The Three-Pony Rule
Posted by Mr. Thoughtful on August 27, 2008
I had never heard of the three-pony rule until I read a story on law.com today. The rule was invoked by the New Jersey Court of Appeals in a ruling overturning the decision of a trial court judge, of Essex County, NJ, awarding Jean Strahan child support in the amount of about $215,00/year. Jean’s ex-husband had retired from playing professional football.
For most couples in most states child support is determined based on a formula, which depends on both parents’ income. But Essex County NJ Superior Court Judge James Convery based his child support award order in this case by taking the ex-wife’s list of needs and making the father pay 91% of them. These “needs” consisted of, among other things:
“the children giving their nanny a 10-day vacation in Jamaica; diamond jewelry for their grandmother; $30,000 yearly for landscaping expenses; $36,000 a year for “equipment and furnishings”; and $3,000 yearly for audio visual equipment. Jean set their clothing needs at $27,000 a year, since the children needed new outfits every time they saw their father and one of them demanded a new purse every time she left the house.”
The New Jersey Court of Appeals balked at sticking the father with the bill for this life of luxury, saying “[T]he court made no distinction between what needs were reasonable, given the age of the children, and what simply amounted to a ‘fourth pony,’”
“no child, no matter how wealthy the parents, needs to be provided [with] more than three ponies.”
The Appeals Court also overturned the trial court’s sticking the father with the ex-wife’s legal fees. The two had signed a prenuptial agreement providing that there would be no award of alimony or legal fees.
The Appeals Court’s ruling, while certainly a welcome relief for men in New Jersey, doesn’t mean this ex-husband is out of the woods yet. The Appeals Court remanded the case back to the trial court and refused to transfer it to a different judge. If I were the husband I wouldn’t be opening a bottle of champagne. Judge Convery will now have to determine which of the expenses are reasonable. And if I’m any judge of New Jersey divorce court judges, he will conclude most of the mother’s list of expenses is reasonable and will liberally dispense the father’s income to the mother.
The mother’s attorney seemed to agree. “Jean Strahan’s lawyer is likewise optimistic. ‘We’re glad Judge Convery is remaining with these issues….’ “
This story is a good rebuttal to those people who have no sympathy for husbands, saying if they were too stupid to get a prenup, they deserve what the court gives them (or rather takes from them). This guy was prudent enough to get a prenup. But prenups don’t affect child support. And we see that, at least in many cases, child support can effectively serve as alimony.
No children need over $600,000/year. And the checks aren’t written to the children. Most of this money would be used to subsidize the mother’s life of luxury.
And one more point. Did we need one more reminder that all guys should leave New Jersey. If you get divorced, you will almost certainly be reduced to indentured servitude. New Jersey is one of the worst states in the country for guys.
Frank Mundo said
Honestly…. I don’t believe any of this foo foo.
Mr. Thoughtful said
“You don’t believe any of this foo foo.”
Can you be more specific about what you don’t believe? Do you not believe I have recounted the New Jersey Court of Appeals decision correctly. Or the part about the trial court’s decision? Or perhaps what you don’t believe is my analysis of the case.
September 15 roundup said
[...] “Three pony rule”: $600,000 a year is needlessly high for child support, even if mom has costly tastes [N.J.L.J., Unfiltered Minds] [...]
David Perry Davis, Esq. said
“The Appeals Court’s ruling, while certainly a welcome relief for men in New Jersey . . . ” “This story is a good rebuttal to those people who have no sympathy for husbands . . . ”
“Did we need one more reminder that all guys should leave New Jersey. . . . New Jersey is one of the worst states in the country for guys.”
Although I agree with your sentiments, I’d check your gender assumptions, my friend, they’d be offensive if it wasn’t apparent they are born of ignorance (word not used in a derogatory sense, just meaning “not knowing.”)
21% of custodial parents are dads.
I agree with the ideas as far as the $ are concerned and am equally offended by parents who want to turn a child into an annuity. Child Support is supposed to provide reasonable support for a kid – period.
I also disagree with your statement “New Jersey is one of the worst states….” As someone who has found for joint / shared custody rights in New Jersey for the better part of the last 20 years (including going to law school over the issue), NJ is NOT “one of the worst.” Shared custody for a competent, loving, and involved parent is almost a given in NJ at this point – it was a rarity 20 years ago.
Mr. Thoughtful said
David,
I’m certainly glad that genuine joint custody that allows fathers to continue to have a vital role in raising their children has become increasingly common in NJ.
I hope the NJ legislature and courts make other areas of the state’s divorce law less men-unfriendly (long-term alimony, payment of the wife’s attorney fees, etc.).
It would be interesting to see an evaluation that compares states’ divorce climate. It’s possible that my reading descriptions of court decisions has not exposed me to a full range of NJ divorce law, but I do seem to read about more divorce outrages here than in most other states (Mass. and NY are also big offenders).
Thanks for fighting for shared custody in the state. Making shared custody the norm contributes substantially to the well-being of fathers and their relationship with their children.