Domestic Relations Law 177, which became effective on October 27, 2007, provides in subdivision 1, that prior to accepting and entering as a judgment any stipulated agreement between the parties in an action for a divorce, the judge is required to ensure that the agreement contains a provision relating to the health care coverage of each individual. The agreement must either provide for the future coverage of the individual, or state that the individual is aware that he or she will no longer be covered by his or her spouse's health insurance plan. Every agreement accepted by the court must contain the following statement, signed by each party, to ensure that the provisions of subdivision 1 are adhered to:
I, (spouse), fully understand that upon the entrance of this divorce agreement, I may no longer be allowed to receive health coverage under my former spouse's health insurance plan. I may be entitled to purchase health insurance on my own through a COBRA option, if available, other-wise I may be required to secure my own health insurance. ___________________________ ____________
(Spouse's signature) (Date)
The statute does not apply to any other types of matrimonial actions. It is confusing and raises many issues. It appears to apply only to “stipulated agreements”, presumably referring to agreements made during the course of an action for a divorce, and agreements and stipulations executed before its effective date. A literal reading of the statute requires every agreement that is submitted to a judge for incorporation into a judgment of divorce to contain this statement, even if either or both spouses do not have a health insurance plan.
Legislation has been introduced in the Assembly to amend the statute but until it has been signed into law, the following provision is suggested for all agreements and stipulations:
ARTICLE __
FUTURE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
1. The parties have been advised that New York Domestic Relations Law 177, subdivision 1 (“the statute”) provides that prior to accepting and entering as a judgment any stipulated agreement between the parties in an action for a divorce, the judge is required to ensure that the agreement contains a provision relating to the health care coverage of each individual. The agreement must either provide for the future coverage of the individual, or state that the individual is aware that he or she will no longer be covered by his or her spouse's health insurance plan.
2. The parties have been advised that New York Domestic Relations Law 177, subdivision 1 provides that every agreement accepted by the court must contain the following statement, signed by each party, to ensure that the provisions of subdivision 1 are adhered to:
" I, (spouse), fully understand that upon the entrance of this divorce agreement, I may no longer be allowed to receive health coverage under my former spouse's health insurance plan. I may be entitled to purchase health insurance on my own through a COBRA option, if available, other-wise I may be required to secure my own health insurance.
____________________________ ____________
(Spouse's signature) (Date)
3. The parties have been further advised that a literal reading of the statute requires every agreement that is submitted to a judge for incorporation into a judgment of divorce to contain this statement, even if either or both spouses do not have a health insurance plan.
4. In order to comply with the provisions of the statute the husband and wife represent to each other and state as follows:
a). The wife (does) (does not) have a health insurance plan.
b). The husband (has) (has not) been covered under the wife’s health insurance plan.
c). This agreement (does) (does not) provide for the future health insurance coverage of the husband.
d). In order to comply with the provisions of Domestic Relations Law 177, subdivision 1 the husband states:
" I, ___________________, fully understand that upon the entrance of this divorce agreement, I may no longer be allowed to receive health coverage under my former spouse's health insurance plan. I may be entitled to purchase health insurance on my own through a COBRA option, if available, other-wise I may be required to secure my own health insurance.
____________________________ ____________
(Spouse’s Signature) (Date)
e). The husband (does) (does not) have a health insurance plan.
f). The wife (has) (has not) been covered under his wife’s health insurance plan.
g). This agreement (does) (does not) provide for the future health insurance coverage of the wife.
h). In order to comply with the provisions of Domestic Relations Law 177, subdivision 1 the wife states:
" I, ___________________, fully understand that upon the entrance of this divorce agreement, I may no longer be allowed to receive health coverage under my former spouse's health insurance plan. I may be entitled to purchase health insurance on my own through a COBRA option, if available, other-wise I may be required to secure my own health insurance.
____________________________ ____________
(Spouse’s Signature) (Date)
Referrals to New York State attorneys. The Lawyer Referral and Information Service is a public service of the New York State Bar Association that provides ...
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Please see the article below for the improper political intervention of the Velella family with Family Court Judge David Klein: case of T...
-
The need to renew previously made requests has been in the news recently with lots of reminders that if you don't a request to be on the...
-
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org LINK The subtitle of the article on the July 29, 2012 New York Post: "Judges' pals cashing in...
-
Party Must Prevail on All Issues to Be Awarded Counsel Fee Pursuant to Agreement Provision In Matter of Bederman v Bederman, --- N.Y.S.2d --...
-
Be sure to read our # Funny # New # Blog "Law And Humor" filled with entertainment from the legal world! http:// lawandhumorny....
-
Judge Nelson Roman, Deputy Mayor Carol Robles-Roman, Is Approved For Seat in Southern District CourtSenate Committee Approves Roman for Southern District By Mike Paquette New York Law Journal March 4, 2013 LINK Cover Story: Hispanic Power ...
-
In 2007, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the longstanding Appellate Division case law "that a carrier's failure to seek verificatio...
-
Matter of Koeppel 2011 NY Slip Op 51709(U) Judge Keistin Booth Glen Decided on January 19, 2011 Sur Ct, New York County Glen, J. Published b...
-
Юридический ликбез: в каких случаях имеет смысл создавать Отзывные Трасты Будучи адвокатом , специализирующимся на вопросах создания Трастов...
-
The story about Scott Bloch and his disdain for the public he was supposed to serve is not just judicial corruption, but public service gone...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét