Hickland v. Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d 1 (1976)
A court should consider the supporting spouse’s ability to provide support, not just their current economic situation; however, a downward modification of support is not warranted if the reduction in income is due to the supporting spouse’s voluntary actions to evade their support obligations, but an exception exists if the supporting spouse shows an inability to maintain the current support obligation due to factors beyond their control.
Summary
After a divorce where the husband was ordered to pay $100/week in child support, he voluntarily left his higher-paying job following a wage deduction order, taking a lower-paying job closer to his family. The Family Court granted a downward modification of support to $65/week, finding the husband unable to meet the original obligation given his limited skills and current income. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that voluntary actions leading to reduced income do not warrant modification. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the Family Court’s decision was appropriate. The Court reasoned that there was an inability to provide support at the original level.
Facts
The parties divorced on July 28, 1981, with the husband ordered to pay $100/week in child support based on a stipulation merged into the divorce judgment.
At the time of the divorce, the husband earned approximately $20,000/year in road excavation, working away from his family in Ogdensburg, NY, but visiting on weekends.
Shortly after a wage deduction order was entered against him, the husband voluntarily left his job in September 1981 and took a job closer to his family with a starting salary around $9,145/year.
After deductions for child support, taxes, and other expenses, his net weekly take-home pay was $35.79.
By September 1982, his annual salary increased to approximately $10,596.
Procedural History
The Family Court initially dismissed two petitions for downward modification of the support obligation.
On the third petition, the Family Court granted a downward modification, reducing support payments to $65/week.
The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition, holding that a downward modification is inappropriate when a spouse’s actions cause their financial hardship.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case, giving discretion to the Appellate Division.
Issue(s)
Whether Family Court erred in reducing husband’s child support payments because he voluntarily took a lower paying job.
Holding
No, because the Family Court relied on the husband’s inability to return to his prior position, his limited vocational skills, and his inability to continue to make the original weekly support payments given his current income and that the Appellate Division must use its discretion.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the Appellate Division’s reliance on cases supporting the denial of a downward modification where a spouse’s actions cause their financial hardship. However, the Court emphasized that the Family Court’s decision was based on the husband’s inability to maintain the original support level due to his limited skills, inability to return to his old job, and low income. The court distinguished this case from others where the spouse had a higher true income, the ability to obtain higher-paying employment, or concealed assets.
The court stated: “It cannot be said as a matter of law that Family Court erred in exercising its discretion to modify the support obligation on this ground inasmuch as it could be found that the husband was unable to provide support at the original level.”
The Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case back to the Appellate Division, enabling them to determine the proper child support obligation.