Relates to automatic orders in matrimonial actions

• Democratic1

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Lea Webb says this is needed

The automatic orders statute, which was enacted in 2009, was a signif- icant step forward in matrimonial practice, as it prevents one spouse in a divorce action from dissipating the marital estate in order to deprive the other spouse of their property. It is both an access to justice measure which protects litigants during a divorce, and a court efficien- cy measure because courts no longer have to issue orders in individual cases to prevent prohibited conduct. This bill makes two important improvements to the automatic order provisions of Domestic Relations Law ("DRL") § 236, Part B, subdivision 2(b). First, in its current form, the statute fails to require a spouse to notify the other spouse of a tax lien, foreclosure, bankruptcy, or litigation, or the filing of same, or of the lifting of a stay in bank- ruptcy, which could adversely affect the marital estate. If one spouse receives notice that a legal proceeding has been commenced but fails to notify the other spouse while the divorce action proceeds, it could result in the other spouse's losing their home or other property. This bill therefore requires a spouse who receives such notice to notify the other party within 10 days. This provision is needed because frequently after spouses separate, they do not inform each other that important legal proceedings are taking place which may have a major effect on the marital estate. Sometimes property is titled in only one spouse's name. If the notice is sent only to that spouse, the spouse who does not receive the notice will have no opportunity to appear in the legal proceeding to protect their interest. Second, DRL § 236, Part B, subdivision 2(b) currently states that auto- matic orders remain in effect "during the pendency of the action," which may leave room for a litigant, pro se or otherwise, to incorrectly conclude that the automatic orders are no longer in effect once a trial has concluded, but the court's decision has not yet been rendered, a period which could span several months. This bill therefore would make clear that " THE Each automatic order S shall remain in full force and effect DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION, until the judgment of divorce is entered or the action is dismissed, discontinued or stayed, whichever shall occur first, unless the order is terminated, modified or amended by further order of the court upon motion of either of the parties or upon written agreement between the parties duly executed and acknowledged."

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.