▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appellate court upheld the divorce judgment. It explained that when a settlement is silent on an issue, courts can't assume the parties meant to include it. Instead, courts look at the actual living situation. Since the child spent most time with Tsang, she was legally the custodial parent. That meant child support correctly went directly to her, as required by New York's Child Support Standards Act. The court also dismissed part of the appeal that challenged the fact-finding report directly, since that type of appeal isn't allowed under state law. The judgment was affirmed, and costs were awarded to Tsang.
Takki Tsang and Yiming Zhu married in 2018 and had one child in 2019. Tsang filed for divorce in 2021. In February 2022, the couple signed a written stipulation of settlement, agreeing to joint legal custody. This means both parents share decision-making power. But the agreement didn't specifically say who the child would live with most of the time, called 'physical custody.' A court judgment finalized the divorce in June 2023. It included a parenting time schedule and ordered Zhu to pay $1,560 a month in child support directly to Tsang. Zhu appealed parts of that judgment.
The main question was about interpreting the settlement. Since it didn't mention physical custody directly, who counts as the 'custodial parent' for child support purposes? Under New York law, the noncustodial parent usually pays support directly to the custodial parent. The court had to decide if the lower court's judgment properly filled in this gap without changing the couples original agreement.
This case shows how courts fill gaps in divorce settlements. Even if an agreement doesn't spell out every detail, courts can look at real-world facts, like where the child mainly lives, to apply the law correctly. It's a reminder that written agreements are read narrowly, based on their exact words.
Talk to a licensed family law lawyer in New York.