Schneider v. Schneider, 17 N.Y.2d 123 (1966)
Parties to a separation agreement may agree to arbitrate disputes regarding the amount of child support, and such agreements do not violate CPLR 1209 or Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law.
Summary
This case addresses whether a provision in a separation agreement mandating arbitration for disputes over child support is enforceable. The Schneiders divorced in Alabama, incorporating a separation agreement for alimony and child support. After both remarried, a dispute arose over child support payments. The wife argued that arbitration was illegal under New York law and sought a court order determining support and enjoining arbitration. The New York Court of Appeals held that the arbitration clause was enforceable, clarifying that CPLR 1209 and Domestic Relations Law § 240 do not prohibit parents from agreeing to arbitrate child support disputes.
Facts
Plaintiff and Defendant divorced in Alabama in 1960.
Prior to the divorce, they entered into a separation agreement providing for alimony and child support, which was approved by the Alabama court.
The agreement stipulated that alimony payments would cease if the wife remarried, but child support obligations would continue, with arbitration as the mechanism for resolving any disputes over the amount.
Both parties remarried. A dispute arose regarding the amount of child support owed after the wife’s remarriage.
The wife contended the arbitration provision was illegal and sought a court order to determine child support and prevent arbitration.
Procedural History
The wife moved in Supreme Court for an order fixing child support and restraining arbitration.
Special Term granted the motion, deeming arbitration illegal.
The Appellate Division reversed, finding arbitration permissible, aligning with the First Department’s decision in Sheets v. Sheets.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether CPLR 1209 and Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law prohibit parents from agreeing to arbitrate disputes concerning the amount of child support.
Holding
No, because neither CPLR 1209 nor Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law explicitly prohibits arbitration of child support disputes when agreed upon by the parents.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals addressed the wife’s arguments based on CPLR 1209 and Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law.
CPLR 1209 states that a controversy involving an infant shall not be submitted to arbitration except pursuant to a court order made upon application of the representative of such infant. The Court noted prior decisions (Matter of Robinson, Matter of Luttinger, Sheets v. Sheets) established that a separation agreement is a contract solely between the husband and wife. The child is not a party, though a beneficiary.
The court addressed the change in language from Civil Practice Act § 1448 (“A controversy cannot be arbitrated…where one of the parties to the controversy is an infant”) to CPLR 1209 (“no arbitration of a controversy involving an infant”). The court found no legislative intent to change the meaning of the law with this change.
Regarding Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law, the court found nothing in the statute to contradict the well-settled rule that parties can agree to arbitrate support money disagreements. The court emphasized that this law gives courts broad powers regarding custody and support of children but does not expressly prevent arbitration.
The court cited Sheets v. Sheets, emphasizing judicial oversight of arbitration awards related to children’s interests: “Thus, the best interest of the child is assured protection by this omnipresent judicial check against arbitration awards in custody matters attaining the unassailable finality of awards in other arbitrations.”
The court distinguished Chernick v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., as that case involved an infant’s direct claim for personal injury damages, unlike the current situation where the arbitration stems from a separation agreement between parents.