage, and prorating the resulting amount in proportion to each parent's income (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c][1], [2], [3] ).  The CSSA requires a court “to direct ‘the non-custodial parent to pay his or her pro rata share of the basic child support obligation’ ” based on that calculation, “unless it finds that amount to be ‘unjust or inappropriate’ based upon a consideration of statutory factors” (Matter of Smisek v. DeSantis, 209 AD3d at 145 [emphasis omitted], quoting Family Ct Act § 413[1][f][10];  see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][f][10];  Cicale v. Cicale, 231 AD3d 705, 707).

Here, the Supreme Court, inter alia, failed to set forth the manner in which the parties' incomes were calculated (see Elias v. Elias, 101 AD3d 938, 940) and the calculations that it performed in setting the child support amount (see Beroza v. Hendler, 71 AD3d 615, 617).  In addition, although a court need not rely on a party's own account of his or her finances (see Matter of Ho v. Tsesmetzis, 199 AD3d 686, 687;  Matter of Sacchetti v. Sacchetti, 192 AD3d 810, 811), and may “in the exercise of its considerable discretion,” “impute income to a party based on the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings” (Matter of Ho v. Tsesmetzis, 199 AD3d at 687 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Sacchetti v. Sacchetti, 192 AD3d at 811), “the court must provide a clear record of the source of the imputed income, the reasons for such imputation, and the resultant calculations” (Pilkington v. Pilkington, 185 AD3d 844, 846).  Here, although it appears that the court imputed income to the plaintiff, it failed to “specify the sources of [the] income imputed, the actual dollar amount assigned to each category, and the resultant calculations” (Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1025–1026 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

As the record does not support the Supreme Court's calculation of the parties' income, and since the court failed to calculate how it arrived at the plaintiff's basic child support obligation, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a recalculation of this obligation (see Boltz v. Boltz, 178 AD3d 656, 658;  Beroza v. Hendler, 71 AD3d at 617).

Similarly, we cannot, on the record before us, determine the propriety of the maintenance award (see Boltz v. Boltz, 178 AD3d at 658;  Hartnett v. Hartnett, 281 A.D.2d 900, 901).  Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new determination of the defendant's request for maintenance (see Diliberto v. Diliberto, 230 AD3d 637, 641;  Sinnott v. Sinnott, 194 AD3d 868, 878).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., FORD, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.