Long Island Family Law and Mediation Blog
Assets aren’t the only thing that may need to be distributed between two parties when a divorce takes place. Some couples need to think about distributing their debts too – particularly when there is a dispute about whether the couple agreed to take on those financial commitments together or not. In order to prove to the courts of New York and Long Island that a debt should be split, parties must provide some crucial information. Most commonly, the courts will require some evidence that the debt was incurred either for the benefit of the other party, the household, or with the other party’s permission. This is a way that something may be considered marital debt, rather than just “individual” debt.
In most instances the debt that exists at the time of filing the divorce will be open to consideration by the courts. Usually, any debts that are taken on after the divorce case is filed won’t have any traction in the case. However, I have found some exceptions to this rule. For instance, in the case of G.T. v. A.T., 43 Misc. 3d 500, 501, 980 N.Y.S.2d 255, 256, the court was prepared to consider any debt incurred when the divorce was ongoing. However, the court ended up ruling that it was not going to distribute the debt that was incurred during the pendency of the divorce, simply because neither side was able to show evidence that the debt was made with the other’s permission.
In the case above, the plaintiff had a discover card in their name and a Visa and Mastercard in the name of the defendant. The two parties had accrued debt on all of the cards during the pendency of the case. However, as no evidence was available to suggest that the debt was incurred for the benefit of the other spouse, or with the other spouse’s permission, that debt was not be treated as marital debt. My experience is that if post filing expenses or debt is going to be an issue that the parties would want to attempt to get a Pendente Lite Order from the court. This is an order that provides for payments to be made for support and expenses while the divorce is ongoing. Continue reading ›
In my last two blog posts, I’ve discussed the considerations that take place when a divorcing by mediation couple is wondering whether or not to engage in divorce mediation by caucus. For some people, caucusing is an excellent way to keep emotions under control and support the successful outcome of divorce mediation. For others, caucusing may cause more problems than it solves. In this blog, I’ll be discussing the procedures and ground rules that divorce mediators like myself consider when clients opt to take the caucus session route. For me, the most important initial rule is to make sure that both parties are completely comfortable with the idea of caucusing. I can do this by discussing the options that both clients have with them during a joint mediation session. Once that decision has been made, the couple will sign an agreement on confidentiality of information.
family or supreme courts. In the right circumstances, working with a divorce mediator such as myself could also mean that you get to maintain more control over what happens with your divorce, as you can come to an agreement that can be drafted and sent to the courts for approval. However, there are many different kinds of mediation available in the world of family law, and it’s important to decide which option is right for you before you get started. My last blog was about the positives involving caucusing in divorce mediation. In this article I will point out some of the counter considerations.
The concept of caucus in mediation was originally designed to provide parties in a mediation dispute with some time to move away from joint sessions and discuss concepts with an advisor or divorce mediator on their own. These separate sessions weren’t intended to give the parties more support or an unfair advantage over their counterpart. Instead, the caucus sessions allow for the clarification of issues, the opportunity to reflect on short-term and long-term goals, and the chance to reflect on proposals and options for the future. According 
In Nassau County and Suffolk County, as well as the surrounding areas of Long Island and New York, the law generally allows for concurrent jurisdiction in either the Supreme or Family court to tackle issues of spousal or child support for married couples not living together. For a married couple living together, usually, unless it was clear that one of the parents has custody over the other, if one of the parents filed a child support case in family court, the family court would usually dismiss the case and direct that the issue of child support should be the topic in a matrimonial case. Matrimonial cases are dealt with in the Supreme Court. Proceedings for legal separation or divorce are the most common marital cases, although an annulment proceeding is also a matrimonial case. The family court does have jurisdiction to hear a child support case for a married couple not living together.
The courtroom is rarely a place that most people want to visit when dealing with their matrimonial issues. More often than not, a day in court is a stressful experience, particularly when it comes to dealing with things like divorce, child custody, and visitation rights. It’s no wonder that many individuals prefer to negotiate their divorce outside of court if possible. While there are ways for people to avoid the courts, such as using divorce mediation, not all spouses know for definite whether their spouse will agree to an alternative dispute resolution process like divorce mediation or collaborative law. In these circumstances, it’s important to keep your options open. 
Divorce is rarely straightforward. There are a lot of things that couples need to cover when a marriage comes to an end, including figuring out how debts and assets should be divided between parties, and determining who should have primary custody over the children. However, depending on the nature of your relationship with your ex-spouse, and the strategy you choose for managing your divorce, it is possible to make things a little simpler.
When an inquiry comes in for someone inquiring about getting a divorce, someone from my office attempts to ascertain from them whether they are interested in using our office as a neutral divorce mediator. If they’re interested in mediation, we invite them to bring their spouse to come in for a free initial consultation to meet with me. We explain that I do not, at least initially, meet with the couple one on one, or have an initial consultation with either one of them before meeting the couple together. The consultation is usually up to a half hour in length, although some couples choose to immediately begin mediating that day after the initial consultation. 
Most of the time, the appellate courts recognize that the trial courts of New York are given a great deal of discretion to make decisions about child custody and visitation aka parenting time matters. This is because it is recognized that these courts are in the best position to determine what is in the best interests of a child. The trial court’s opportunity comes from the ability to assess the character and demeanor of the parties, witnesses. The theory is that combining the court’s observations of the witnesses in the case, combined with the submitted evidence puts the trial court in the best position to make custody determinations. As I mentioned in my previous blog post, it’s unlikely for the appellate court to overturn the decision an appeal is made by a parent or parents who want to appeal a custody or visitation decision. However, it does happen at times and it may be possible for the matter to be overturned in an appellate court if the attorney for the appealing party can prove that that there was not a substantial or sound basis for the custody decision in the first place.
Child custody is a complicated part of divorce and family law.