In Handel v. Handel , ex-spouses Gary Handel and Coleen Farraday-Handel had a dispute over the terms of their divorce settlement.
Gary didn't think he should pay for his kids' summer camp since the couple's agreement only required him to pay two-thirds of "child care expenses incurred by the mother while working," and half of the children's "educational tutoring, PSAT/SAT courses, drivers education, and religious instruction." ("Extracurricular activities" weren't specifically encompassed.)
Coleen believed Gary should pay the "reasonable extracurricular expenses of the children on a pro rata basis" and asked for the modification of their settlement and divorce judgment to include that obligation.
When the Suffolk County Supreme Court sided with Coleen, Gary appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department
While the lower court erred by modifying the settlement, (because Coleen failed to make "a showing sufficient" to warrant modification of the couple's stipulation), the AD2 thought camp costs were child-care related and Gary was obligated to remit his share of the expense.
Interestingly, since she sought to modify the agreement, rather than seek its enforcement, the AD2 wouldn't award her legal fees.
Was that a campy result?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Handel v. Handel