In an extraordinary case from Nassau County, Justice Jeffrey A. Goodstein
made abundantly clear that he would deviate from the temporary support
standards to permit the wife and children of an enormously wealthy husband
to maintain the pre-separation standard of living they had enjoyed which
included three residences, extravagant vacations all over the world, flowers
for their several homes costing $500 a week, a private jet contract costing
over $500,00 a year, and in addition between $2,500 to $5,000 per hour
when flying on the jet, membership at several elite country clubs, and
otherwise had no limitations to their spending. Their Ferrari. Porsche
, and four other vehicles were bought for cash and cost approximately
$660,000. Before the divorce action was commenced, the wife had removed
$2 million dollars from a joint checking account which the husband alleged
should be used for her support and the support of the children during
the pendency of the case.
Based upon this lavish spending history, and the fact that the husband
was a successful real estate investor who used the proceeds of real estate
loan and sales of property to maintain the family’s spending habits
and did not take a weekly salary, the court awarded her $30,000 per month
in direct support payments, $20,000 per month for credit card expenditures,
and directed the husband to pay all expenses for their three residences,
the cars, and other incidentals that he agreed to pay. The total award
was well over a million dollars a year. Interestingly, the court did not
require the wife to use any of the $2 million dollars that she removed
from the joint bank account, because half of these monies would be awarded
to her as part of her distributed award for
equitable distribution and he felt should not be used to offset support.
What is to be learned from this case is that the papers submitted covered
every expenditures of the wife and had receipts for all large expenditures,
the credit card and bank statements of the husband as well as other computer
generated documents so that the court had sufficient evidence before it
to justify the award that it made. This is one of the first cases to totally
document the expenditures of the family. Without such proof, and the mere
statements of the wife made upon affidavit of the purported life style
of the family, it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible,
for the court to justify such a huge award. The court kept the financial
status quo, and permitted the family to enjoy their previous life style
which was developed over the many years of marriage.
The reader is recommended to go online and obtain the decision of the Nassau
County Supreme Court in
Westerich v. Westerich to understand the full extent of the court’s decision and order.
When you consult an attorney make sure he or she has read this case to
see whether it can be used to support your application for temporary support
as well as
child support.