(Download) "Betty Wurm v. Morris Wurm" by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Betty Wurm v. Morris Wurm
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 08, 1982
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
The plaintiff was awarded custody of the parties 12-year-old daughter and the defendant was awarded custody of the parties 17-year-old son. It is axiomatic that "the separation of siblings * * * is to be frowned upon" and "[close] familial relationships are much to be encouraged" (Matter of Ebert v Ebert, 38 N.Y.2d 700, 704). However that may be, in cases where it is clear that the best interests of each child lies with a different parent, a split custody decree is proper (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 83 A.D.2d 845; Sandman v Sandman, 64 A.D.2d 698; Porges v Porges, 63 A.D.2d 712). Such is the case herein. The granting of exclusive occupancy of the marital premises to the plaintiff was not an abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial Judge. The circumstances of the parties are such that the possession of the home by the wife and the young daughter is proper (see Weseley v Weseley, 58 A.D.2d 829; Bonardi v Bonardi, 55 A.D.2d 613). It is clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that the amounts awarded for direct and indirect alimony (mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and heating) and child support were not excessive. However, payments of the carrying charges on the house (mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and heating) are in the nature of open-ended obligations. This is improper by reason of the provisions of 22 NYCRR 699.9 (f) (6) (see Murena v Murena, 75 A.D.2d 640). The amount necessary to meet these costs should be taken into account when setting alimony and child support (see Doris v Doris, 81 A.D.2d 602). Therefore, the alimony and child support figures have been increased to compensate for these open-ended expenses which will now be borne by the plaintiff. This decision does not preclude plaintiff from applying for payment of future extraordinary medical or dental expenses for herself or the daughter or for payment of the expense of extraordinary house repairs. Plaintiff may, if she be so disposed, make future application to either the Supreme Court or the Family Court to recover the expenses which she may hereafter incur for any extraordinary medical or dental treatment for herself or the child or for extraordinary repairs to the marital premises (22 NYCRR 699.9 [f] [6]). Finally, it is clear from the record that defendants financial circumstances are such that the imposition of a wage deduction order and the direction to the defendant to remove any voluntary payroll deductions were proper. Defendant has historically not paid the mortgage or utility expenses. Pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, there was "good cause" to direct the issuance of a wage deduction order. Defendant has attempted to make himself judgment proof by voluntarily having additional pension and tax deferred annuity payments deducted from his salary. Therefore, it was proper, in the interest of justice, for Special Term to have ordered defendant to remove [87 A.D.2d 590 Page 592]
 "Betty Wurm v. Morris Wurm" by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}