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" »

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office announced Monday that it has charged former Cincinnati Bengals running back Corey Dillon with two misdemeanors in connection with his arrest in April on suspicion of drunk-driving.

Dillon, who played 10 seasons for the Cincinnati Bengals and New England Patriots before retiring in 2006, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and driving while having a blood-alcohol level of .08% or more.

Dillon was driving north on Mulholland Drive near Malibu on April 21 when deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department pulled him over to check the car's registration. Dillon was arrested after deputies said he displayed signs of intoxication and admitted to drinking earlier in the evening.

While awaiting charges in the drunk driving case, Dillon was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence but prosecutors declined to file criminal charges against the former NFL star, saying there was insufficient evidence to show that his wife, Desiree Antoine-Dillon, was injured at the couple's Calabasas home, officials said Thursday.

Dillon and his wife were arguing over their pending divorce and child custody when she called 911, saying she had been assaulted by her husband, according to a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Antoine-Dillon alleged that Dillon "poured milk over her head, threw water on her and poured soy sauce on her" during the dispute, according to the filing rejection released Thursday. She also told authorities she suffered "a superficial cut on her thumb."
She later told authorities that her husband never hit her and her injury was not caused by physical contact with Dillon. Antoine-Dillon also indicated that she did not want to press charges.

Continue reading "Former NFL star Corey Dillon charged in drunk driving case" »

AFTER 33 YEARS of marriage, Martha McDowell's husband told her he wanted a divorce. He provided few reasons. They were trivial, and to her did not justify ending their union.

"He just didn't want to be married anymore," says McDowell, now 60. "But he was my best friend, and I expected to spend the rest of my life with him."

That was four and a half years ago. Today, McDowell, of Hayward, is a new woman. She is a grandmother and works for an arts college, a job she loves. She is active in her Fremont church, and says it was her faith that helped her deal with the emotional issues that come with late-life divorce.

"My commitment to forgive was the most important thing for me," she says. "I didn't want to become bitter, and I didn't want my bitterness to poison my children."

Couples divorce every day. Yet it is particularly surprising when a marriage of more than 30 years ends. Take the recent announcement of Al and Tipper Gore's split. As the news spread, we felt a collective sense of sadness. What were they thinking? Why divorce after 40 years of marriage?

Late-life divorce is relatively uncommon. Sociologists agree that most people who have been married for a long time are happy. Nevertheless, some couples still drift. Marriages of 40 years or more account for 4 percent of divorces, according to Andrew Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins University sociology professor who studies families. It jumps to 8 percent for marriages of 30 to 39 years, likely because these couples are closer to life's empty nest stage, when children are grown and out of the house.

Late-life marriages dissolve for the same reasons any marriage does. Sometimes, there is abuse. Or infidelity. More often, the causes are even simpler: They grow apart, develop different goals, or no longer feel fulfilled. Contributing factors to late-life divorce, in particular, include increased life expectancy and longevity and a social acceptance of divorce that did not exist a generation ago, according to Beverly Hills Family Law Attorney Steven Knowles of Knowles Collum LLP.

Given the large size of the aging baby boomer population, this is somewhat new territory for sociologists, like Cherlin. After all, from an evolutionary perspective, the institution of marriage was designed to help you raise kids and put food on the table, he says.

"Only in the past half century have we had people who live long enough that they are together for 20 to 25 years after child-rearing," Cherlin says. "This is a new stage of life, and we're figuring out what to do with it." It used to be the middle aged who asked themselves, 'What should I do with my life?' Now, 60-year-olds do, he says.

Fifteen years ago, Al W.'s wife of 36 years filed for divorce. She was a stay-at-home mother of four sons and once they were grown and out of the house with children of their own, she wanted her independence to focus on a business venture, says Al, a retired pilot who asked that his last name be omitted to protect his family.

"She needed something more in life than coming home to me," says Al, now 70 and living in Pleasanton. "In hindsight, it was devastating. We didn't have a perfect marriage but I certainly thought we had a better relationship than a lot of our friends who stayed married."

Besides the financial aspect of a late-life divorce -- "You're talking about (losing) half your retirement," Al says -- the most difficult part for him was coming home to an empty house. Al eventually remarried and now has a 10-year-old daughter, who was born when he was 60.

"It was kind of late to start over but I wouldn't trade it for anything," he says. "I'm extremely happy." He has also remained friends with his ex-wife.

Continue reading "The graying of divorce" »

NEW YORK STATE (WKTV) - New York State is said to be moving in the direction of no-fault divorce.

What does that mean to you?

Right now in Oneida County, if you are seeking a divorce, you're looking months ahead before even getting into a court room for a grounds trial - a legal journey that can an extremely long process.

Under the current divorce law, one spouse must take the blame for the split, even if both sides agree the marriage can't be saved. To get a divorce, one party must allege cruel and inhuman treatment or adultery or abandonment, or the couple must be legally separated for one year. By eliminating much of the specific criteria that couples must meet before a divorce can be granted, a no-fault divorce would speed up the legal process.

"This way it's not like a separation agreement," said Attorney Julie Giruzzi-Mosca. "But there's no dispute. (one side) wants the divorce, (another side) doesn't want the divorce...you're (still) getting the divorce. There's no trouble getting the divorce and then you're just left with the issues of the custody, such as the child support."

New York State is the last state to adopt a no-fault divorce law.

Governor Paterson is expected to support the bill if both houses of the legislature approve it. The senate has already approved legislation.

Opponents to the bill include the Roman Catholic Church, which objects to making divorce easier.

Continue reading "Pending approval, NYS could be last state to adopt no-fault divorce" »

With the growing popularity of social networking sites, couples who are experiencing marriage difficulties need to be aware that what they post on sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace can be held against them in a court of family law. Chicago's local ABC affiliate, WLS-TV, recently ran a news story discussing the growing reality that the information we post in cyberspace is just as real as any other information we choose to divulge. Reportedly, one couple's divorce, like many couples throughout the country, was the direct result of using a social networking site, which ultimately led to their separation after 26 years of marriage.

Interestingly enough, as a result of the social networking phenomenon, many Sacramento family law attorneys are finding themselves instructing clients on what not to post on social networking profiles, even if those profiles are supposedly private, non-public sources of information. According to the report, it is a good idea to approach social networking as you would approach supplying your local newspaper with information about yourself. That is, unless you're comfortable posting your personal information on the front page of a newspaper, you should be hesitant in posting that information on a social networking profile page.

In the article, clinical psychologist Dr. Erin Alexander reasons that "you may have individuals within the couple who have very different personal boundaries and don't mind sharing personal information but as it affects their partner, that's something that you need to reconcile and be on the same page about." Per fair warning, be careful about the information that you make public, because it may lead to complicated matters that can include divorce.

Continue reading "Social Networking Sites Cited in Divorce Court" »

You're young, you're in love, you trust each other. No need for a prenuptial agreement before you tie the knot, right?

Not so fast, you with the rose-colored glasses. As wedding season gears up, it may be time for some unsentimental planning before you walk down the aisle.

Demand for prenups is increasing nationwide as more people become aware that they're not just for the rich and famous. Roughly 40 percent of marriages fail, after all, so there's nothing disloyal or cold-hearted about preparing for contingencies.

"If close to half of all marriages are going to end in divorce, it makes sense to plan for it," says Marlene Eskind Moses, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

A prenuptial agreement is simply a legal document that describes how property and assets brought into and acquired during a marriage will be treated if there's a divorce.

It isn't essential for everyone. A couple entering a first marriage with few assets, debts or other extenuating circumstances can generally forego the expense. With two lawyers recommended -- one for each person -- even an uncomplicated prenup can run $2,000 to $3,000 or more.

The cost goes a long way toward explaining why still only 3 percent to 5 percent of married couples have prenups. They are most popular with baby boomers in the 40-to-60 age range, who have more money and can afford to pay for adequate protection.

Yet it can pay off in the long run.

"It has the potential to save a tremendous amount of legal fees" in the event of divorce, says Robert Maloney, a financial planner in Holderness, N.H.

While awareness of prenups has grown because of high-profile celebrity divorces, it remains the touchiest of subjects for couples to discuss.

If one partner mentions a prenup, the other's reaction is inevitably "You don't love me!", says Carol Ann Wilson, a financial adviser specializing in divorce in Longmont, Colo. People need to view it as a routine part of the business of getting married, she says, along with planning for budgets, spending and children.

"It's just a piece of paper that sits in a drawer and protects them in case they don't have a happy marriage," Wilson says.

To broach the subject in a nonconfrontational way, one partner might propose scheduling a financial discussion for, say, 7 to 9 p.m. one evening, followed by a romantic date afterward. The business chat can include talk about what kind of budget they're going to have, whether they need separate checking accounts, savings goals, spending limits and, yes, a prenup.

So who really must have one?

Here are seven situations in which a prenup is advisable:

-- 1. When significant assets are involved, such as a home, stock or retirement funds.
Both sides need protection from the consequences of any breakdown of the marriage in this instance.

-- 2. When there are children from previous marriages.
Any time children are involved, there's an extra incentive to protect their interests. Most states will give the surviving spouse up to half of an estate, leaving the children no say. That could be at least partially avoided by using a prenup.

-- 3. When one partner owns all or part of a business.
In a breakup, the attorney for the other partner will likely go after a share of the "family" business.

-- 4. When one partner is much wealthier than the other.
A one-sided money situation can easily be cause for jealousy or, later, legal dispute.

-- 5. When one spouse-to-be is much older.
The older partner may not be able to recover to provide for his or her retirement if assets are split 50-50.

-- 6. When one partner will be supporting the other while he or she pursues a degree.
A $100,000 debt for grad school could easily outlast the marriage.

-- 7. When an inheritance is expected.
Even without big money involved, some see a prenup as critical for any marriage that's not the first for either side. "In any second or third marriage, I believe it should be required," Maloney says.

Continue reading "Wedding season mantra: Till prenup do us part" »

CALABASAS, Calif. -- Former NFL running back Corey Dillon has been arrested on suspicion of assaulting his wife during an argument at their Southern California home.

The Los Angeles County sheriff's office says deputies went to Dillon's Calabasas home Saturday after his wife, Desiree Antoine-Dillon, called 911.

The sheriff's office says the couple argued over a pending divorce and child custody issues and she had minor injuries. He was booked and released on $50,000 bail.

Corey Dillon had no public telephone listing in Calabasas and couldn't be reached for comment Monday.

Continue reading "Corey Dillon Arrested For Alleged Assault On Wife" »

MOBILE, Alabama (WALA) - On the same day Steve Nodine was arrested for drug charges, he and his wife filed for divorce. Those papers reveal the proposed divorce settlement between Kimberlee and Nodine.

Kimberlee Nodine will maintain custody of their 13-year-old son. Steve Nodine has visitation rights and will pay $971 a month in child support payments until his son turns 19.

The papers show that Kimberlee will live in the family home, but Steve will pay the mortgage, insurance and taxes.

The county commissioner will also pay $2,500 a month in alimony payments.

It's a hefty chunk out of his salary. The papers show Steve earns $6,666.66 a month.

But it doesn't end there. Commissioner Nodine agreed to pay for his wife's legal expenses during the divorce, and he'll hand over his retirement pay to her.

In separate papers filed that day, Kimberlee Nodine had a statement which read, "I feel too much has happened between us for things to ever be good again."

The agreement, which both signed, must still be approved by a judge.

Continue reading "Nodine to pay alimony, child support" »

California Divorce Overview

California is a 'no-fault' divorce state, which means that when a spouse requests a divorce, they will not need to specify a reason or prove wrong-doing on part of the other. From time of initial filing, the soonest a divorce can be finalized is 6 months.

No-fault does not mean no disagreements, though. If you foresee that there may be disagreements regarding how the family assets are going to be handled, or how the kids will be cared for, get professional advice immediately.

Even if you both agree on how to separate your lives, it is important to have the agreement reviewed by a professional. An advisor who has been involved in many divorces can help you spot weaknesses in the agreement and will help ensure that the final agreement is strong and will last for many, many years.

Continue reading "California Divorce Overview - Basics About Divorce Laws" »

Many dissolution of marriage proceedings involve the issue of spousal support (sometimes referred to as alimony). "Temporary" spousal support awards are typically rendered early on in the divorce process and only extend until the judgment of dissolution is entered. "Permanent" spousal support awards involve ongoing support, which extends beyond the time that the judgment of dissolution is entered. While the calculation of temporary support is formulaic, and is accomplished via the use of a spousal support calculator, the calculation of permanent support is anything but formulaic. In fact, the courts have wide-ranging discretion to determine: (1) whether either party is entitled to permanent spousal support; (2) the duration of spousal support; and (3) the appropriate amount of spousal support.

In exercising this broad discretion on the issue of spousal support, courts are obligated to balance several factors that are delineated in Family Code § 4320. If a court fails to give independent consideration to each and every one of these factors, this will be considered reversible error by an appellate court, and the order may be thrown out. A common issue that family law attorneys and judges must address is the proper weight to be given to each individual factor. While Family Code lists all the relevant factors, it does not prescribe how to balance them. To the contrary, attorneys and judges must decide which factors carry more or less weight based on the particular circumstances of the case. What is clear is that the courts begin with an analysis of the "marital standard of living", and weigh all the other 4320 factors against this finding. These other factors are listed below, in the order in which they appear in section 4320 of the California Family Code.

Continue reading "A Sacramento Family Law Attorney Talks Spousal Support" »

A Rancho Cucamonga attorney faces embezzlement charges for allegedly stealing $44,000 from a couple she represented during their divorce.

Catherine Brame, 52, is charged with embezzlement and grand theft, according to a criminal complaint.

The crimes were reported in December of 2008 when Mark and Tracey Naulls called the Sheriff's Department after discovering that money Brame was supposed to have put in a trust account set up during their divorce proceedings was gone. Brame is believed to have taken the funds in July of 2008.

Detectives say Brame transferred the couple's money into a business account without permission.

Brame, who was arrested May 4, is being held at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga.

Continue reading "Rancho Cucamonga attorney charged with embezzlement" »

Parents move from time to time and sometimes the move occurs after separation or divorce and sometimes the move is to a distant city or a different state. When one parent wants to move away, custody becomes at issue because it often means that the other parent will see the child less, and maybe much less. In California, where the parents have joint custody, the moving parent must petition the court for a move away order. As part of the process, the parents will be ordered to mediation for the mediator to try to work out a solution that the parties can agree to.

If the parties do not agree, the case then moves to a trial so that the judge can make the best possible informed decision. Judges are bound by Family Law Codes as to the criteria for allowing a parent to move away with the children. The criteria is what is in the best interest of the children and the judges will consider many factors, including the involvement of the parents in the child's life, the history of the parents and the reason for the move. The court will not grant a move where one parent is simply trying to deny the other parent of seeing the child. Move away cases are important and it is best to have an experienced attorney assist you with the process.

Continue reading "Move Away Cases in California" »