In today's economy, everyone's dealing with financial pressure. Whether you are paying or receiving spousal and child support payments, you may be facing a lot of challenges these days. Either the payor or the payee could be out of a job or dealing with reduced hours and a reduction in pay. Either way, those alimony and child support payments are probably weighing heavily on your mind.

If you're behind on your alimony or child support -- or if your ex is -- you may be wondering whether bankruptcy will make those back-payments go away. It won't.

Alimony and child support payments are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. In fact, under bankruptcy law, spousal and child support payments have to be paid before any other creditor can take a piece of the debtor's assets -- even the tax man.

What Should I Do If My Ex Owes Child Support and Alimony And Is Filing for Bankruptcy?

Just because the law doesn't allow alimony or child support to be wiped out by bankruptcy does not mean you don't need to protect your interests. Just like any other creditor, you should make sure the bankruptcy court knows that you're pressing your claim by filing a "nondischargeability complaint" concerning any alimony or child support you are owed.

Both the bankruptcy trustee and the Child Support Enforcement program should notify you if your ex has filed for bankruptcy, so you should never be taken by surprise. Even if you do nothing, it is unlikely that the bankruptcy court would discharge the back-child support or alimony arrearages your ex owes you, but it's always a good idea to get good legal advice and protect yourself.

Continue reading "Bankruptcy Won't Clear Up Spousal or Child Support Arrearages" »

It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but Kelsey Grammer is probably wishing he had sought a prenuptial agreement with wife Camille Donatucci, who he married in 1997. The 41-year-old former Playboy model filed for divorce on July 1, citing irreconcilable differences.

Camille had just been cast as a member of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and it was known that Grammer was opposed to her participation on the show, which likely would have dragged him into the spotlight as well. It is not known how much of a role that disagreement played in her divorce filing, or if it played a role at all.

Of great concern to Kelsey Grammer, and surely his wife, is the fact that the couple did not sign a prenup before they married. Needless to say, Grammer may be handing out quite a bit of money before all is said and done.

He is especially concerned about money made during Frasier's 11-year-run, at the end of which Grammer commanded well above $1 million per episode. However, since Kelsey and Camille were married during the last seven years of the show, a lot of that money could be going to Camille under community property laws.

Camille has also asked for joint legal custody of the couple's two children, aged nine and six. It's a request echoed by Grammer, though he has also asked for joint physical custody.

As for rumors and accusations, they're already flying. TMZ reported that Grammer did not call his children on Father's Day, which the actor has flat-out denied. With things just heating up, and both child custody and Grammer's fortune at stake, this may only be the beginning.

Continue reading "Kelsey Grammer Faces Divorce with No Prenuptial Agreement" »

Anyone who's had a matter in the Probate and Family Court in Sacramento knows that you spend a lot of time waiting around the courthouse to be heard. Being a Divorce Attorney, I often find myself sitting in the hallways of the courthouse waiting. In these hours of waiting, I often hear unrepresented parties discussing their legal matters and I've come to realize that there are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to what the law actually is. I've decided it's time to address these myths, and bring some clarity.

Myth: Having Joint Legal Custody means that each parent is financially responsible for half of everything the child needs.

Truth: Whether or not a parent has legal custody of a child has nothing to do with whether or not he or she has to pay support, or how much that parent will have to pay. Legal custody dictates who gets to make major decisions for your child, like where your child will attend school. Child Support is based on the gross incomes of both parents, and who has physical custody of the child. Support is paid because both parents have a responsibility to contribute to their child's financial well-being, but the court isn't going to order a parent to pay half if he or she can't afford that.

Further, both parents may not be responsible for all of a child's expenses. Child Support is about covering the necessities in a lump sum. Things like food, clothing, rent or mortgage payments. There are plenty of things that aren't considered necessary expenses, or that are covered by orders separate from a Child Support order. There may be separate provisions for healthcare expenses, or extracurricular activities. Often times, when it comes to discretionary spending that the parents don't agree on (for instance, one parent feels it appropriate to buy the child a brand new car and the other parent doesn't agree), the parent who disagrees may not be responsible for any portion of the purchase.

Myth: Whether or not a parent pays Child Support determines whether or not he or she has a right to see his or her child.

Truth: The obligation to support your child and the right to spend time with your child are totally separate issues. A parent who puts his or her child at risk may be required to pay support, even though he or she is not allowed to see the child. Likewise, a parent who cannot pay support may have an order allowing him or her frequent visits. In the Probate and Family Courts, judges are looking at what is in the best interest of the child. Most of the time, this is the child having both of his or her parents in his or her life, making financial contributions at a level they can afford.

Continue reading "Family Law Myths Exposed" »

(CN) - An Arizona woman should not have lost her spousal support because her boyfriend stayed over once a week, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.

When Marc and Scarlet Chopin divorced in 2007, the decree called for Marc to pay Scarlet $2,500 per month, with the amount dropping to $1,000 in 2013.

The agreement called for the spousal maintenance to end if she lives with another man, with the exception of "A.R.," with whom both parties anticipated Scarlet would live.

Instead, Scarlet struck up a relationship with Robert Waddell. They were engaged through most of 2008 before the relationship ended.

Marc petitioned the court to end his spousal support on the basis of the new couple's co-habitation, which Scarlet denied.

The trial court and court of appeals agreed that the proper definition of "romantic co-habitation" was "living together and behaving as a married couple."

However, the appeals court ruled that the lower court improperly applied that definition to Scarlet and Waddell because they did not live together.

"Waddell testified that, during a six-month period, he spent one out of every six days at wife's house, Judge Daniel Barker wrote. "Husband presented no substantial evidence that Waddell spent more time at Wife's home."

Barker overturned the trial court's decision to halt Scarlet's spousal maintenance.

Continue reading "Ex-Wife With Boyfriend Wins Spousal Support" »