Hacker v. Hacker
New York Supreme Court
522 N.Y.S.2d 768 (1987)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Ruth Hacker (plaintiff) and Seymour Hacker (defendant) entered into a separation agreement (the agreement) establishing obligations for child-support payments for the benefit of their daughter, Emily. Under the agreement, Seymour’s termination of child support would be deferred on Emily’s twenty-first birthday if she was pursuing a college education with reasonable diligence and on a continual basis. In any event, Seymour’s obligation to pay child support would terminate on Emily’s twenty-second birthday. Between the time of her twenty-first and twenty-second birthdays, Emily attended the Neighborhood Playhouse (the academy), a school for theater training approved by the New York State Education Department. The academy did not offer degrees, but it did require that students be 18 years old and high school graduates. Seymour paid Emily’s tuition at the academy and supported her pursuit of acting, but he did not pay child support during this time. Ruth filed an action seeking a judgment against Seymour for unpaid child support during this time, claiming that Emily’s enrollment in the academy fell within the definition of college as contemplated by the agreement. Seymour argued that the academy could not be considered a college, because it did not offer a four-year degree, and consequently, that he was relieved from paying child support for that time period.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Danzig, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.