SOPHY P.Q. HAYNES v. ROBERT B. HAYNES, MIRIAM M. ROBINSON, GUARDIAN AD LITEM
83 N.Y.2d 954 (1994).
June 30, 1994
1 No. 219 SSM 12 (1994 NY Int. 130)
Decided June 30, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs,
and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
The primary issue on this appeal is whether Supreme Court abused its
discretion in awarding compensation to a guardian ad litem who was
appointed, sua sponte, on behalf of the couple's disabled adult child
during the pendency of this matri- monial action, which included a
dispute over the financial, medical and custodial arrangements for the
child.
Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on the ground of
constructive abandonment and for custody and support of the couple's
third child, who is now over 21-years-old, suffers from congenital
Down's Syndrome with severe mental retardation, functions at the level
of a 4-year-old and is likely to remain institutionalized for the
remainder of his life. Because the couple had entered into a
postnuptial agreement, which provided, in essence, that each party
would retain sole ownership of all real and personal property acquired
by him or her and that each party relinquished all claims to real and
personal property acquired by the other party, plaintiff made no
request for equitable distribution. However, plaintiff sought
apportionment of compensation for the services of the guardian ad
litem appointed, sua sponte, on behalf of the couple's disabled child.
Defendant counterclaimed, inter alia, challenging the validity of the
postnuptial agreement and contesting the appointment and fees of the
guardian ad litem since there was an outstanding decree of the
Surrogates' Court appointing him and plaintiff guardians of their
son's person pursuant to Article 17-A of the SCPA.
Supreme Court rejected defendant's challenges to the postnuptial
agreement, noted that plaintiff had paid initial guardian ad litem
fees of $13,377.15, directed defendant to pay $11,163.37 in
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified
The primary issue on this appeal is whether Supreme Court abused its discretion in awarding
Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment and for
Because the couple had entered into a postnuptial agreement, which provided, in essence, that
However, plaintiff sought apportionment of compensation for the services of the guardian ad
Defendant counterclaimed, inter alia, challenging the validity of the postnuptial agreement
Supreme Court rejected defendant's challenges to the postnuptial agreement, noted that
The dissent would have vacated the guardian ad litem award, concluding that there was no
Defendant also argues that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the custody
The dissent at the Appellate Division states that defendant lodged jurisdictional objections
However, nothing in the record before us establishes that defendant raised the specific
|
