Johnston v. Johnston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department · 2017 · Family Law

2017 NY Slip Op 8923 (2017)

Updated July 19, 2026

famlawdivorceequitable distributionmaintenancecounsel feeschild supportirretrievable breakdownDomestic Relations Law § 170 (7)

Facts

The parties married in 1989 and had two children. In this matrimonial action, the husband counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, and after trial Supreme Court granted him a divorce, ordered the marital residence sold with proceeds divided after payment of specified debts, treated a home equity loan as marital debt, awarded the wife $3,000 per month in maintenance until certain terminating events, and awarded her $5,000 in postjudgment counsel fees. The wife argued on appeal that the divorce ground was improper, the husband's financial disclosures were inadequate, the property and debt distribution was erroneous, maintenance was insufficient, the husband should contribute to the youngest child's college expenses after age 21, and counsel fees should have been higher.

Issue

Whether Supreme Court erred in granting the husband a divorce based on irretrievable breakdown, in equitably distributing marital property and debt including the marital residence and home equity loan, in awarding maintenance in the amount and duration set, in declining to require contribution to the adult child's college expenses, and in awarding only $5,000 in postjudgment counsel fees.

Rule

Sworn testimony by a spouse that the marriage has irretrievably broken down for at least six months is sufficient as a matter of law to establish divorce under Domestic Relations Law § 170 (7), provided the statutory requirements are met. In equitable distribution and maintenance, the trial court has broad discretion, and its determinations will not be disturbed if it comprehensively considered the relevant statutory factors, provided a reasoned analysis of the factors it relied upon, and did not abuse its discretion. Marital debts incurred during the marriage that are not solely the responsibility of the incurring spouse may be offset against marital assets, and absent an agreement, a parent is not legally obligated to pay college expenses for a child over age 21.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Nina Flores filed for separation from her spouse, Eric Dalton. At a bench trial, Eric testified under oath that the marriage had been irretrievably broken down for more than six months, and the record showed he had complied with the statutory filing requirements tied to that ground.

If Nina argues that Eric was required to prove additional misconduct before a divorce could be granted, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a spouse's sworn testimony that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down for at least six months is legally sufficient to establish divorce under Domestic Relations Law § 170 (7), so long as the statutory requirements are satisfied. No additional proof of fault or corroboration is required.