Klapper v. Klapper, 66 N.Y.2d 626 (1985)
A party seeking modification of maintenance based on an “inability to be self-supporting” under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b) is entitled to a hearing if their allegations raise a factual issue as to their inability to be self-supporting, regardless of whether they demonstrate a change in circumstances.
Summary
This case concerns the standard for obtaining a hearing on a motion to modify maintenance based on the recipient’s inability to be self-supporting under New York Domestic Relations Law. The Court of Appeals held that a party seeking such modification need only present allegations sufficient to raise a factual issue regarding their inability to be self-supporting to warrant a hearing. The court emphasized that allegations of a change in circumstance are not required when the basis for modification is the recipient’s inability to achieve self-sufficiency. The case was remitted for a hearing because the defendant’s claim of an inability to find employment over a six-week period was deemed sufficient to raise a factual question.
Facts
The defendant sought modification of maintenance payments from her former spouse, asserting an “inability to be self-supporting” under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b). The defendant claimed she was unable to find employment over a six-week period.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant’s motion for a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether a party seeking modification of maintenance based on an “inability to be self-supporting” under Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b) must demonstrate a change in circumstance in order to be granted a hearing on the modification request.
Holding
No, because allegations of a change in circumstance are not necessary when the basis for modification is the recipient’s inability to be self-supporting; the party need only present allegations sufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether they have been unable to be self-supporting.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the specific language of Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b), which allows for maintenance modification based on an “inability to be self-supporting.” The court reasoned that requiring a showing of changed circumstances in addition to the inability to be self-supporting would impose an unnecessary burden on the moving party. The court determined that as long as the party seeking modification presents allegations sufficient to raise an issue of fact regarding their inability to support themselves, a hearing is warranted to determine if modification is appropriate. The court emphasized the importance of a factual inquiry, particularly since the defendant’s allegations of a six-week job search raised a sufficient question. The court stated, “As long as the party seeking modification on the basis of ‘inability to be self-supporting’ presents allegations sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether he or she has been unable to be self-supporting, as defendant did here, the court should refer the matter for a hearing on whether modification is warranted.” There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.