 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Thomas Corletta
Thomas A. Corletta, ESQ. 585-546-5072
|
|
|
* NEW* MR. CORLETTA OBTAINS DISMISSAL OF SUPPORT MODIFICATION PETITION Mr. Corletta demonstrated that custodial parents cannot simply go back to Court whenever they feel like it seeking an increase in child support as opposed to attempting to generate income on their own, in Matter of D.J. v. M.G (Ontario Cty. Family Ct. 7/31/09). In that case, the parties were divorced for approximately five years. There were two children age sixteen and fourteen. There was a Separation Agreement that required Mr. Corletta’s client, the non- custodial father, to pay approximately $350.00 per week as and for child support and related expenses. Although Mr. Corletta’s client paid faithfully and directly, the custodial parent (mother) still sought an increase in support primarily based upon her failure to work for two years and her generalized testimony as to the increased needs of the children. She also sought a Wage Deduction Order when there was no arrears. Mr. Corletta brought out several defects in the mothers case on cross-examination, including her minimal efforts to obtain employment although at the time of divorce she was earning $45,000.00 per year. Mr. Corletta revealed she left her employment approximately after one month after she married a man who was receiving close to $50,000.00 in disability benefits. Mr. Corletta also demonstrated that with his client’ payment of child support, which he voluntary increased without any Court Order, the mother’s family had over $67,000.00 per year in non taxable income. Mr. Corletta not only argued the Petition was without merit, but that it was a completely frivolous money grab, and an outrage to his hardworking client. Mr. Corletta won an outright dismissal of the Petition, which will serve his client well against future modification attempts. The case stands for the proposition that child support modifications are simply not there for the asking and that Family Court is not some sort of bank that custodial parents go to to increase their income in lieu of working. The Support Magistrate’s opinion cited the mother’s minimal efforts in obtaining employment. Striking a blow for fairness, Mr. Corletta won a complete victory for a single father in matter of A.E v. J.A. (Monroe Cty. Fam. Ct., 7/14/08). Mr. Corletta’s client had custody of his ten year- old daughter. The child’s mother left to pursue a career in New York City, where she also married. Mr. Corletta’s client obtained a Support Order against her. In August, 2007, the mother announced without prior notice, that she was moving to Florida with her new husband, and stopped paying support. Upon arriving in Florida, she moved for modification of the Support Order. Approximately four months later, she obtained a job only after Mr. Corletta’s client was forced to assume the cost of all health insurance. The job she obtained did not pay as much as the job she left. She sought to reduce her support accordingly. Mr. Corletta, answering for his client, argued that since the mother voluntarily reduced her income, she should not receive a modification. Further, she presented no evidence the move was for her or her husband’s economic betterment. In fact, she presented no evidence at all, claiming she and her new husband’s finances were “completely separate”. Mr. Corletta also sought judgment for arrears in support, and an Order requiring the mother to contribute to the child’s health insurance coverage, which was now paid for by Mr. Corletta’s client. Mr. Corletta’s client won on all counts. Instead of obtaining a reduction, the mother is now required to pay more support than under the original Order. Mr. Corletta effectively argued this was only fair, citing cases where fathers had either been terminated or had quit their jobs based upon their own actions or misconduct. The Support Magistrate was forced to agree with Mr. Corletta’s reasoning, and denied all relief to the mother. This is a classic case of application of the old adage “what is good for the goose, is good for the gander”. *NEW* MR. CORLETTA FORCES WITHDRAWAL OF FLORIDA MOTHER'S CUSTODY PETITION Zealously defending a father’s rights, Mr. Corletta forced the withdrawal of an out-of-state mother’s Custody Petition in matter of A.S. v. M.O. (Monroe Cty Family Court, 3/11/07). In this case, Mr. Corletta’s client, the father, had custody of his 15 year-old son. Pursuant to Court Order, the son visited with his mother in Florida every summer. While the son was in Florida this past summer the mother, without the father’s knowledge, obtained the child’s school records from a local high school and registered the son in a Florida school because he wanted to stay there. The father objected and spent several months trying to obtain the return of the child, to no avail, before retaining Mr. Corletta. The mother thumbed her nose at him, and meanwhile, the son was failing all courses in school, and dallying with a “girlfriend.”
The mother then actually had the audacity to file a Petition in Monroe County Family Court seeking to obtain custody, thereby seeking Court approval of her unlawful removal of the child. Involved at that point, Mr. Corletta strenuously objected and obtained an Order from Family Court directing the child’s immediate return to Monroe County. The mother was strongly rebuked by the Court.
The father went to Florida over Christmas break and with police intervention and use of Florida Courts, as well as Mr. Corletta’s guidance, was able to find his son and return him to Monroe County, where he is now doing well in school.
The mother persisted in her Petition, despite the above facts, because the son expressed a desire to live with her. During the time he was living with her, his grades plummeted, as he had been able to run wild. By not only the Court Order, but obtaining the return of the child, Mr. Corletta’s client enforced discipline, and the son’s grades began to improve and he renewed his participation in sports. The mother then gave up, after several supervened visits, and withdrew her Petition because she was going to lose.
The case shows the value of enforcing ones rights and not allowing someone to do whatever they want simply because they live in another state. Mr. Corletta’s guidance of his upset client through the complicated labyrinth of interstate custody proceedings proved of immeasurable value to both his client and his son. |
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
