Ensuring Fair Equitable Distribution: Trial Courts’ Obligation to Reopen Financial Proof Upon Demonstration of Good Cause in Heber v. Heber

Introduction

Heber v. Heber, 2025 NYSlipOp 01984 (App. Div. 3d Dept. Apr. 3, 2025), addresses two core issues in matrimonial litigation: the proper calculation and award of child support under the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) when parenting time is substantial but unequal, and the trial court’s duty to allow a party to present financial evidence after establishing good cause for a missed appearance.

The parties, Felicia A. Heber (“wife”) and Jacob H. Heber (“husband”), married in 2015 and share three children (b. 2014, 2016, 2018). The wife commenced divorce and related family-court proceedings in February 2021. After consolidation of custody and family offense matters, Supreme Court issued interim orders on temporary support, custody, and, ultimately, a final divorce judgment. The husband appeals various rulings, but the Third Department’s decision is most notable for (1) affirming a child support award based on the wife’s status as primary physical custodian under Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b) and (2) remanding equitable distribution because the trial court prematurely deemed the husband to have rested his financial case without a clear deadline or opportunity to submit timely proof of his emergency-room visit.

Summary of the Judgment

Child Support: Supreme Court imputed annual incomes of $80,000 to the wife and $68,250 to the husband (despite his $35,000 wage), applied the CSSA formula, and awarded $1,523.20 per month in support. The Third Department affirmed, holding that the wife—having primary physical custody—was the custodial parent even though parenting time was “significant.”
Equitable Distribution: The trial court deemed the husband to have rested on financial issues after he failed to appear at a September 2023 date and declined to revisit that ruling when paperwork was later produced. The Third Department concluded that the court abused its discretion by not setting a submission deadline and not reopening proof once good cause was demonstrated—warranting a remand for a full hearing on equitable distribution.
Other Issues: The court rejected the husband’s bias claims, found no deprivation of counsel, and deemed unpreserved his allegation of fraud on the court by the wife’s counsel.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Third Department’s opinion draws on two categories of precedent: child-support cases interpreting the CSSA and procedural decisions on trial management and party default.

Custodial Parent and Imputation of Income
• Matter of Mitchell v. Mitchell, 134 AD3d 1213 (3d Dept 2015): Defines “custodial parent” as the one with physical custody for the majority of time. • Matter of Treglia v. Varano, 222 AD3d 1299 (3d Dept 2023) & Hughes v. Hughes, 200 AD3d 1404 (3d Dept 2021): Apply Mitchell’s framework to cases of substantial parenting time but unequal allocation. • Bast v. Rostoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998): Affirms that child support obligations under the CSSA are not reduced by additional parenting time of the noncustodial parent.
Trial Management and Default on Financial Issues
• Osman v. Osman, 83 AD3d 1022 (2d Dept 2011) vs. Simak v. Simak, 121 AD3d 1090 (2d Dept 2014): Contrast outcomes on whether a court must reopen a default upon proof of excuse. • Madu v. Madu, 135 AD3d 836 (2d Dept 2016): Holds that equitable distribution cannot be determined when financial facts are undeveloped.
Judicial Bias and Right to Counsel
• Gonzalez v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 92 AD3d 1158 (3d Dept 2012) & Kopko v. Kopko, 229 AD3d 974 (3d Dept 2024): Establish that rulings unfavorable to a party do not, alone, demonstrate bias. • Family Ct. Act § 262(a) and cases such as Matter of Shea v. Hoskins, 12 AD3d 1191 (4th Dept 2004): Protect the right to counsel in custody proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

Child Support: The court followed Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b) and CSSA guidelines, imputing income to the husband at his prior wage level after his termination for cause. Although the husband argued that equal or near-equal parenting time and his lower current earnings should eliminate support, the court correctly identified the wife as the custodial parent because she retained “primary physical custody” under the April 2023 order. The Third Department emphasized that a noncustodial parent’s obligation under the CSSA is not reduced by the actual time spent with the children, citing Jennifer VV. v. Lawrence WW., 183 AD3d 1202 (3d Dept 2020).

Remand for Equitable Distribution: Supreme Court’s letter deeming the husband rested on financial issues did not specify a deadline for producing proof of his hospitalization. When counsel belatedly provided medical documentation showing a genuine emergency, the court failed to reopen his case in contravention of principles laid out in Osman (requiring flexibility when good cause is shown) and Madu (necessitating full financial development before distribution). The Third Department held that fairness demanded a new hearing.

Impact

This decision underscores two critical obligations of trial courts in matrimonial actions:

Strict Adherence to CSSA Roles: Courts must identify the custodial parent by reference to primary physical custody, not merely hours of parenting time, and apply the CSSA formulas without discounting for noncustodial visitation time.
Procedural Fairness in Financial Disputes: Before deeming a party to have rested, courts should set clear deadlines for documentary proof and must reopen the record upon demonstration of good cause, especially where equitable distribution hangs in the balance.

Future litigants will rely on Heber v. Heber to challenge premature defaults on financial issues and to clarify the noncustodial parent’s support obligations when parenting time approaches parity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CSSA (Child Support Standards Act): A New York statute (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b]) establishing income-based presumptive guidelines for calculating child support.
Primary Physical Custody vs. Joint Legal Custody: Primary physical custody means a child lives with one parent more than 50% of the time; joint legal custody means both parents share decision-making authority over major issues.
Resting a Case: When a party fails to present further evidence and the court marks that party’s proof as complete—equivalent to a withdrawal of claims on that subject.
Equitable Distribution: The fair division of marital property upon divorce, which requires a fully developed record of assets, liabilities, income, and contributions.

Conclusion

Heber v. Heber establishes a dual precedent: it reaffirms the strict application of CSSA guidelines by identifying the custodial parent based on primary physical placement, and it clarifies that a trial court must afford a party a meaningful opportunity to present financial evidence when excused for good cause before deeming the case rested. By remanding for a new equitable distribution hearing, the Third Department has underscored that procedural fairness is as vital as substantive accuracy in matrimonial proceedings.