Modifying Spousal Support Based on the Payor's Mental Health
A severe physical injury presents a relatively straightforward example of what might bring about a cognizable claim of extreme hardship.The 'Palmer' decision examines a more nuanced example of what might constitute extreme hardship—the deteriorating status of the payor's mental health.
April 07, 2021 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
The examination and focus on mental health in the legal profession and beyond has been gaining ground for some time now. Before the pandemic, in March 2018, Joseph Milowic III of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan wrote a moving article in this Journal regarding depression in the practice of law and the importance of finding meaning in what we do. After the pandemic, mental health issues have certainly come to the forefront on a variety of levels. Edward Steinberg, president of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, wrote an article in August 2020 also in this Journal emphasizing the need to bring the topic of mental health "out of the shadows." The mental health impact of coercive control in the home—on the victim-spouse and children who occupy that home—has also been a continuing source of discussion particularly during the pandemic when an alarming increase in domestic violence has been reported.
A recent decision from the First Department, Palmer v. Spadone-Palmer, 2021 NY Slip Op 00122 (1st Dept. 2021) illustrates a unique intersection between mental health considerations and matrimonial law. A parent's mental health may well come into play when custody is in dispute. Palmer is not a decision on custody. Rather, it addresses a matrimonial litigant's mental health on a purely financial issue—specifically, when and under what circumstances it is appropriate to modify a party's obligation to pay spousal support that was delineated in a settlement agreement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Leaning Into ‘Core’ Strengths, Jenner’s Revenue Climbs 17%, Profits Soar 23%
- 2Frito Lays Could Face Liability for Customer's Grocery Store Fall Over Pallet Guard, Judge Rules
- 3Holland & Knight Expands Corporate Practice in Texas With Former Greenberg Traurig Partner
- 4Heir Cut: Florida Appellate Court Backs Garth Reeves' Will
- 5Class Action Allowed to Move Forward Against Philadelphia's 'Courtesy Towing' Program, Judge Rules
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250