Summary
In Peters v. Peters (14 A.D.2d 778), the former husband sought an automatic reduction of his alimony and child support payments on the grounds that his daughter had married and was therefore emancipated for three years preceding his petition.
Summary of this case from Gilda G. v. Joseph GOpinion
October 2, 1961
In a divorce action by a wife, in which the interlocutory judgment of divorce, rendered in her favor in 1950, required the defendant husband to pay $150 a month to the wife as permanent alimony for her support and for the support of their two infant children, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 13, 1961, denying his motion to terminate his obligation to make the alimony payments directed by the judgment or, in the alternative, to reduce the amount of such payments. The application was made on the ground that one of the children, a daughter, has been married and fully emancipated for about three years; that the other child, a son, who attained the age of 20 in January, 1961, was also emancipated and self-supporting; and that plaintiff was self-supporting. Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for the taking of testimony, before the court or a Referee, as to the financial condition of the parties and their son. The amount of plaintiff's current income and assets, and the relative income of the respective parties, should be considered in determining the amount of the monthly alimony payments which should now be made by defendant to plaintiff ( Phillips v. Phillips, 1 A.D.2d 393, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 742; Sacknoff v. Sacknoff, 6 A.D.2d 879, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 771). Defendant may not be compelled to support the daughter, who is married and emancipated; nor may defendant be required to support the son, if he is self-supporting ( Sloan v. Sloan, 286 App. Div. 1102; Graffeo v. Graffeo, 7 A.D.2d 741). However, the fact that defendant is no longer liable for the support of the daughter and the fact that defendant may not be liable now for the support of the son, does not mean that defendant is automatically entitled to a reduction in the total amount of the alimony directed to be paid by the judgment ( Sloan v. Sloan, supra; Graffeo v. Graffeo, supra). Testimony should be taken as to the present financial condition of the parties and their son to determine whether, on the basis of the present needs of plaintiff and the son and the present financial condition of the defendant, the alimony provisions of the 1950 judgment should now be modified. Defendant is not prevented from applying for a reduction, even if it be assumed that he is in arrears in his alimony payments ( Bittson v. Bittson, 7 A.D.2d 867). Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.