Opinion
12-02-2022
In the Matter of a Support Proceeding Under Article 4 of the Family Court Act E.S., Petitioner, v. P.M., Respondent.
S. Francis Williams, Esq. Dirk Galbraith, Esq.
Unpublished Opinion
S. Francis Williams, Esq. Dirk Galbraith, Esq.
Scott A. Miller, J.
Petitioner E.S. (hereinafter "the mother") and Respondent P.M. (hereinafter "the father") are the parents of the subject child S.M. (DOB: XX/XX/09). On May 11, 2022, the mother filed a petition for modification of a judgment dated July 8, 2013, made by the Tompkins County Supreme Court entitled Judgment of Divorce, Index Number XXXX, which granted support for the subject child.
A Fact-Finding Hearing was held on September 12, 2022. The mother was represented by S. Francis Williams, Esq. The father was represented by Dirk Galbraith, Esq. Both parties testified. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 5 were received into evidence.
By Findings of Fact and Order Modifying an Order of Support entered October 4, 2022, issued after the hearing, Support Magistrate Michelle C. Philpott ordered the father to pay $258.82 weekly, as well as 71% of the health insurance premium and 71% of any unreimbursed health related expenses for the subject child, such payments to commence October 14, 2022.
The father filed Objections to Order of Support on October 21, 2022. The mother filed a rebuttal on November 3, 2022.
Objections filed pursuant to Family Court Act § 439(e) require Family Court review of the decision of the Support Magistrate; this review is equivalent to appellate review. Matter of Green v. Wron, 151 Misc.2d 9 (Fam. Ct. NY County 1991). "The scope of that review, however, is narrow, confined to whether the Support Magistrate, as the trier of fact, has made the necessary findings of fact and an order and whether, upon review of the record, the findings of fact present a reasonable basis for that order. The Support Magistrate is granted broad discretion in weighing the relative financial positions of the parties and evaluating testimony and, therefore, his or her findings are entitled to great deference. Creem v. Creem, 121 A.D.2d 676, 504 N.Y.S.2d 444 (2d Dep't 1986). The determination of the Support Magistrate should not be disturbed on appeal unless no fair interpretation of the evidence can support the findings. Stone v. Stone, 236 A.D.2d 615, 652 N.Y.S.2d 824 (2d Dep't 1997); Reed v. Reed, 240 A.D.2d 951, 659 N.Y.S.2d 334 (3rd Dep't 1997)." Matter of B.R. v. R.R., 24 Misc.3d 1244 (A) (Fam. Ct. Westchester County 2009).
Upon review of the record, it is apparent that the Support Magistrate, in her detailed Findings of Fact and Order Modifying an Order of Support, addressed every issue presented, made detailed findings of fact, and rendered a well-reasoned decision. The father has not raised any valid legal objection which would require this Court to disturb the findings and the order of the Support Magistrate.
It is apparent that the Support Magistrate found the Petitioner to be credible and that she chose to reject the testimony of the Respondent. The Support Magistrate was correct in sustaining the Petitioner's objection to a hypothetical 2021 tax return which Respondent sought to have admitted into evidence. The exhibit was speculative, and no expert was proffered to support its admission. Furthermore, it is clear from the Respondent's own testimony that he lacked a full comprehension of his own finances. The Support Magistrate was correct in sustaining the objection to the exhibit's admissibility.
There was ample support in the record for the Support Magistrate's determination to impute income to the father in the amount of $79,261 based upon the parties' agreed-upon farm income from the year 2012. The court has wide discretionary authority under Family Court Act § 413(1)(b) and (f) to impute income to a parent from a wide variety of sources; it is not limited to an examination of the documents submitted by the parties. The Third Department has held that, "...a Support Magistrate indeed is afforded considerable discretion in imputing income to a parent (see Matter of Skrandel v. Haese, 2 A.D.3d 1188, 1190 [2003])..." Perry v. Pica, 22 A.D.3d 903, 905 (3rd Dept. 2005). The court is not bound by the parties' representations of their finances. See Pfister v. Pfister, 146 A.D.3d 1135, 1137 (3rd Dept. 2017).
The Support Magistrate reasonably determined that, without testimony from the tax preparer, it was impossible for the court to draw a conclusion with respect to the farm's actual profit and expenses based upon the father's 2021 tax return. She further concluded that it was reasonable to impute income to the father based upon the parties' agreed upon farm income from 2012. This was not an abuse of discretion but rather a reasonable exercise of the broad powers granted to the Support Magistrate pursuant to the authority above.
It should be noted that the Support Magistrate could have accepted a less conservative estimate. The father represented a total net income of $124,660 for the year 2013 (notably, when he was operating the farm by himself). (Exhibit 2). Instead of using this figure, the Support Magistrate opted for the more conservative amount of $79,261.
Further, it was proper to impute income to the father from a year when the parties owned the farm jointly despite the fact that the father is now the sole owner of the farm. The figure of $79,261 represents the farm's net profit, which is not affected by the number of owners. As such, this was an appropriate figure to use, and all of the farm's net profit should be attributed to the father.
The father took an accelerated depreciation of $56,581 in 2021 as permitted under applicable IRS guidelines. It is clear that the Support Magistrate considered the fact that the father was able to purchase these significant upgrades and that he would not have been able to do so without the vast resources of his spouse. His reported net loss of $17,915 for that year does not reflect the true earning capacity of the farm. The year 2021 was a unique year during which the father maximized his deductions to lower his actual profits.
Family Court Act § 413(1)(b)(5)(iv)(D) provides that "money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends" may, in the discretion of the court, be imputed as income to a parent in determining child support. As such, to the extent the Support Magistrate took into consideration the significant resources of the father's spouse, there was no impropriety in so doing. The father cannot on one hand benefit from his wife's charitable contributions to reduce the farm income but then on the other hand object that the Support Magistrate considered his wife's resources and imputed them to him in part. Perhaps the father's spouse can make slightly less charitable contributions in the future because, as the saying goes, charity begins at home.
Accordingly, the objections are denied.
This decision constitutes the order of the Court.