Bill v. Bill
631 N.Y.S.2d 699, 214 A.D.2d 84, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9201 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child support stipulation that deviates from the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) is unenforceable regarding child care expenses if it does not explicitly state that the parties were aware of the CSSA provisions and knowingly waived them, and does not provide reasons for the deviation.
Facts:
- Frances and Gerald Bill married on November 17, 1985, and had two children: Nicholas (born Dec 7, 1983) and Stephanie (born Jan 31, 1987).
- Both Frances and Gerald were employed by BMW of North America, Inc. for a number of years.
- In early 1992, Frances and Gerald separated.
- On December 4, 1992, Frances and Gerald entered into a stipulation of settlement where Frances would have custody of the children, and Gerald would pay $325 per week in child support.
- The stipulation did not contain a statement that the parties had been advised of the provisions of the CSSA, nor did it set forth Gerald's child support obligation if calculated under the statutory formula, or explain any deviation from that amount.
- The stipulation also made no provision for the division of child care costs.
- Frances testified that Gerald contributed up to $200 per week for child care expenses after the stipulation was entered, but stopped making such payments prior to her application to the Family Court.
- Gerald testified that while child care was discussed, the parties were unable to come to an agreement on the issue, and he denied ever agreeing to share child care costs.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Bill (husband) commenced an action seeking a divorce in Orange County Supreme Court.
- Frances Bill (wife) counterclaimed for a divorce.
- On December 4, 1992, the matter appeared on the Orange County Supreme Court Calendar for trial, where the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement that was read into the record.
- A judgment of divorce, which incorporated the provisions of the stipulation of settlement, was entered on March 26, 1993, with the Supreme Court adding a handwritten provision stating the basic child support obligation and that the noncustodial parent’s pro rata share was “neither unjust nor inappropriate”.
- Shortly after entry of the judgment of divorce, Frances Bill commenced a proceeding in the Orange County Family Court to require Gerald Bill to pay a share of child care costs.
- A Family Court Hearing Examiner concluded that Gerald Bill was required to pay a pro rata share of child care expenses because the wife had not waived her right and the stipulation contained no provision addressing such costs.
- Gerald Bill subsequently filed objections to the Hearing Examiner’s findings.
- On January 21, 1994, the Family Court granted Gerald Bill’s objections only to the limited extent of adding a paragraph specifying that he would pay $120 per week for child care expenses up to August 30, 1994, and thereafter 60% of expenses actually incurred.
- Gerald Bill appealed the Family Court order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can child support provisions in a divorce settlement stipulation that fail to address child care expenses and do not explicitly state the parties' awareness of or knowing waiver of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) be enforced?
Opinions:
Majority - Krausman, J.
No, child support provisions in a divorce settlement stipulation that fail to address child care expenses and do not explicitly state the parties' awareness of or knowing waiver of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) cannot be enforced. The CSSA was enacted to ensure fairness, uniformity, and predictability in child support awards, requiring support to be calculated based on a fixed percentage of parental income and mandating the proportional division of child care costs. While parties may 'opt out' of CSSA requirements, such a decision must be knowingly made and strictly comply with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b)(h), especially after the 1992 amendments. This provision requires any agreement deviating from the CSSA to state that the parties were advised of the CSSA, that the basic support obligation presumptively results in the correct amount, what the CSSA-calculated obligation would have been, and the reasons for deviation. The Bills' stipulation wholly failed to comply with these explicit statutory requirements and presented conflicting testimony regarding their subjective intent on child care costs. The court concluded that such a stipulation does not constitute an effective waiver of the custodial parent's statutory entitlement to a contribution for child care expenses. Thus, the Family Court did not err in directing the husband to pay a pro rata share of the wife’s child care expenses.
Analysis:
This case establishes the critical importance of strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) when parties deviate from statutory child support guidelines in a settlement stipulation. It makes clear that courts will not permit parties to 'opt out' of the CSSA by omission or ambiguous intent, particularly regarding supplemental expenses like child care. The ruling reinforces the strong public policy protecting children's financial interests and provides a clear warning to attorneys that settlement agreements must explicitly detail awareness of the CSSA, calculations under it, and clear reasons for any deviation to be enforceable, thereby preventing future litigation over ambiguous terms.
