A New York appellate court has made significant changes to a divorce judgment in the case of Finley v. Turner. The decision, issued on May 20, 2026, affects the financial obligations and custody arrangements between Terry Finley and Jennifer Turner. The ruling is important as it clarifies how income is calculated for maintenance and child support, and it alters custody arrangements for their two children.
The case began when Terry Finley filed for divorce from Jennifer Turner in 2019. The couple, married in 2009, has two children born in 2010 and 2012. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court of Westchester County issued a judgment of divorce on June 10, 2022. This judgment included various financial obligations and custody arrangements that both parties contested.
Finley appealed the court's decision, arguing that the income figures used to determine maintenance and child support were incorrect. He also contested the court's decisions regarding the equitable distribution of marital assets, including their children’s custody arrangements. The case was brought before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, which reviewed the lower court's decisions.
The court ruled on several key points in its decision. It found that the original court had improperly calculated the income of both parties. Specifically, the court stated, "the Supreme Court improperly averaged each party's income from the years 2014 through 2018 to calculate their respective annual income for maintenance and child support purposes." This miscalculation led to an inaccurate imputation of income to Finley, which the appellate court found unsupported by the record.
In addition, the appellate court modified the amount of maintenance and child support Finley was required to pay. The original judgment directed Finley to pay $1,680 per month in maintenance for 35 months and $5,979 per month in child support. The appellate court deleted these provisions, stating, "the matter is remitted for a new determination of each party's annual income, the plaintiff's maintenance obligation, and the parties' child support obligations." This means that the lower court must reassess these financial obligations based on the correct income calculations.
Furthermore, the court addressed the distribution of marital assets. It found that the lower court's distribution of certain accounts and property was not supported by evidence. For example, the court noted that the plaintiff had established that a portion of the funds in an Ameriprise IRA retirement account constituted his separate property. The appellate court directed the lower court to reevaluate the distribution of this account and other assets, including the couple's 2017 Honda Pilot vehicle.
Regarding custody, the appellate court modified the previous ruling that awarded sole legal custody to Turner. Instead, the court decided to award joint legal custody to both parents, with final decision-making authority granted to Turner. The court affirmed Turner's sole physical custody of the children, but it emphasized that both parents should share legal custody.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both parties. It not only alters the financial responsibilities of Finley but also changes the custody arrangement, allowing for shared decision-making regarding their children. This case underscores the importance of accurate income assessment in divorce proceedings and the need for courts to follow established legal standards in determining custody and asset distribution.
Looking forward, the matter will return to the Supreme Court in Westchester County for a new determination of the financial obligations and asset distribution. The court will need to consider the correct income figures and ensure that the distribution of assets is fair and equitable. The parties may also have the option to appeal further, depending on the outcomes of the new determinations.
In conclusion, the appellate court's decision in Finley v. Turner highlights the complexities involved in divorce cases, especially concerning financial obligations and custody arrangements. As the case moves back to the lower court, both parties will need to prepare for a reassessment of their situation based on the appellate court's findings.