Seeking information on divorce papers

[ccostanza1987]

Line 6. I acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Guideline Maintenance from the Court pursuant to DRL 236 B(6), Chapter 269 of the Laws of 2015, which was served with the Summons.

But line 1. says "Defendant affirms that all economic issues of equitable distribution of martial property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of counsel and experts fees and expenses, if any, have been resolved by the parties and are not being contested."


Everything else is pretty straight forward other than this line. I had a Lawyer I know read it, but he doesn't deal with divorce so he told me I needed to find out exactly what it meant.

Thanks in advance for the help

 

[Just Blue]

Line 6. I acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Guideline Maintenance from the Court pursuant to DRL 236 B(6), Chapter 269 of the Laws of 2015, which was served with the Summons.

But line 1. says "Defendant affirms that all economic issues of equitable distribution of martial property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of counsel and experts fees and expenses, if any, have been resolved by the parties and are not being contested."


Everything else is pretty straight forward other than this line. I had a Lawyer I know read it, but he doesn't deal with divorce so he told me I needed to find out exactly what it meant.

Thanks in advance for the help

what state?

 

[Litigator22]

Line 6. I acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Guideline Maintenance from the Court pursuant to DRL 236 B(6), Chapter 269 of the Laws of 2015, which was served with the Summons.

But line 1. says "Defendant affirms that all economic issues of equitable distribution of martial property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of counsel and experts fees and expenses, if any, have been resolved by the parties and are not being contested."


Everything else is pretty straight forward other than this line. I had a Lawyer I know read it, but he doesn't deal with divorce so he told me I needed to find out exactly what it meant.

Thanks in advance for the help

What the attorney that does not "deal" with the state's Domestic Relations Laws (DRL) meant is that you need to consult with a New York licensed professional that specializes in treating with those laws.

Neither this nor any other public forum is a reliable source for information concerning those highly complex statutes.

I will caution you not to sign any documents submitted short of professional consultation.

The "affirmation" stuff you've received is obviously designed to clarify and to identify any remaining substantive issues needed be addressed and litigated at time of trial. Only your attorney made cognizant of those issues and your suitable position with respect to them is qualified to advise you.

 

[LdiJ]

Line 6. I acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Guideline Maintenance from the Court pursuant to DRL 236 B(6), Chapter 269 of the Laws of 2015, which was served with the Summons.

But line 1. says "Defendant affirms that all economic issues of equitable distribution of martial property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of counsel and experts fees and expenses, if any, have been resolved by the parties and are not being contested."


Everything else is pretty straight forward other than this line. I had a Lawyer I know read it, but he doesn't deal with divorce so he told me I needed to find out exactly what it meant.

Thanks in advance for the help

I agree that you need an attorney who specializes in divorce law, in the jurisdiction in question, to answer that question. However, I will tell you what I think that the line means:

"We have already divided up and decided everything between us, we are both happy with that division and those decisions, and we don't need the court to be involved"

I personally think that line is too vague to be enforceable and could cause problems down the line, but get an attorney to give you the definitive answer on that.

 

[Zigner]

... However, I will tell you what I think that the line means:

"We have already divided up and decided everything between us, we are both happy with that division and those decisions, and we don't need the court to be involved"

I personally think that line is too vague to be enforceable and could cause problems down the line, but get an attorney to give you the definitive answer on that.

One would need to read the entire document (for context) to come to any sort of rational conclusion (or even a rational opinion) on the matter.

 

[LdiJ]

One would need to read the entire document (for context) to come to any sort of rational conclusion (or even a rational opinion) on the matter.

I disagree in this instance. I do not think that it is necessary to read the entire document in order to understand the meaning of that particular part. However, once again I emphasize that the OP is best served by a consult with an attorney who specializes in divorce.

 

[Zigner]

I personally think that line is too vague to be enforceable and could cause problems down the line, but get an attorney to give you the definitive answer on that.

My apologies - let me be more clear:
Without the context of the entire document, there is no possible way to come to a rational opinion about the vagueness or enforceability of the line in question.

EDIT: The remainder of the document/order almost certainly defines the various things that have been worked out by the parties.

 

[LdiJ]

My apologies - let me be more clear:
Without the context of the entire document, there is no possible way to come to a rational opinion about the vagueness or enforceability of the line in question.

EDIT: The remainder of the document/order almost certainly defines the various things that have been worked out by the parties.

I am kind of doubting that it outlines what they have agreed to as it's unlikely that the OP would have had to ask their question if it did. My divorce agreement contained a somewhat similar provision. Basically what mine said was that we had already divided all assets and debts and therefore did not need or want the court's intervention. It then went on to say that all issues regarding child support and other child expenses would be decided by the parties, without court intervention.

We both knew that it wasn't enforceable. Our attornies yelled at both of us about it and his attorney even tried to get the judge to throw the agreement out, LOL. The judge actually threatened to sanction his attorney for doing so.

Anyway, we have all told him to consult an attorney, and that is what he should do.

 

[adjusterjack]

Our attornies yelled at both of us about it and his attorney even tried to get the judge to throw the agreement out, LOL

Attorneys want to keep the cash cows fighting so the billings keep rolling in.

 

[stealth2]

I suspect, @ccostanza1987 , that your stbx has an attorney, so you really need to (at minimum) consult with one (experienced in divorce) as well.

 

[Litigator22]

I am kind of doubting that it outlines what they have agreed to as it's unlikely that the OP would have had to ask their question if it did. My divorce agreement contained a somewhat similar provision. Basically what mine said was that we had already divided all assets and debts and therefore did not need or want the court's intervention. It then went on to say that all issues regarding child support and other child expenses would be decided by the parties, without court intervention.

We both knew that it wasn't enforceable. Our attornies [sic] yelled at both of us about it and his attorney even tried to get the judge to throw the agreement out, LOL. The judge actually threatened to sanction his attorney for doing so.

Anyway, we have all told him to consult an attorney, and that is what he should do.

Perhaps you may write a book about your adventures and misadventures warring with your ex in family court. (In the past and as here again you've favored us with some of the dramatic episodes.)

However, captivating as they may be I fail to see how or why you would opt to proffer your brief experience with Indiana's family law as insight to the OP confronting the more intricate domestic laws of the state of New York.

 

[LdiJ]

Perhaps you may write a book about your adventures and misadventures warring with your ex in family court. (In the past and as here again you've favored us with some of the dramatic episodes.)

However, captivating as they may be I fail to see how or why you would opt to proffer your brief experience with Indiana's family law as insight to the OP confronting the more intricate domestic laws of the state of New York.

I didn't offer my "insight". I chose to tell him what I believed that statement meant. I also told him to consult an attorney to be certain. I understand that some people here are very anti giving anyone any information but I sometimes, in some cases, disagree with that.

 

[Litigator22]

I didn't offer my "insight". I chose to tell him what I believed that statement meant. I also told him to consult an attorney to be certain. I understand that some people here are very anti giving anyone any information but I sometimes, in some cases, disagree with that.

Then, pray tell what was the need of including the Indiana family courtroom histrionics? Collateral entertainment I suppose.

Whatever, it reminds me of the story about the lady who was so bent upon bending her friends' ears repeating sleep inducing details of her minor surgical procedure that some were secretly wishing she'd have a major one that might do her in.

(Don't ask what story or what lady, etc. I don't keep notes!)

 

[Just Blue]

Now now, children! Play nice.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Now now, children! Play nice.

This is better than watching “Judge Judy”!

”How do I know when a teenager is lying to me? Their lips are moving”!