Daily Stories on Divorce & Family Law

Jon Yates

Chicago Tribune

Jeff and Joyce Oravec thought they were getting a $770 tax refund from the Illinois Department of Revenue this year. Instead the state took the money -- and threatened to take more. In August, the Berwyn couple received a letter from the state saying it would use the money to settle a long-standing tax debt ... from the mid-1980s. Confused, the couple called the state and was told they owed $1,708.75 for unpaid taxes in 1983, 1984 and 1985. A customer service representative said the state would subtract the remaining $938.75 from future tax returns.

Jeff Oravec said he tried to convince folks from the Department of Revenue that the bills were crazy. Neither he nor his wife had been told about the debt before receiving the letter in August. "You would think there would be some type of time parameter here," Oravec said after contacting What's Your Problem? last month. He said he had no idea if the taxes from the mid-'80s had been paid, and he has no records from those years. "We were always told that people only need to save their tax information for 4 or 5 years because the government would not pursue them for taxes older than that," Oravec said.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-sun-problem-tax-refund-0927sep27,0,3624308.column

Jacques Von Lunen

OregonLive.com

Reno Gazette-Journal

Why doesn't she just leave? Friends, loved ones, strangers, all jump on to this question as soon as they hear of a woman being victimized by an intimate partner. It sounds so logical and so simple. If you are being hurt, walk away. The simple question, however, glosses over some very complicated dynamics. The professional who works with those dealing with domestic violence (DV) cringes whenever the question comes up. The victim hears accusation and blame in the question; indeed she has probably asked herself the same thing.

TAMARA LUSH and DEANNA MARTIN

Yahoo News

It's easy to see why bookkeeper Linda Mortimer moved to the Florida Keys 20 years ago: the impossibly blue water, the year-round sunshine, a lifestyle so laid-back that every day is like a Jimmy Buffett lyric. What Mortimer didn't anticipate was falling in love — and then getting divorced less than two years after taking her wedding vows. "I discovered after we got married that my husband had been divorced four times," said Mortimer, as she finished a noontime burger while sitting at the bar at the Ocean View, a local party spot and Mortimer's place of employment. "I was his No. 5. He didn't understand why I got so upset."

Divorce is as common in the Florida Keys as fresh grouper and cold beer. Census statistics released this week show that Monroe County — which includes the cluster of 1,700 islands floating off South Florida — has the second-highest proportion of divorced residents. A little more than 18 percent of the people living in Monroe County are divorced, second only to Indiana's Wayne County, which had 19 percent. Nationwide, 10.7 percent of people over 15 are divorced.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_go_ot/us_divorce_american_style

Wichita Eagle

It's not rare anymore. In fact, in the last 30 years, like it or not, more and more women who end their marriages are stuck paying support to their ex-spouses — also known as "manimony." "When I started practicing 30 years ago, I didn't see it at all. Zero. And now I see it in about 10 percent of my cases — female clients having to pay their ex-husbands support," said Lynne Gold-Bikin, 65, family law chair at WolfBlock LLP based in Morristown, Penn. "Part of the reason is the simple fact that over that period of time, more women are making more money," she said. "You wanted to be equal, well, now you are. Women who pay spousal support are those who quite simply make more money than their husbands do." And, like most things in divorce court, it's all about the math.

"In every state there is a simple calculation, some sort of guideline. It can be a difficult and painful thing in the end and it may seem unfair, but if the woman has a career and the guy stays at home with the kids, it's pretty clear how it's going to go in the end," Gold-Bikin said. Call it lopsided thinking, call it old fashioned beliefs, but some feel that it is just plain unfair for a woman to have to support her ex-husband after the marriage breaks up.

Source: http://www.kansas.com/entertainment/all/story/983574.html

Emily Jane Goodman

Gotham Gazette

The mere mention or even the thought of divorce often sets off a race to the bank with each spouse trying to get hold of assets ahead of the other -- and before either one appears before a judge. But effective this month, as soon as an action for divorce is commenced, the parties cannot take any steps to change their financial situation. Under a bill passed by the state legislature this year, the minute a husband or wife sues for divorce by filing a summons in New York State Supreme Court, he or she is barred from altering the economic status quo of the marriage. As soon as the other spouse receives that summons and a form order, it is too late for him or her to move money or other property to shield it from claims by the plaintiff.

Until the recent enactment of the new statute and implementing court rule, the less wealthy spouse, usually the wife, had to seek an injunction from a state Supreme Court justice, to bar the richer partner from removal, sale or other disposition of assets.  This meant she had to seek a court order, incurring legal fees and losing time, before getting any financial protection.  During that time, stocks, bonds and cash could vanish.

Source: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20090923/13/3031/

Windy City Times

A three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals has unanimously ordered a trial court to reconsider a ban preventing a divorced mom from having her partner of 10 years and her own children stay overnight at her home at the same time. The trial court had imposed the so-called "paramour clause" on the lesbian couple even though the psychologist who performed the custodial evaluation in the case found the partner to be a positive influence in the children's lives. The American Civil Liberties Union represented Angel Chandler in her appeal of the restriction.

"I'm so grateful that the judges understood it was a mistake to treat my partner like she was some sort of stranger to me and my children," said Angel Chandler. "My partner is great with my kids, and they love her very much. To have to send the person I love and have built a life with away at the end of every day when the children were with us has been a terrible drain on our entire family." Chandler and her former spouse, Joseph Barker, have two teenaged children: a daughter, 14, and a son, 16. Chandler and Barker have shared custody of the children over the nearly 11 years since their divorce. Chandler has been with her partner since 1999, and Barker remarried approximately five years ago.

Source: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=22950

MEGAN K. SCOTT

Asbury Park Press

As the owner of a successful acupuncture clinic in a wealthy Washington suburb, David Vandenberg never had any problems making a $433 monthly child support payment.  Until last year, when his business faltered and he went on unemployment. Unable to find another job, the 50-year-old Vandenberg moved to Arkansas to live with his parents. Now they're paying the child support for him. "I felt I didn't have any recourse," said Vandenberg, who has a 12-year-old daughter and tried unsuccessfully for a court-approved reduction in his child support payments. After child support, "I get $100 a month in unemployment."

Joseph Walczak

The Southtown Star

Q: I filed for divorce, and my lawyer tells me that I will get a lot less maintenance and property than I planned on, and I will not get to keep the house because it will have to be sold and the proceeds split between us.  I talked with two of my divorced friends, and they both received more maintenance and both kept their homes. This does not seem right. Can it be that they had better lawyers?

A: All lawyers are not created equal, but I do not think that's the problem here. Unless your divorced friends are attorneys, I would trust your lawyer's advice over that of your friends.  I have handled many divorce cases and sometimes hear the same questions that you raised from my clients - my friend received more maintenance, my friend received 70 percent of the marital property rather than 50 percent, my friend was given sole ownership of the marital residence, etc.

Source: http://www.southtownstar.com/business/walczak/1778019,092009walczakcol.article 

Ian Kerner, Ph.D.

MSNBC

After writing a column last month on the subject of Facebook and why you should unfriend your spouse, I received no shortage of emails — many of which were from people who vehemently disagreed with me — and so I thought it would be worthwhile to address the subject of Internet-infidelity in greater depth.

While I was trying to make the point that too much familiarity can be bad for a relationship, and that social networking sites like Facebook sometimes bring a degree of proximity (and banality) into relationships that works against the sense of mystery we also need to cultivate, many thought I was saying that Internet infidelity is not a real threat and that we should turn a blind eye to our partner’s digital wanderings. Quite the contrary, I think that Internet infidelity is one of the biggest issues that couples face today, and with digital technology increasingly playing a role in divorce, we have to be all the more vigilant. The Internet is still a relatively new technology and there isn’t a clear relationship rule-book on how to use it. In many situations, snooping isn’t a pleasant choice, but it’s the right choice.

Source: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32895838/ns/today-today_relationships/

J.D. Sumner

Albany Herald

A Lee County man is appealing a judge's order stemming from divorce proceedings to the Georgia Supreme Court, arguing that his wife shouldn't receive the initial value of his three retirement accounts - estimated at roughly $759,000 - because the recession has slashed their value.

Although the initial divorce degree was filed in 2006, Lester Leggette is arguing that the value of the retirement funds has spiraled downward as a national recession has deepened, meaning he should not be responsible for paying out the initial amount, court documents show. He is also seeking to have a trial judge's ruling awarding $60,000 in attorney's fees to be overturned.

Source: http://albanyherald.com/Main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=7023

Bankrate.com

When you're splitting up, your home is a refuge in a sea of uncertainty. Your kids are comfortable there, so you may yearn to hang onto that house after the divorce. But does it make financial sense? Like many other aspects of divorce, it depends. Weigh the expenses involved in keeping the house and what you may have to give up to get it against your desire for emotional stability for yourself and your kids.

Property division is one of the most important decisions during a split-up. "The property division in a divorce is final and you can't undo it even if you realize later that you made a mistake," says Carol Ann Wilson, a certified divorce planner and author of "The Financial Guide to Divorce Settlement." "Other areas of a divorce decree can be changed, such as child support or visitation, but not the property settlement."

Source: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SuddenlySingle/ShouldYouKeepTheHouseInADivorce.aspx 

Marketwire

A growing list of Massachusetts residents, some from the group Massachusetts Alimony Reform, will get their chance to testify to the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on September 17, 2009, at the Massachusetts State House, to convince the legislature to change the outdated alimony laws that are on the books in Massachusetts. The hearing will be held in room B1 starting at 1:00pm. House Bill 1785 would change outdated lifetime alimony laws in Massachusetts.

Residents including women and men as well as "second spouses" will talk about their personal stories of jail time, unreasonable demands from judges, bankruptcy, liquidation of retirement accounts and maxing out of credit lines all to comply with alimony obligations that many times are not affordable and unreasonable due to material and substantial changes in their circumstances. Many of these residents who will testify will never have the chance to retire or accumulate any savings under the current Massachusetts laws and will continue to be driven deeper in debt.

Source: http://ca.sys-con.com/node/1107141

Diane Swanbrow

Spero News

Young adults see living together as the best way to protect against divorce, not as an alternative to marriage, a University of Michigan researcher says. "For a long time, cohabitation has been viewed as a challenge to the institution of marriage," said U-M sociologist Pamela Smock. "But young adults we interviewed are more likely to see living together as a good way to protect against divorce."

Smock, a research scientist at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR), is the co-author of an article in the current issue of the newsletter of the National Council of Family Relations. In the article, Smock and Bowling Green State University sociologist Wendy Manning review findings from a recent qualitative study of more than 350 young adults in the Midwest.

Source: http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=32&idsub=120&id=20472&t=Extra-marital+cohabitation+seen+as+divorce+cure

THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR

Gay and lesbian couples from Indiana can get married in more places than ever, but they could face a legal dilemma after they return home. If the relationship sours, the lack of recognition for such unions in Indiana law presents couples with a classic Catch-22: They can't obtain a divorce in their home state because their marriage is void here, and they can't easily seek one where they were married because of residency requirements for divorce.

Rick Maze

Army Times

Like a bickering couple headed for divorce, war has broken out among organizations that want Congress to amend the 1981 law that allows a court to divide military retired pay between a husband and wife. The ongoing fight involves attempts to change the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act, a law that allows state courts to award a portion of military retired pay to a nonmilitary spouse as part of a property settlement after divorce.

Over the 2½ decades the law has been in effect, service members and retirees have lobbied Congress to repeal or significantly gut the retirement-splitting provisions, while ex-spouses have pushed equally hard to keep the property settlement rules.

Source: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/09/army_formerspouse_091309w/

Dan Nienaber

The Free Press

His messy divorce has been finalized and, with a judge’s blessing, Robert Sterling Culver is living with his three children in Leland, Miss., but he’s still counting the days until he has another appointment in Brown County District Court.

This time he’s facing criminal charges, related to the divorce, for decisions he made before being granted custody of his children. Culver, 40, in an unusual case, has been charged with six felony counts of depriving another of custodial or parental rights. He’s accused of taking his children out of the state twice, once in November and once in January, even though a judge had denied his request to move from New Ulm to Mississippi. Culver’s actions deprived Stacy Culver, his wife at the time, of her parental rights, according to the two criminal complaints.

Source: http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/local_story_257010106.html

Marketwire

Massachusetts residents from around the commonwealth will have a chance to share their alimony horror stories to the Joint Committee of the Judiciary, starting at 1:00pm on September 17, 2009, at the Massachusetts State House, room B1. Much of the testimony will come from members of the group Massachusetts Alimony Reform.

Many of the people testifying have been forced into bankruptcy and spent time in jail because of these outdated laws that do not take into consideration a person's finances due to economic conditions, poor health, downturns in business and other variables that can limit a person's ability to earn adequate income to pay an alimony obligation. Judges, according to many testifying, are consistently inflexible and intolerant of these everyday life changes that affect a person's income.

Source: http://ca.sys-con.com/node/1102949

William Morris

Marco Eagle

Q: My spouse got custody of our children in our divorce. I have since remarried and am doing well financially. I think our children would be better off with me. How difficult is it to change custody in Florida?

A: Although the term “custody” is often used, true custody has not often been awarded by Florida courts in recent years. True custody includes right to make all parenting decisions. By statute, Florida has preferred shared parental responsibility, under which parents make joint decisions. Instead of custody, the home of one parent was designated as the primary residence for the children.

Source: http://www.marconews.com/news/2009/sep/10/its-law-custody-changes-are-not-easy/

JULIE BISBEE

NewsOK.com

The topic of how military retirement pay should be divided in divorces continued to be controversial during an interim study on the issue Thursday. Rep. Gary Banz, R-Midwest City, and Sen. Patrick Anderson, R-Enid, have authored a bill that would change how Oklahoma courts divide payments made to military members after they have divorced.

Veterans argue that Oklahoma’s rule of splitting the pay discriminates against veterans because judges get to decide how much the former spouse gets. Proponents of the proposed changes say retirement pay should be treated like alimony and end if the nonmilitary spouse remarries. Currently, the retirement pay is treated like a marital asset.

Source: http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-group-debates-fate-of-vet-pay-after-divorces/article/3399998