Grandparents: the silent sufferers when their children get divorced

When parents get divorced, they are encouraged to sort out arrangements for any children between themselves, so that things can remain as amicable as possible. The best interests of the children should be the focal consideration and both parents should continue to have a strong involvement in their lives, so long as there are no welfare issues to consider.

The concept of ‘custody’ was traditionally used to define who children of divorce would predominantly live with; however, this has been abolished and, instead, parents will make ‘child arrangements.’ The change in terminology was an attempt to remove the concept of one parent being the ‘winner’ and one the ‘loser’, and to keep parties focused on making decisions based on what is best for the children.

In the event parents cannot agree on arrangements in relation to their children, they can apply to court for a child arrangement order to be made. Their right to apply is an automatic one, which means that although a parent may worry about the outcome of the application, they can relax somewhat in the knowledge that the court will make the best decision for the children.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for grandparents in such circumstances. When their children decide to divorce, this can mean an uncertain future in relation to contact with their grandchildren. This is due to the fact that if one of the children’s parents decides they do not want the grandparents to maintain contact with the children, the grandparents do not have an automatic right to apply to court for a child arrangement order to be made. Instead, they must apply to the court for permission to make an application for such an order.

It goes without saying that grandparents in the above position should always attempt to negotiate with whichever parent is making contact difficult for them. However, when such negotiations aren’t successful, many people argue that grandparents should have an automatic right to apply to the court for a child arrangement order.

The above argument is based on the fact that many grandparents have extremely close relationships with their grandchildren, and it can be traumatic for both the children and the grandparents when such relationships come to a very sudden halt upon divorce. Many people also find it unfair that relationships between grandparents and their grandchildren should stop because of ill-feelings between the parents. Neither the grandparents nor the children should be punished because of any animosity between parents.

Whilst there have been parliamentary debates about the difficulties grandparents face in maintaining contact with their grandchildren after divorce, no action has been taken yet. In the 2008 report, ‘Beyond the nuclear: Including the wider family’[1], it is pointed out that the government argues that if grandparents had an automatic right to apply for contact, this could impact a child’s rights being paramount. The government claims that it would be hard for a child’s welfare to be considered, or for their rights to be protected, if grandparents were not required to request permission to apply to court.

The main problem with the government’s argument is that it is not consistent. Any potential welfare issues that could emerge from providing grandparents with an automatic right to apply for contact surely already attach to the existing automatic right that allows parents, or those with parental responsibility, to apply for contact.

It is important to note that no one is campaigning for grandparents to have an automatic right to contact, as this could indeed be detrimental. Instead, they should simply be granted an automatic right to be acknowledged and considered in child arrangements.

Providing grandparents with an automatic right to apply for a child arrangement order, would signify the important role they play in many families. Eliminating the need to request permission to make an application to court would remove one huge hurdle that grandparents currently often need to go through during an already emotionally draining and troubling time. This would make the process easier and, hopefully, in cases where it is appropriate, allow contact to resume as soon as possible.

[1] http://www.fnf.org.uk/phocadownload/research-and-publications/research/Including_the_Wider_Family.pdf

 

Don’t look back in anger? Try telling that to Dale Vince

During the couple’s relationship, the pair lived a nomadic lifestyle, surviving on very little money. Following their separation, life continued in a similar manner for Ms Wyatt, who today lives in an ex-council house in Wales with her children. However, things changed dramatically for Mr Vince when he founded Ecotricity in 1995, which is now one of the UK’s biggest green energy companies.Mr Vince’s new lifestyle mirrors his business success and he currently lives in a £3 million 18th-century castle with his new wife and their son.

At first glance, it seems obvious that any maintenance claim brought by Ms Wyatt so long after their divorce should fall flat. After all, the maths is plain and simple: Mr Vince’s success came three years after the couple divorced and therefore this surely means that Ms Wyatt’s ship has sailed and she has no right to any of her ex-husband’s earnings? This logic was certainly used by Lord Justice Thorpe in the Court of Appeal, who stated that Mr Vince was not to be Ms Wyatt’s ‘insurer against life’s eventualities’. However, shockingly, when the matter reached the Supreme Court, Lord Wilson ruled that Ms Wyatt should be entitled to bring a claim against her ex-husband and stated that the matter should be heard by a judge in the Family Division of the High Court.

When the case does come before the High Court, Ms Wyatt will likely base her claim on her significant childcare contributions over the years. Mr Vince will rely on the ridiculously long delay in the claim being brought, as well as the fact that although the couple were officially married for 11 years, they actually only enjoyed marital cohabitation for two years.

Although Ms Wyatt’s claim may not be successful, the fact that she has received permission to bring it before a Judge is still extremely unsettling for divorcees, who should not have to live in fear that their divorces, which they presumed to be ‘done and dusted’, may rear their ugly heads in the form of a claim in the future.

If nothing more, the Supreme Court’s ruling comes as a huge warning to anyone whose marriage ends in divorce, and that warning is quite straightforward: it is imperative to get a final order so that all monetary claims are dealt with together with the divorce. It is certainly understandable why many fall into the trap of thinking that a clean break is unnecessary; after all, when a couple have lived on an extremely low budget throughout their marriage, the cost of a court order is likely be viewed as an unnecessary expense. However, it is vital for couples to realise that things can and do change – one party may win the lottery, a loved one may leave a large and unexpected inheritance, or one party may start a business that reaches a level of success they couldn’t have imagined in their wildest dreams.

Today, separating spouses are privy to the ‘online quickie divorce’, a service that allows parties to get divorced for a fixed fee of as little as £100 plus VAT. Whilst such services may appear appealing and are often very useful for those looking to keep their divorce costs to a minimum, it is imperative for couples to understand that such a service often does not deal with matrimonial finances and instead only take the couple to the decree absolute stage of their divorce.

In order for both spouses to move on with their independent lives after divorce, it is crucial that they draft, approve and sign a final financial order before submitting it to court for approval. Whilst the cost of a lawyer drafting such an agreement may be a slight inconvenience, it will be miniscule compared to a claim that could be brought years later by an ex-spouse with a hefty sense of entitlement. Nobody wants to be looking over their shoulder after divorce and the best insurance against having to do this is to tie things up at the point of divorce instead of leaving loose ends

Artist divorce case highlights sexism of the UK courts – and it’s not the women who are suffering

A stay-at-home father who was supported by his millionaire wife is appealing a court decision that would see him receive a £300,000 lump sum, as well as a long term £50,000 annual maintenance payment.

His appeal is based on the fact that his lump sum payment is to be partially funded by the sale of the former matrimonial home, in which he still lives, as well as the fact that his maintenance payments were calculated on the basis that he goes back to full-time work and secures the salary that he had 11 years ago.

Rupert Nightingale had worked as a picture editor and photo director for Men’s Health magazine until 2003, when he gave up his full time profession to pursue a part-time career in fine art photography, whilst also acting as a househusband. He was married to his wife, Kirsten Turner, for seven years, having dated her for over a decade beforehand. Ms Turner had supported the family during the marriage, earning £420,000 per annum as a partner at PWC.

Mr Nightingale believes that he should be able to remain in the former matrimonial home, have his maintenance payments upped by 50% and continue being a househusband on at least a part-time basis. He believes that the court has been guilty of gender bias and does not think that the same order would have been made in relation to a housewife in his position.

As Lord Nicholls explained in White v White [2000] , fairness should be the ultimate consideration by a court dealing with financial distribution on divorce. However, the focus in this case should not be whether the law is fair to homemakers, but rather whether the MCA 1973 S25 factors have been applied in the same way that they would have been if Mr Nightingale had been a woman.

The strongest argument in Mr Nightingale’s favour is likely to be found through S25(2)(f) MCA 1973, under which the court must give consideration to the contributions each party has made to the welfare of the family. It has been highlighted many times that there must not be any bias in favour of the breadwinner and against the homemaker, and this has protected many women who have sacrificed their careers to be housewives and child-carers.

Surely then, Mr Nightingale, who acted in the same manner, should also receive such protection? After all, the decision for him to cease full time work will have been made jointly by him and his ex-wife, and it would no doubt have been his support as a househusband that enabled Ms Turner to progress so far in her career.

When considering financial resources under S25(2)(a), the Court is to take into account not just present resources, but also those that will become available in the foreseeable future. For this reason, a spouse’s earning capacity can be considered and this explains the court’s decision to make an order based on Mr Nightingale returning to full-time employment. However, the court does not seem to have applied this factor in the same way in which they would have applied it to a woman in Mr Nightingale’s position, as they appear to have overlooked the fact that he has dedicated the past decade to childcare, which may have damaged his earning capacity.

The financial needs of a party to be considered under S25(2)(b) can often be reviewed jointly with the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of marriage – a consideration under S25(2)(c). Mr Nightingale would have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle when married to Ms Turner – one that he will not be able to maintain unless he returns to full-time employment. It can therefore be said that the court order does not meet his financial needs, despite the fact history has seen women successfully claim that they need three houses.

The court may, of course, argue that they have not been sexist and that they would have applied the law in the same way if the roles of the couple had been reversed. They could claim that the basis of the order rested on the relatively short length of the 7-year marriage, along with the fact that the couple’s child is now spending four nights with Ms Turner and just three with Mr Nightingale. The latter factor may also justify why the court did not deem it appropriate to keep Mr Nightingale living in the former matrimonial home.

“The difficulty for Mr Nightingale,” says Katie McCann, Head of Family for Kuits, “is that it is impossible to say with absolute certainty what the court would have done if the spousal role had been reversed. There may be those who believe that the law is incorrect and that those who are able to go back to work should have to, even if they have taken many years out to raise their children. However, this is not the question at hand.

“The imperative question is whether the law is being applied equally to both sexes, and the case of Mr Nightingale seems to suggest that it is not. The S25 factors should not be simply about protecting women who are vulnerable, but rather about protecting any spouse in the financially weaker position. This case suggests that fathers who make such a sacrifice are not necessarily guaranteed the same protection afforded to mothers who do the same.”

Lessons from Thiry: The important distinction between financial and litigation misconduct

Property tycoon Didier Thiry has been ordered to pay his ex-wife Alisa Thiry £17 million in a judgement issued by Sir Peter Singer. Due to Mr Thiry’s ill behaviour, which included him acting in a ‘financially predatory fashion’, as well as bombarding his ex-wife with communications throughout the proceedings, the judgement is riddled with references to Thiry’s misconduct. Indeed, Sir Singer described Mr Thiry as an ‘unprincipled rogue’ who had shown a ‘sadistic side to his personality’.

The strong descriptions used in the judgement have led to some people inaccurately suggesting that Mr Thiry’s misconduct during the legal proceedings, which also includes failure to disclose his finances, has had a direct impact on the size of the financial sum awarded by Sir Singer. This is, in fact, incorrect; and, in order to fully understand the outcome, a distinction must be made between this (Thiry’s litigation misconduct) and his financial misconduct throughout the time of their marriage.

When dealing with financial settlements upon divorce, the court may take into account certain factors. Financial conduct is one such factor that may be considered under S25(2)(g) MCA 1973 if it would be inequitable to disregard it. Mr Thiry’s financial misconduct included him preying on his ex-wife for his profit and to her detriment after she had trusted his advice on his reassurance that he was an ‘experienced investor and financial expert’. As explained by Burton J in S v S (non-matrimonial property: conduct)* , only conduct that causes a ‘gasp’ should be considered – as opposed to that which only produces a ‘gulp’. Sir Singer clearly felt that this behaviour had the ‘gasp factor’ and his award reflects this accordingly.

Litigation misconduct, on the other hand, only covers behaviour that takes place during the proceedings. In the case of Mr Thiry, this included his financial non-disclosure and offensive statements made to his ex-wife and her lawyers. It is highly relevant that this behaviour took place once the Thirys’ marriage had broken down. As suggested by Thorpe LJ in Tavoulareas v Tavoulareas** , a clear distinction between marital conduct and litigation conduct is imperative, due to the fact that S25(2)(g) should only catch marital misconduct.

Sir Singer honoured the above distinction in his judgement by not attaching a punitive element to Thiry’s litigation behaviour when dealing with the capital award. Although Mr Thiry’s conduct during litigation was unacceptable, his punishment for such behaviour did not come in the form of a generous financial award to Mrs Thiry. His financial conduct throughout the marriage, on the other hand, will have been considered as Sir Singer attempted to restore Mrs Thiry back to the position she had been in when they married.

Mr Thiry’s litigation behaviour, however, is penalised by way of a costs order to his detriment, as Sir Singer instructed him to pay Mrs Thiry’s entire £456,000 legal bill. This indicative move serves as a warning that, while a party’s bad behaviour during proceedings cannot affect the terms of an order, one should not assume that it will go unpunished. Although a costs penalty for litigation misconduct is discretionary, the fact that a judge is willing to order a disruptive party to pay the other side’s half a million pound legal bill in its entirety should serve as a significant deterrent against acting in such a manner.

Family Dispute Resolution Week: A Look at Mediation

Mediation will make the divorce process quicker, fairer and more empowering for both parties, says a family law expert at Manchester-based Kuits Solicitors today to mark the beginning of Family Dispute Resolution Week.

The comments come from Kuits’ Head of Family Law, Katie McCann, in response to further advancements made by the government to encourage divorcing couples to stay out of court in favour of mediation services.

“Last April saw the introduction of compulsory Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAM) for divorcing couples,” says McCann. “The purpose of these meetings is to provide the couple with information in relation to mediation and other forms of non-court-based dispute resolution. In a further attempt to encourage divorcing couples to use mediation as an alternative to the courts, a free mediation session will now be available, as long as one of them qualifies for legal aid.”

Previously, only the party eligible for legal aid was entitled to receive a complimentary session, whilst the other party had to pay for it. The Chief Executive of National Family Mediation, Jane Robey, says that the new scheme seeks to aid people’s understanding of what mediation can achieve, presumably by allowing them to experience the benefits of it first-hand.

MIAMs, along with the free initial mediation sessions, have the potential to enable ex-couples to reach agreements regarding finances and children outside of court. Commenting on the benefits of mediation the Justice Minister, Simon Hughes states: “Mediation works and we are committed to making sure that more people make use of it, rather than go through the confrontational and stressful experience of going to court.”

As well as being less stressful than court, an additional benefit of mediation is a financial one. David Norgrove, chairman of the Family Justice Review, estimates that, if used, mediation has the potential to reduce legal aid costs by £100million – and it is not only the government who would reap the financial rewards. Ex-couples would also benefit significantly due to the fact that only one mediator is required, as opposed to two lawyers, and the hourly rate of a mediator is commonly less than that of a lawyer. However, families should be aware that, should mediation be unsuccessful and lawyers instructed at a later date, costs are likely to end up higher than they would have been if lawyers had been instructed at the outset.

“There certainly exists the potential for mediation to be a success due the fact that it allows for effective communication between the parties, who are able to speak directly, as opposed to having to pass their opinions and negotiations through their lawyers,” says McCann. “Not only can this save a lot of time, but it also ensures that words are not minced or misinterpreted. Without the court getting involved, an ex-couple can potentially reach a subjective, tailored arrangement that works best for them, without feeling that they are being ordered to do so. Significantly, it is often the non-forced nature of the arrangement reached that attracts separating couples to mediation.”

McCann also thinks that the fact that an ex-couple have managed to sit down and reach an agreement using mediation will mean that they have effectively communicated and compromised with each other. The skills acquired will hopefully allow them to renegotiate their arrangements should they require adaptation in the future, especially in relation to arrangements for the children.

“Due to the benefits attached to mediation, it is understandable why the government are encouraging more couples to attempt it,” says McCann. “Although couples cannot be forced to mediate, the existence of compulsory MIAMs suggests that there is some sort of pressure being placed on separating parties to consider it. However, the government should consider whether this pressure could potentially threaten the success of mediation, due to the fact that it removes the voluntary element – if an ex-couple attend mediation against their wishes, there may be less chance of them co-operating in order to reach a suitable agreement.”

McCann goes on to note that, even when attendance at mediation is voluntary, there are still risks attached to the process, particularly for cases involving intricate financial complexities: “Mediation does not attract the same disclosure mechanisms as the court does and therefore a party may find it easier to conceal financial information during the mediation process,” explains McCann. “This, together with the fact that the mediator remains neutral throughout the process, offering no legal advice, can result in an unfair agreement being reached. As long as both parties are aware of these potential limitations, for many, mediation will provide a welcome alternative to court proceedings.”

Ultimately, McCann applauds the government’s support of mediation: “Anything that empowers couples going through the upset of divorce is a great thing. A settlement reached on their own terms is always better than an artificial result imposed by a stranger: the judge. At Kuits, we are great supporters of empowering clients to reach fair and equitable resolutions in the quickest and most effective way.”

“Of course, while divorce cases can often be extremely acrimonious (and therefore the government cannot expect every separating couple to mediate), for the majority of separating couples, mediation provides a real opportunity for them to settle their disputes outside of the court room – and the service is set to get even stronger in the future.”

Indeed, from January 2015, the Family Mediation Council (FMC) will introduce a new accreditation scheme and new professional standards that all mediators will have to work towards. In addition to this, all mediators and those training to be mediators will have to register with the FMC. It is hoped that the stricter criteria will result in a greater confidence being placed in the mediation system, which in turn will result in a rise in its popularity. Although the government is unlikely to ever make mediation itself compulsory, if its effectiveness is well documented then couples will be eager to use it without pressure.

Billionaire Hamm’s is one of the biggest divorce settlements in history, but is it big enough?

American entrepreneur Harold Hamm, best known for his position as CEO of Continental Resources, has been ordered to pay his ex-wife, Sue Ann Hamm, $995.5 million in what has been referred to as one of the biggest divorce settlements in history. Although an enormous figure to most, it is only a fraction of Mr Hamm’s $14 billion empire and Sue Ann plans to appeal the decision on the grounds that it is inequitable. For this reason, the ruling invites an intriguing question – is the Oklahoma County Court’s decision reasonable compared to the conclusion that a court in England and Wales would have reached?

Oklahoma is an equitable distribution state when it comes to the division of property on divorce. This means that any settlement must be just and reasonable. In order to achieve this, a judge must take into consideration the contributions of each party during the marriage, as well as deciding what each ex-spouse needs in order to move forward following the separation. Also to be considered is the standard of living enjoyed by the ex-couple whilst they were married and any factors that are clearly relevant – such as a spouse’s ability to pay. As the 24th richest man in the United States, it is fair to assume that Mr Hamm wouldn’t exactly struggle to make payments to his ex-wife. One would also be forgiven for suspecting that the ex-couple enjoyed a rather comfortable standard of living.

Whilst equity is central to property division in Oklahoma, its synonym fairness is the main consideration of judges making financial orders following marriage breakdowns in the UK. But what exactly is fair? And would Lord Nicholl’s famous ‘yardstick of equality’, together with the S25 factors of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, place Sue Ann Hamm in a better position? Let’s consider the facts. Harold 68 and Sue Ann 57 were married from 1988 until Sue Ann filed for divorce in 2012. Although Harold made mention of the fact that the couple had been separated since 2005, in England and Wales a marriage of 17 years could be considered long for the purposes of financial distribution. The affair that Sue Ann alleged Harold to have had would be irrelevant in an English court, as only conduct with the ‘gasp factor’ would be taken into account. The ex-couple have two children together: Jane, 23, and Hillary, 20. Although a UK court would investigate their financial needs together with their earning capacities, the reality is that this would not be a huge consideration due to the fact that they are both over the age of minority.

In Oklahoma, a significant factor for consideration was how Mr Hamm acquired his fortune. Just your ‘regular’ multi-millionaire when he married Sue Ann, Harry went onto purchase one million acres of land leases, which saw Continental Resources become a major oil producer and in turn propelled him into billionaire’s territory. Oklahoma law states that money earned during a marriage can form part of a divorce settlement if made through skill, as opposed to ‘luck’, or a change in the economy in which case it cannot. Mr Hamm’s argument that he had ‘stumbled across’ his additional wealth fell short when Judge Haralson stated that Harold’s skill, effort and leadership had been the driving force behind the success of Continental Resources.

Although Mr Hamm’s argument was unsuccessful, looking at how wealth has been generated in this way would be completely alien in the UK. Whether by luck or skill, this amount of wealth would fall into the pot for consideration.

A consideration of the UK court would be the needs, obligations and responsibilities of both Harold and Sue Ann. Due to the extreme wealth of the couple, this factor is likely to be reviewed in conjunction with the standard of living enjoyed by the parties before the breakdown of the marriage. This is because the ‘needs’ of a party are extremely subjective and will therefore be very different depending on the lifestyle a party has become accustomed to. A UK court would be looking to ensure that Sue Ann would be able to continue living comfortably; however, the difficulty arises when trying to decide how much money she will need to do this. Realistically, the almost $1 billion that she is set to receive in Oklahoma would allow her to have a life of luxury beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

Also relevant is the fact that Sue Ann Hamm was not a lady of leisure throughout her marriage. She was a lawyer in Harold’s company when the couple married, playing a significant role negotiating the company’s land deals. Her work could be found to be a significant contribution to the family, alongside Harold’s contributions. Also, if she stopped working to take care of the children (which is currently unreported), she could have an argument to be compensated for the loss of her career.

Taking all of the above factors into account, it appears that there could be a strong argument in the UK in favour of Sue Ann receiving an equal distribution. After all, she had a long marriage and contributed to the family’s welfare. In addition, Harold certainly has enough money to fund an equal split. However, the ruling of Cowan v Cowan[1] throws a significant curve ball into the equation. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that a stellar contribution by one spouse is enough to justify a departure from the yardstick of equality. Charman v Charman[2] seems to confirm that Harold’s $14 billion business could be viewed as stellar, hence creating a shift in his favour.

So what would all this mean for Sue Ann here in England? All the factors certainly point to potentially more than the 1/14th share she has been awarded. Some might say it’s no wonder she is trying her luck on appeal!

[1] [2001] 2 FCR 332 [2] [2007] EWCA Civ 503

New online survey shows significant rise in popularity of Marital Property Agreements (MPAs)

With the Law Commission proposing that marital property agreements (MPAs), covering pre and post-nuptial agreements, should be legally binding only last month, it is a fitting time to publish the results of a survey that has been undertaken (by Alex Porter, who announced the statistics first in full here) which analysed the work of legal professionals involved with MPAs. This project is part of a major study led by Dr Laure Sauvé from the University of Essex, School of Law. Her project will analyse the latest report by the Law Commission using a comparative approach. She is currently exploring the differences between English and French laws.

Increase of 73% in use of Marital Property Agreements UK

The online survey has shown that the popularity of MPAs is on the rise with an increase of 73% in their use over a 20 year period. In the last year 79% of respondents completed between one and five MPAs per month.

Little Application of MPAs in Court

It also revealed that very few MPAs are applied in full once they get to court: just 5% of respondents said courts applied the details of the MPA in full; 76% said courts applied the details of MPAs in part; and 19% said courts had not applied any details of MPAs. In terms of how many cases actually end up in court 40% of participants said they did not represent any MPA cases in court per annum, and 40% said they represent between 1 and 5 per annum. The level of litigation is therefore quite low against how many MPAs are being completed.

Those completing MPAs are mostly very wealthy. Looking at levels of capital and starting with women, the majority, 37% had between £25,001 and £100k, 23% had between £100k and £250k and 10% had over £250k.  Men completing MPAs had a substantially more capital, 30% had between £100k and £250k and the majority, 53%, had over £250k.

This means that 33% of women had over £100k in capital but 83% of men had over £100k. It is no surprise that most cases that go to court are big money cases as the majority of those who want MPAs are very wealthy.

The Law Commission is recommending qualifying MPAs be put into statute and the participants of this survey mostly agreed. 69% thought that MPAs should be binging on the courts so long as there were adequate safeguards. Only 7% thought they should not be binding and 24% were undecided. However an interesting anomaly is that 55% of participants thought there would be more litigation on the basis of misrepresentation or undue influence if MPAs were binding, so for law firms it is a win win situation, especially as the price of a MPA ranges between £350 and £20,000.

Not unsurprisingly 72% said they now advertise MPAs as they have become more popular. The use of MPA will no doubt continue to rise and whether or not there is a rise in litigation will surface in due course. Either way the extra revenue will be a welcome relief for family lawyers with the recent legal aid cuts.

The full results are available at: http://internschooloflaw.wix.com/mpasurvey#

 

Image credit: Richard G via Flickr

Division of Property in a Divorce: Is Equitable Distribution More Equitable?

division property usa divorce(US family law) One of the first things a couple in the process of divorce will need to know is if the state you live in is a community property state or an equitable distribution state. A community property state allows for all of the property acquired during the marriage to be, loosely speaking, divided in half. An equitable distribution state differs in that it aims to provide a fair and balanced approach based on many different facts about the marriage and both parties.

Not mandating equal split of the assets, but rather an informed and possibly unequal distribution can be the best way to decide these issues in some cases, which is why some most states practice equitable distribution instead of community property. Your divorce attorney should help you understand how the law works in your area, whether you live in a community property or equitable distribution state.

Community Property

Community property states include Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Alaska allows couples to opt in for community property, and Puerto Rico is also considered community property jurisdiction. For couples who get married in a Community Property State, whatever they earn or acquire during the marriage is co-owned equally by both husband and wife, and will therefore be split up equally in the event that the marriage dissolves.

The only exemption to this equal split is property inherited by one party, which would stay with that party completely in the event of a divorce.

The principle behind community property states lies in the collective family unit.

While two people are married, the fruit of their labors should go toward bettering the family unit, a community pool that exists for this very reason. In this sense, the community property states do have a valid argument. Let’s examine the typical scenario that some people might think of in the event of marriage dissolution.

Consider Bob and Sally

Imagine a husband Bob with a high paying job; he is the primary financial provider. Imagine the wife Sally also has a good job, but she only works part time due to the care she provides their one year old son Bobby Jr. Sally not only spends quality time taking care of Jr., she also cooks, cleans and acts as a sort of assistant to the ever forgetful Bob. If, over the course of the marriage, Bob manages to pay off his mortgage and save some money for a total asset value one million dollars. Suppose Sally was only able to contribute 30,000 to savings over the years. What little money she made she spent on clothes and entertainment, but it didn’t matter much to the family at the time because Bob was making more than enough for the both of them. Bob really appreciated the “feminine touch” Sally brought to the house, the home cooked meals and that Bobby Jr. didn’t have to spend most of his time daycare being raised by some stranger.

Many people argue that because Bob and Sally were working as a team for the good of their family, Bob would not have been able to be where he is today without Sally’s many contributions to the family, and there is just no way to put a price tag on that. With that mindset, it should make sense to just split everything in half right? Since Bob’s and Sally’s assets equal one million dollars plus the 30,000, they both should receive $515,000. This is what would most likely occur in a community property state.

This can also be seen as very unreasonable, it really can’t be that hard to figure out that “price tag” to put on Sally’s contributions.

Equitable distribution

Equitable distribution is all about finding a more balanced division of assets based on many factors. Many things enter into the equation such as how long the marriage lasted, what the established standard of living was, and the value of childcare and homemaking that each party contributed. Even whether one party invested in the other’s education or training, and the age, health, income or future earning capacity of both parties should be considered when trying to divide property. The goal here is not to split assets and debts directly down the middle and have Bob and Sally go their separate ways, the goal is to figure out what is most unbiased and fair distribution of property considering the circumstances.

Florida, for example, is an equitable distribution state so the outcome of the divorce might be somewhat different than both receiving $515,000. The court will start at that number (equal halves) and then perfect it based on the many factors stated above. Perhaps Sally would receive a little less, but it will be her equitable share. Sally may get the home to raise Bobby Jr. in until he grows up since she has put so much effort into making the house a home, and being there for Bobby Jr. as he grows.

Florida is also a “no fault” state, meaning that the division of property is not affected by the fact that either party has been unfaithful. It would be a mistake for Sally to assume that Bob’s affair would get her more property than him in the divorce proceedings. A divorce attorney  should be contacted should you have any queries.

There are a lot of factors to consider in the division of property, but ultimately each equitable distribution case will be different.

A Collaborative Divorce Interview: Clients and their Attorneys

In November 2013, Tyler Nelson and Pamela Nelson of Tampa, Florida, sat down for an interview with The World of Collaborative Practice Magazine.  The Nelsons had decided to Divorce using the Collaborative Process, as they did not want to fight in Court and they wanted to focus on the best interests of their daughter.  Tyler was joined by his collaborative attorney, Adam B. Cordover, and Pamela was joined by her attorney, Joryn Jenkins.  The interview was conducted by carl Michael rossi.

You can find the full interview at The World of Collaborative Magazine, and you can find excerpts below.

Tyler: A child needs her mother and father, even if they’re not together…Pamela was the one who found out about the collaborative process and told me about it. You know, you’re always going to have some kind of fear. Is this going to work out like it should? What is everyone going to have to do to make this work out? But as soon as I spoke with Adam about everything, all of my fears were gone. He explained everything and the way it was going to work, how it was going to work. I’m pretty sure Pam felt the same way, as soon as she spoke to her lawyer, she probably went through everything. That’s the one good thing about our lawyers, that they explained everything that was going to happen before it happened.

Pamela: Not everybody knows about collaborative divorce, yet. We really didn’t know until it was explained to us. It was a better process for us, rather than go to court and fight.

Tyler: Everything that needed to be addressed, has been addressed…Everything that we wanted to agree on, we did, and everything that we wanted put down on paper, it was.

Pamela: We also have different visitation rights with our daughter. More than, likely, other people have. We already had that situated, and we just needed to put it on paper. It was kind of different than normal people, where they only see their kids every weekend. We do our schedule every week, and we split the holidays. We had to work that out, and put that on paper.

Pamela: The judge actually said that she agreed that we were doing it the best way and that we were dealing with the divorce in a good way. Instead of people fighting and it being a bad thing, it was actually a good situation.

Adam: It was interesting that, at the end of that final hearing, Tyler and Pamela had their pictures taken with the judge. It was described afterwards as being not so much like a divorce setting, but strangely enough kind of like a wedding setting. They had their picture taken with the officiating person. Judge Lee was fantastic and was praising Tyler and Pamela for dissolving their marriage in a way where they keep their focus on their children and not on fighting. To divorce in a way that
was in the best interest of their daughter.

Joryn: I can’t remember doing another divorce where the judge congratulated the parties afterwards, and I’ve been doing this for thirty years.

Tyler: (regarding an interdisciplinary team) They told me about the financial manager [Monicas Ospina, CPA], and she was great. So was the psychologist [Jennifer Mockler, Ph.D.], she was great. They were all great.

Pamela: [The financial professional and mental health professional] were very helpful. They helped us with our tax returns, to see who should file for dependency exemptions to get the most out of it. And the mental health professional helped us stay on the same page with our daughter to make sure that we were doing the right thing. The psychologist made sure we were on the same page in how we were raising our daughter and determine what’s best for her.

Pamela:  (regarding the collaborative process) There’s no arguing, you know, there’s not really fighting or going back and forth or going to court or having the records be there out in public. There’s more privacy. I would definitely recommend it to anybody considering divorce.

Tyler: I have to agree with her…If you go and do the collaborative divorce, you have a lawyer there…They are not trying to make us fight. They are just there to write down what we want, and that’s the best thing about collaborative.

Tyler: We all sat down and talked. There was no arguing.

Pamela: The professionals worked around our schedules instead of us being court ordered to go to court on certain times and dates.

Pamela: (regarding going to the state-mandated parenting class) Everyone else was crying and hated their ex and wanted to kill them and I was like “well,
we’re friends, and everything is good.”

Tyler: “If anybody is thinking about doing a divorce, they should look into a collaborative divorce instead of jumping into it and going to court and fighting.”

Adam: “What I found excellent about this process and this couple, as opposed to the court-based divorces that I generally go through, is that when we were sitting around the table together with the mental health professional and financial professional, and we were talking, we weren’t just talking “civilly.”  We were talking in earnest.  We were actually just joking around at a few times and able to communicate in ways that you just couldn’t imagine doing in other divorce processes, even at a mediation table when there is the threat of litigation.

Joryn: “It is a much more protected environment, I think. It freed me up, and I’d like to think Adam, as well, to feel like we were teammates. We didn’t have to be adversaries, even though we were both representing different interests.”

Adam B. Cordover, Joryn Jenkins, Monica Ospina, and Jennifer Mockler are all members of Next Generation Divorce, formerly known as the Collaborative Divorce Institute of Tampa Bay.  Next Generation Divorce is made up of professionals dedicated to respectfully resolving family disputes.

Gay Marriage: The Church vs. State Argument

Gay marriage is one of the most controversial and polarizing issues of the modern era. The increasingly Christian-influenced Republican Party has made gay marriage one of its primary talking points, prompting the Democratic Party to come back at them by re-iterating the importance of the separation of church and state. But in a world where the Republican Party is controlled by the fringe Tea Party, making religion a matter of politics, it becomes difficult to extract one from the other in the modern political arena.

THE TEA PARTY

Beginning as a protest against Obama’s Affordable Care Act and continuing with John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate in his 2008 presidential campaign, the Tea Party has grown in popularity and size, making it an unofficial third party within the Republican Party itself. Lacking a primary agenda, it is often dominated by fear tactics and shock words, appealing to a base that is loyal and predominantly Christian. The group is driven by Christian principles such as a fetus’ right to life, restricted birth control, and strictly heterosexual marriage. The Tea Party votes keep coming in, electing representatives who live by these principles and do not have any desire to change them, either personally or politically, as a change in principle would likely end in relinquishment of their seats in Congress. Thus, the more moderate Republicans often surrender to their demands, resulting in a Republican Party that becomes more and more conservative with each passing year.

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

One of the founding concepts on which this country was built was the freedom of religion. In Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, he writes that legislators should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” This concept was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution as the First Amendment, but legislators have historically had a difficult time enforcing it. Because the United States is an unusually religious country for a “first-world” nation, religious beliefs have been a defining force behind many important government decisions. From legislation on abortions to birth control and gay marriage, the First Amendment of the Constitution has been rendered close to obsolete due to the religious convictions of the general population. Thus, politicians are inclined to gloss over the separation of church and state to fight for the religious agenda of their constituents, in an effort to keep their seats in Congress.

THE NOVELTY OF GAY MARRIAGE

Politicians argue that gay marriage is simply a product of modern Western society, a fluke of our societal structure that allows two men or two women to behave as heterosexuals have done since the beginning of civilization. Drawing on this concept, politicians have constructed an argument that says that the purpose of marriage is to procreate and continue the human race. However, countering that argument are studies that have shown an evolutionary reason for homosexuality. The person who does not have children of his/her own propagates the idea of “alloparenting,” that is, creating a buffer and means support to parents, which in turn increases survival rates for infants. Hence, the continuance of homosexuality may indeed be a contributing factor in the survival of the human race after all.

The issue of gay marriage remains a hot topic. But legally, the government should be concerned not with morality but with equal treatment of its citizens. According to the Constitution, the issue of morality is to be left to the church.

Robbie Edison writes on marriage, divorce law, cohabitation, family law, property law and other associated topics. Robbie understands the importance of locating a qualified attorney when going through a divorce; he encourages Houston residents to contact Chernoff Law, Houston Divorce Attorneys with a solid track record.