CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1994

Jarvis v. Jarvis

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Jamison

This case concerns an appeal filed by William Thomas Clark against Martha Hill Jamison, challenging the denial of his motion to decrease child support payments. Clark argued that his financial circumstances had substantially changed and that the existing support was not in compliance with guidelines. The trial court denied the modification, finding that the children's needs had not decreased and Clark's financial resources remained substantial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in maintaining the child support order.

Child Support ModificationParental ObligationFinancial CircumstancesBest Interest of the ChildAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family LawChild Support GuidelinesMaterial Change in CircumstancesAgreed Order
References
21
Case No. 13-10-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2011

in the Interest of C. A. C., a Child

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for new trial in a child support and spousal maintenance modification case. The OAG claimed it did not receive proper notice of a February 2, 2010 hearing, which led to a default judgment regarding child support arrearages. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the OAG failed to provide competent evidence, such as a verified motion or affidavit, to establish the first element of the Craddock test—that its failure to appear was due to mistake or accident, not conscious indifference. The appellate court concluded that the OAG's unsworn allegations and arguments were insufficient to meet its burden.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementCraddock TestChild SupportSpousal MaintenanceFamily LawAppellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionDue Process
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foster v. Daigle

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to suspend his child support obligation and denied the defendant's motion for counsel fees. The parties were divorced in 2001 and have two sons. The plaintiff sought to terminate child support, including private school tuition, based on the sons' abandonment, which he attributed largely to the defendant. The Supreme Court suspended child support, concluding that while the defendant had not willfully manipulated the sons, the sons had abandoned the plaintiff and were constructively emancipated. On appeal, the court reversed the suspension of child support, holding that the sons, aged 16 and 14, were not of employable age, a necessary prerequisite for constructive emancipation, and thus could not forfeit their right to support. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant's request for counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

Child SupportConstructive EmancipationParental AbandonmentVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewEmployable AgeSaratoga CountyCounsel FeesJudicial Discretion
References
12
Case No. 12-18-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2019

in the Interest of B. L. W., a Child

This case involves an appeal by Brandon Lynn Walker against a trial court's order concerning conservatorship and child support for B.L.W., a child he shares with Kamena Taquay Handsborough. Brandon challenged the custody arrangements, child support calculations, the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the refusal to grant additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as his motion to suspend judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conservatorship decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in appointing both parents as joint managing conservators and Kamena with the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the order regarding child support due to an inconsistency in the ordered amounts, which were not properly supported by evidence or calculation guidelines. All other issues raised by Brandon were overruled.

Child CustodyChild SupportParental RightsAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawConservatorshipMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawMotion to Suspend Judgment
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniels v. Monroe County Child Support Collection Unit

This case concerns the priority of four liens against a $7,500 settlement received by Mr. Daniels. The liens include his attorney's charging lien, a workers' compensation lien by Legion Insurance, a child support lien by the Child Support Collection Unit for over $20,000, and a judgment lien by former landlord Robert Dykes. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, determined that the attorney's charging lien takes first priority based on logic and public policy, as the attorney created the fund benefiting all lienors. Legion Insurance's workers' compensation lien received second priority, as the Child Support Collection Unit had already had an opportunity to levy on the initial workers' compensation payments. The Child Support Collection Unit was placed third, and Robert Dykes's judgment lien was last. The court rejected arguments that CPLR 5242 (d) gave child support priority over statutory and charging liens in this specific context.

Lien PriorityAttorney's Charging LienWorkers' Compensation LienChild Support LienJudgment LienCPLR 5242 (d)Workers’ Compensation Law § 29Domestic Relations Law § 240Public PolicyEquitable Principles
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 8,078 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational