URSULA H. JOACHIM v. HEINRICH JOACHIM

 

Webpage by Cliff Lamere    29 November 2013

 

_________________________________

 

 

This webpage concerns a divorce action in New York State which eventually was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court of the land.

 

The Supreme Court of New York is a low state court where many divorce actions are brought.  That court's action can be appealed, and may later reach the Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court.  After that, federal courts may be involved, and the case may even reach the U.S. Supreme Court, as did with Mr. and Mrs. Joachim.

 

I do not claim to understand this divorce case.  This webpage is the result of collecting incomplete information from the internet about many court actions related to this divorce as I was writing a webpage about Heinrich Joachim, an outstanding cellist.  I present the divorce information here.

 

In the actions below, the Appellant is the person who applies to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court.  The Respondent is the person who is answering the action.  The plaintiff is the peron who brought the original action.  In this case, that was Ursula (Hirsch) Joachim.  Heinrich Joachim was the defendant in the original action. 

 

If husband and wife were incompatible and wanted to separate, it is my recollection that in New York State, at that time, it was difficult for a man to begin the divorce action against his wife.  Therefore, the information on this webpage should not necessarily reflect negatively on Heinrich Joachim just because he was the defendant in the case.

 

The original case for divorce precedes the information that I was able to find.  The first action that I found was an appeal of the original case.

 

 

__________  June 9, 1975  __________

 

JOACHIM v. JOACHIM

48 A.D.2d 855 (1975)

Ursula H. Joachim, Respondent, v. Heinrich Joachim, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

June 9, 1975

Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

 

Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the award of alimony to $75 per week and the award of child support to $35 per week. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs.

The awards of alimony and child support were excessive to the extent indicated herein.

 

 

__________  December 29, 1975  __________

 

50 A.D.2d 897 (1975)

Ursula H. Joachim, Respondent, v. Heinrich Joachim, Appellant

 

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

December 29, 1975

Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

 

In a matrimonial action in which a judgment of divorce was granted to plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 1, 1975, which granted plaintiff's motion (1) for a counsel fee in defending defendant's appeal from (a) the said judgment and (b) portions of a subsequent order and (2) for a further counsel fee for services rendered in making the application therefor. Order modified by reducing (1) the counsel fee for services rendered upon the prior appeal to $750 and (2) the further counsel fee in connection with the instant motion to $100. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the counsel fees awarded were excessive to the extent indicated herein. We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without substance. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

 

__________  April 4, 1977  __________

 

57 A.D.2d 546 (1977)

Ursula H. Joachim, Respondent, v. Heinrich Joachim, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

April 4, 1977

Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

 

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application to hold defendant in contempt denied outright.

 

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 17, 1976, as, in denying the plaintiff's motion to hold him in contempt for his failure to pay child support, (1) determined that the proper means of resolving the issue raised by his opposition to the plaintiff's motion was an action for a declaratory judgment, (2) directed him to commence such an action within 30 days and (3) granted the plaintiff leave to renew should he fail to commence such an action. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application to hold defendant in contempt denied outright. Plaintiff's judgment of divorce from defendant, as modified on appeal (Joachim v Joachim, 48 A.D.2d 855), awarded her alimony, custody of their minor daughter and $35 per week for support of the child. The defendant subsequently applied for and received Social Security benefits, with the result that plaintiff receives monthly Social Security payments (which now equal $35 per week) for the benefit of the child. On the advice of counsel the defendant continued to pay plaintiff alimony but stopped paying child support. The plaintiff moved to punish him for contempt for his failure to make eight specified child support payments, and he opposed the motion on the ground that the Social Security payments constituted child support and relieved him, pro tanto, from his obligation to pay for his daughter's support. The court at Special Term found that a prior unappealed order of another Justice at Special Term was the law of the case and established that the proper means for adjudicating defendant's claim was by a declaratory judgment. The court also found that defendant's default was not willful and denied the motion to punish him for contempt. However, it directed him to commence an action for a declaratory judgment within 30 days, failing which plaintiff was granted leave to renew her application. Under the facts disclosed, the doctrine of the law of the case does not apply and, even if it did, it would not be binding on this court as an appellate tribunal (see Walker v Gerli, 257 App Div 249, 251-252). We hold that the Social Security payments to plaintiff for the benefit of the child do not relieve defendant, even pro tanto, from his obligation to pay for the support of his child in the absence of a showing of financial inability (cf. Matter of Quat v Freed, 25 N.Y.2d 645, 646; Beardsley v Hotchkiss, 96 NY 201, 219-220; Siegel v Hodges, 15 A.D.2d 571, 572). There is thus no need for a declaratory judgment to this effect and, since the record supports the finding that the defendant's default was not willful, the motion to punish him for contempt should have been denied without qualification. He may, if he be so advised, apply for a reduction in child support payments. On such an application the fact that plaintiff is receiving Social Security payments for the child may be considered by the court, along with other relevant circumstances, in determining the proper amount to be allowed for child support.

 

__________  September 13, 1977  __________

 

 

URSULA H. JOACHIM v. HEINRICH JOACHIM (09/13/77)

Court of Appeals of New York

decided: September 13, 1977.

URSULA H. JOACHIM, RESPONDENT, v. HEINRICH JOACHIM, APPELLANT

 

[57 A.D.2d 546]

 

"Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution (Matter of Dougherty v Makowski, 41 N.Y.2d 899)."

 

 

__________  December 6, 1977  __________

 

 

 

Heinrich Joachim, Petitioner, V. Ursula H. Joachim. U.S. Supreme Court Transcript Of Record With Supporting Pleadings

 

"This book contains copies of all known US Supreme Court filings related to this case including any transcripts of record, briefs, petitions, motions, jurisdictional statements, and memorandum filed. This book does not contain the Court's opinion."

 

Heinrich Joachim, Petitioner, v. Ursula H. Joachim.
Petition / COPAL MINTZ / 1977 / 77-804 / 434 U.S. 1066 / 98 S.Ct. 1242 / 55 L.Ed.2d 767 / 12-6-1977

 

[Available as a 48 page paperback from Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble and many other websites.  Copal Mintz is the author, and was a lawyer in the case.  To have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, this must have been an important case.]