Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boynton Beach

Some clients (or opposing parties) are really quite businesslike in their approach to divorce.

They know they want to settle and it is just a question of arriving at the right numbers through negotiation.

They almost always have very specific final numbers in mind.

It is not unheard of for them to encourage their partner to sign an agreement behind their attorney’s back if they have an attorney or, better yet, before they hire an attorney.

After all, it’s all about the numbers. Not words.

Right? Wrong.

When it comes to legal matters, the words actually matter quite a lot.

As just one example …

Imagine a one paragraph marital settlement agreement. Yes, there really are such things out there.

Such an agreement always gets straight to the point – and the number(s).

“Husband agrees to pay Wife $1 million as full settlement.”

Do-it-yourselfers too often favor this type of language.

But what does that $1 million payment represent?

Is it lump sum alimony?

Is it lump sum child support?

Is it property division?

Is it a combination of all of the above?

Who cares?

Well, the Internal Revenue Service for one.

Precisely what the money represents will bear directly on the tax consequences, if any, associated with the payment.

As a result, both spouses will become interested as well, sooner or later.

For example, unless there is an agreement otherwise, alimony payments are deductible by the spouse who makes them … and taxable as income to the spouse who receives them.

Child support is neither includible nor deductible.

Equalization payments are generally neither includible nor deductible, but payments made in kind (by transferring things) may have tax consequences, sometimes unforeseen and undesirable.

The point is, settlement isn’t just about the numbers at all. The words count a lot.

In the end, all that really matters is the bottom line numbers, not the numbers that may be referred to in the agreement. If the words aren’t right, the bottom line numbers may be very, very different from the numbers specified in the settlement.

And that can be an unpleasant surprise that can hit you between the eyes.

Read more in this Florida Times Union article: TTT – December 28, 2010, Divorce & Alimony.

Wedding approaching?

• Anticipating an inheritance?

• Active in a family owned business?

• Have children from a previous marriage you want to provide for?

• Accumulated premarital property?

These are just a few of the circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement, or prenup, should be considered.

Without a prenup, what happens in the event of a divorce, or one spouse’s death, can be uncertain or simply not what the spouses intended.

With a prenuptial agreement, intended spouses can reduce uncertainty and exert control over issues like property division and alimony in the event of a divorce, and inheritance in the event of a spouse’s death.

They may not be romantic, but prenups permit post-divorce (or post-death) financial affairs to be settled more rapidly, less expensively and more predictably.

Read more in this Local Tech Wire release: Premarital agreements – Hoping for the best, planning for the worst.

Scottish Husband and Wife have been married for about fifteen years. They have three Children together.

Husband and Wife have been separated for about two years.

Husband owns an oil company, and has been paying Wife a previously agreed upon amount of support.

Until Husband unilaterally cuts back on his payment, without notice to Wife, while he is away on business in the middle east.

Frustrated, Wife drives to Husband’s company’s business location, obstructs the entrance, and, wielding a loudspeaker, carries on a protest, with the intention of obtaining additional funds from Husband’s accountant.

Wife intends to repeat her protest until she get satisfaction.

Husband was fined by law enforcement authorities earlier in the year for e-mailing Wife abusive messages.

Read more in this Aberdeen [Scotland] Press and Journal article: Divorce wife ‘driven’ to protest at company.

Kuwaiti Husband and Wife made sexually explicit videotapes of themselves.

Husband and Wife are now divorcing.

The divorce court awards Wife alimony.

Husband is not happy about having to pay Wife alimony.

Husband threatens to put videos of Wife on the internet … unless Wife agrees to let Husband off the hook for alimony.

Police are investigating.

Similar scenarios are playing out increasingly frequently in divorces.

Read more in this [Dubai] Gulf News article: Wife gets blackmailed over alimony in Kuwait.

Quebec Man and Woman cohabitate, but never marry.

Man is a billionaire.

Man and Woman break up.

Woman seeks alimony. Woman’s claim is denied.

Quebec appellate court rules that provincial alimony law discriminates against cohabitants, and strikes that provision.

One-third of Quebec couples are in cohabitant relationships rather than legal marriages.

And the rest of Canada allows alimony to the needy partner when cohabitating couples separate.

Quebec appellate court allows the Quebec legislature one year to cure the constitutional defect in the alimony law.

So, Man and his billion seem to be off the hook.

But the next one might not be so lucky …

Read more in this Winnipeg [Canada] CTV News article: Quebec court paves way for common-law alimony.

Husband seeks church annulment of his marriage to Wife.

His cited grounds: Wife approves of open marriages, in which both spouses are free to have other sexual partners. She expresses this abstract position to Husband before their marriage.

But Wife has never actually cheated on Husband in any way, shape or form. She has been totally faithful, just freethinking.

Husband is granted an annulment of their marriage by a court of the Catholic Church in Italy.

Wife appeals the annulment in a divorce court in Italy … and the annulment is upheld and Wife is denied alimony because of her abstract, heretical beliefs.

After further appeals by Wife, Italy’s top appellate court upholds all of the previous rulings.

Read more in

• this [UK] Guardian news article: Woman denied alimony because she had talked about open marriage

• this Orlando WOFL Fox 35 TV news article: Just the thought of an affair enough to annul Italian woman’s marriage and

• this [UK] Telegraph article: Italian couple’s marriage annulled after wife thought about having affair

Canada reports that total child support and alimony arrears across the nation exceed $2.7 billion Canadian.

Applicable to roughly sixty-four percent of support cases in which such statistics are kept.

Compliance varied from as high as eighty percent to as low as fifty-two percent, with several major regions reporting compliance of roughly sixty-three percent.

Read more in this Ottawa Citizen article: Unpaid child, spousal support tab hits $2.7 billion.

Evaluating a divorce settlement proposal isn’t always as straightforward as one may think.

In appropriate cases, it may be well worth it to have a financial advisor and/or tax advisor review a settlement proposal before it is finalized.

One commonly overlooked issue in cases where spousal support and / or child support is involved is assurance to the support-receiving spouse that the support-paying spouse is maintaining a life insurance policy to secure the paying spouse’s obligations.

Of course, it is good to require the paying spouse to provide proof on an annual basis that the policy remains in good standing and full force and effect.

But what if the ex refuses to furnish that proof in years following settlement (or final judgment)?

There are a couple of ways to address this possibility without the receiving spouse having to bring a contempt proceeding.

One way is for the receiving spouse to be designated as the actual policy owner. As owner, the receiving spouse will always be informed of the status of the policy. Even if their ex is ordered to and/or agrees to pay the premiums.

The other way is for the policy to be nonmodifiable and noncancellable without thirty days’ notice to the receiving spouse. There is typically a surcharge for this provision.

But it may be well worth it. This way the ex cannot just pull the plug on the policy without the receiving spouse’s knowledge.

Both approaches accomplish the objective, without the receiving spouse having to chase their ex for proof of the status of the policy.

Then, at least if the receiving spouse does bring a contempt action, they will know that it really was necessary to reinstate the policy and that they will have solid proof of the lapsed status of the policy.

Another important consideration in some cases are tax impacts of alternative divisions of property. Different assets are treated differently for tax purposes.

And this can have a big impact on the ultimate “bottom line” of a settlement or judicial disposition of property by a family court judge … if either party puts on evidence for the divorce court judge to consider regarding tax bases, tax treatments and tax impacts associated with the different marital properties and alternative property divisions in the divorce.

Read more in this Holland [MI] Sentinel article: Making Cents: How to come out a winner in a divorce.

Massachusetts Husband and Wife divorce.

Husband, who is an attorney, is required to pay Wife alimony.

By default, alimony payments are deductible by the paying spouse and includible as income to the receiving spouse.

Husband allegedly deducts Husband’s alimony payments from his income taxes for 2004 through 2008.

But, in their settlement agreement, which was adopted in a court order, Husband and Wife had reportedly agreed that the alimony payments would be taxable to Husband rather than to Wife. This is permitted under the Internal Revenue Code.

Accordingly, Husband shorted the government by over $132,000 in income taxes. Bad enough.

Husband dug himself deeper into the hole by allegedly showing investigators a forged court order and misrepresenting facts in an effort to cover the truth up.

As a result of which, the government has charged Husband with tax evasion.

The maximum sentence for this charge is five years’ confinement, plus three years of probation, and a quarter of a million dollar fine.

Read more in this Needham [MA] Times article: Needham man charged with evading $132,216 in income taxes.

A divorce financial analyst poses the question: can you afford to divorce?

In truth, sometimes the question is: can you afford / stand / survive not divorcing.

In which case the question should be: how can you become able to afford to divorce?

For most people, they probably can afford to divorce. But they will probably benefit from, if not have to, make some financial adjustments to their lifestyle.

Hopefully, the positive emotional and psychological adjustments in their lives will more than make up for the possibly less positive financial adjustments.

But everyone should go into a divorce situation with their eyes wide open, having considered how their lives will change and what the costs will be.

Some of the questions to ponder:

1. post-divorce budget:
   expenses – basic necessities, necessary amenities, dispensable luxuries
   income from all sources – work, child support, alimony, etc. less taxes
   leaving surplus or deficit
2. tradeoffs in property division: are you better off to stay in the house or pass on it for liquid assets (this is more complicated if you are upside down, as so many people are these days)
3. consider your financial future a few years down the road, and your path there

Read more in this Denver KUSA NBC 9 News 6am article: Too broke to break up.

All too often, one spouse knows virtually nothing about the family’s financial picture.

Even if the other spouse “takes care of” or “handles” all of that sort of thing with only the very best of intentions, this is a dangerous situation for the coddled spouse.

Never mind the possibility of divorce, for a moment.

What if the financial-caretaking spouse unexpectedly dies? Or suffers a devastating, incapacitating injury or illness?

How will the healthy spouse figure out and pick up the pieces, and manage the situation for the family, even on a temporary basis?

And if either spouse decides to divorce, best intentions may fly out the window.

The coddled spouse is at a severe disadvantage in determining and weighing their courses of action and options.

Depending on the particular circumstances of the case, they may have guaranteed that obtaining full and fair disclosure will be far more time-consuming and expensive than it has to be. And it is so unnecessary.

The coddled spouse is entitled to know about the family finances. And should, for the sake of all concerned, including the couple’s children.

A spouse who refuses to see that and insists upon maintaining total financial secrecy is raising a big red flag. And that should inspire the coddled spouse to take remedial action … and to educate him or herself by consulting an attorney.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: VOICES: Leslie Thompson, On the Uninformed Spouse.

According to a recent study, women have far less retirements savings invested in IRA accounts than men.

Women are both less likely to have IRAs, and likely to have less money deposited in any IRAs they do have.

There are several reasons for these statistics, including that women are more likely to be out of the workforce during childrearing years and, therefore, without earned income entitling them to make deposits toward retirement.

In light of these statistics, it bears repeating that:

1. Under Florida law, pensions and other retirement accounts accumulated by either spouse during a marriage are marital property and are subject to property division in divorce. If a retirement account was opened prior to marriage, the portion of the account accumulated during the marriage is still considered marital property.

2. A divorced alimony recipient responsible for the income taxes on his or her alimony may contribute to an IRA because of their alimony income, even if they don’t have earned income.

Read more in this Forbes commentary: Women Need To Play Catch-Up With IRA Savings.

Out of India …

Wife files for divorce from Husband in twenty year marriage.

Wife asks the Indian divorce court to award her alimony and spousal support.

Wife alleges that she converted to the Hindu religion prior to their marriage, and that she and Husband had a religious wedding ceremony in accordance with the Hindu religion.

Under Indian divorce law governing marriages between spouses of the Hindu faith, a wife may seek alimony – but apparently not so between spouses of other faiths.

Despite the length of this couple’s marriage, however, the Indian high court denies Wife’s request for alimony, finding that Wife has not proved that she did in fact convert to Hindu prior to the marriage and that the marriage may therefore not have been valid from its inception.

The Indian court appears to rationalize, in essence, that too many Indians insincerely convert from one religion to another, not for spiritual motivations, but to manipulate the law to their own legal advantage in family court, or otherwise.

With regard to the particular case before it, the appellate court apparently finds that Wife duplicitously spent twenty years of her life in a sham and/or fraudulent marriage, scheming all along to capitalize on the alimony law available to Indian Hindus, in the event the couple ever divorced.

While this case is from India, spouses should be aware that alimony laws in the United States are being reviewed, challenged and, in some cases, updated to reflect changes in the times.

Read more in this Times of India article: HC refuses alimony to ‘converted’ woman.

British law allows admission into evidence of assets a spouse’s private documents obtained by the other spouse peacefully but by stealth.

Until now. The British Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, just struck down that vast body of law.

In the case before the appellate court, office mates of the Husband copied files from office computers for Wife’s use in their divorce court case.

The holding will make it more difficult and expensive for spouses ignorant of the other spouse’s financial affairs to prove their spouse’s income and assets for purposes of determining child support, alimony and property division.

The Court’s justifications? Concerns about violating privilege and encouraging illegal and / or unethical conduct.

The appellate court has denied leave to appeal to Britain’s highest court.

Read more in this Forbes article: Private documents no longer allowed in divorce and this UK Guardian article: Covertly found assets no longer valid in divorce.

Florida Husband and Wife divorce in 2008, after more than twenty years of marriage.

Husband and Wife have four Children together.

Husband, a cancer doctor with an annual income close to $1 million, is ordered to pay Wife $35,000 per month in alimony and child support.

Husband is also ordered to pay Wife $1 million as part of property division on their $5 million marital property estate.

But Husband apparently doesn’t want to pay … anything.

And, thanks to a complex, layered network of small business operations, garnishment is frustrated. Each business is in a position to be able to claim that another entity writes the check.

And so Husband has reportedly paid only $60,000 and is running a support arrearage of close to $700,000.

If Husband persists in nonpayment of support, the state may suspend his medical license and his driver’s license.

But that won’t get support into the hands of Wife and Children.

Read more in this Lakeland Ledger article: Doctor’s Medical License in Jeopardy.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Wife allegedly hires her ex-husband and her boyfriend to murder Husband.

Husband is shot three times, but survives.

Wife serves eight months in jail awaiting trial.

Then Wife and her accomplices all plead guilty to criminal conspiracy to commit Husband’s homicide.

Wife is sentenced to between six and twelve years in prison.

And while serving her sentence, Wife files divorce court papers:

1. seeking alimony for the time period between her arrest and her guilty plea
2. seeking distribution of marital personal property she claims Husband withheld from her
3. seeking part of Husband’s pension

The family court rules against Wife on her alimony and personal property claims, but rules in Wife’s favor on her pension claim.

The criminal court ordered Wife and her accomplices to pay Husband $2,300 in restitution. So far, Husband has been able to collect a total of $80.

Husband suffers from permanent nerve damage, shotgun “pellets” embedded in his head, anxiety and nightmares .. and, from his perspective, legal abuse.

Read more in this Wilkes-Barre [PA] Times Leader article: Murder in her heart, law on her side.

Husband and Wife divorce after twenty-eight years of marriage.

Husband and Wife have an autistic adult Son. Wife assumes responsibility for Son.

In all the time that they were married, Husband reportedly only worked about seven years, even before Son’s birth. Despite having an MIT MBA – which Wife helped pay for.

In the divorce, Husband is awarded half the marital assets. This includes a house.

Husband is also awarded monthly alimony of $2,000.

Wife, like so many husbands before her, resents having to pay alimony.

But, more than that, Wife feels that that money would be put to better use for Son’s care.

Because Wife has to pay alimony, Wife, at 56 years old, will have to borrow money to pay for Son to attend college.

And when Son finishes college, Husband may seek additional alimony.

For his part, Husband believes he is entitled to more alimony … since he “stayed home” with Son.

Read more in this Boston Globe article: Mother of disabled son must pay ex-husband.

Arkansas Husband of twenty-four years is unfaithful and infects Wife with a sexually transmitted disease (STD)

Husband and Wife divorce.

Wife will incur recurring monthly expenses for medication to treat the STD.

Family court awards Wife alimony (or spousal support) to cover those expenses. The trial court’s ruling may smack of the influence of fault.

Husband appeals based on the trial court’s apparent consideration of fault in its award.

The Arkansas appellate court affirms the family court’s ruling, downplaying the role of fault in the ruling and justifying it based on the Wife’s very real expenses.

These rulings could also be supported under Florida divorce law and alimony law.

Read more in this Courthouse News Service article: Arkansas Man to Pay for Giving Ex-Wife an STD.

When the marriage hits the rocks, the wife is far more likely to be in the dark about the couple’s assets and income than the husband is.

Too often, the wife is inclined to settle quickly for what their husband will agree to give them in order to be done with the divorce quickly.

But they may later come to regret that.

A more prudent course is for women to acquaint themselves with their marital finances and collect copies of financial records before the divorce is upon them.

That can save a lot of time and money, and goes a long way toward ensuring a fair division of property.

In cases where there are sufficient assets and income in issue, the wife should have an accountant and a financial advisor on her divorce team with her lawyer.

In some cases, if necessary, it may also be worthwhile to borrow money if the Wife does not have sufficient liquid assts to meet her short-term living expenses and case expenses.

Read more in this Tulsa [OK] World article: Women often financially blind when divorcing.

Prenuptial agreements (or prenups) should be as routine as wedding planning and marriage preparation.

Almost half of all marriages end in divorce.

Some divorces turn very, very nasty and very, very expensive.

A lot of that can be avoided with a sound antenuptial agreement.

If a couple is discussing incomes, bills, spending, savings, money expectations, money plans (and they should be), a prenup is just part and parcel of that conversation.

Every engaged couple should consider a prenup regardless of how little they may have today (things change), but an antenuptial agreement is especially worthwhile in the following situations:

1. when either or both future spouses own significant assets at the time of marriage

2. when either future spouse already has children from a previous relationship

3. when one future spouse has an interest in a business

4. when there is a considerable difference in the incomes of the two future spouses

5. when there is a significant age difference between the future spouses

6. when either future spouse agrees to support the other during their professional education or training

7. when it is anticipated that either spouse will inherit property

Read more in this CNBC news article: Wedding season mantra: Till prenup do us part.

When it hits you that your marriage is not going to make it, no matter how distraught you are, it’s important to take care of business while you may still have the opportunity.

1. Ensure that you have some liquid cash flow from marital assets

2. If possible, take measures to secure your accounts, so that your partner doesn’t clean everything out

3. Make sure you will receive copies of all account statements as they are issued

4. Gather copies of important financial records ans store them in a safe place

5. Secure your personal items

6. Consult an attorney about your rights

7. Consider notifying your children’s school or daycare provider about the change in your children’s family life

8. Maintain your personal safety

9. If your partner is civilized, maintain a dialog

Read more in this Australian News article: It pays to act quickly after divorce.

The threat has been repeated countless times.

“You won’t get one dime of alimony. I’ll file for bankruptcy first.” Husband.

Wife panics.

But neither alimony obligations nor child support obligations can be changed by a bankruptcy court from what family court ordered.

However, a bankruptcy attorney recommends filing a nondischargeability complaint in the bankruptcy case to ensure notice and protection of the receiving spouse’s interests.

And if there are arrearages in support, the spouse who is owed back-support is actually at the top of the heap of creditors. Back support obligations come off the top of the “bankruptcy estate” (what the bankrupt spouse has left).

Read more in this CreditCards.com advice column: Bankruptcy doesn’t absolve spousal support payments.

Connecticut Husband and Wife divorce.

Husband is ordered to make lump sum alimony payments to Wife.

Husband misses payments, now totalling over $50,000.

Husband and Wife are due in family court.

Wife misses court appearance.

Wife is found, murdered.

Husband hires criminal attorney.

Husband is summoned to family court over the missed payments, now owed to Wife’s estate.

Husband is ordered to appear in court monthly to prove his efforts to make payments to Wife’s estate.

Husband has not been designated as a suspect in Wife’s murder.

Read more in this [Rocky Hill, CT] Eyewitness News TV 3 article: Jeffrey Hamburg Appears In Court.

Husband has 400 million UK pounds.

Husband goes through divorce.

Husband is ordered to pay alimony and child support.

Husband allegedly pays Wife nothing.

Husband allegedly fails to make full disclosure of his financial affairs … over three years of litigation.

Husband reportedly owes 2 million UK pounds in taxes.

Husband files for bankruptcy.

Husband now shows up in family court without attorneys to represent him.

Wife contends that Husband has cleverly hidden his assets.

Wife informs the UK Court that she is close to the end of her resources yet must pay the couple’s children’s tuition, rescue their home from foreclosure, and pay her attorney’s past due fees or risk loss of counsel.

Court defers on Wife’s pleas for assistance, but advises Wife that she may pursue these issues at trial … next month.

The silver lining for Wife may be that the bankruptcy trustee may “peel back the onion” of Husband’s financial affairs, and Wife may benefit from that investigation at no further cost to herself.

Read more in this London Evening Standard article: £400m divorce battle tycoon: I’m bankrupt and this Ireland Independent article: Property tycoon in £400m divorce battle declared bankrupt.

To what lengths will some go to avoid paying alimony?

Well, in India, not one, but two different men went so far as to deny that they had ever been married to the women seeking alimony from them.

In the first case, the former husband contended that their wedding did not conform to the requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore his former wife had not been his wife and had no standing to seek alimony.

But the trial court rejected the former husband’s contention because there was a valid marriage license and the marriage was in fact reflected in the official marriage records for the community.

In the second case, the husband apparently claimed that the wife’s prior marriage had not been legally dissolved, so they could not have been married.

But the wife proved that her divorce had been finalized before the marriage and she introduced the wedding invitations her husband had had printed. At which point the husband withdrew his asserted defense.

Read more in this Times of India article: Men deny marriages to avoid alimony.

Husband and Wife are divorced.

Husband used to own a successful car dealership in Tampa.

Husband was arrested a couple of weeks ago for not paying alimony to Wife and Wife’s attorney’s fees, as court ordered.

A civil warrant is issued against Husband.

Law enforcement officers go to Husband’s home.

Husband declines to answer the door, and hides in a closet.

Officers find an open window and enter Husband’s home.

Husband is arrested again for contempt of court and obstructing an officer without violence, by hiding from authorities.

Husband is released from confinement after posting a small bail … and paying the $119, 875 he was ordered to pay.

Read more in this Tampa Tribune article: Ex-auto dealer arrested again and this St. Petersburg Times article: Ernie Haire III hides in closet to avoid arrest on contempt charge, deputies say.

Before tax season fades out of sight and out of mind, it is worth a refresher (or primer) on tax treatment of two of the most common types of payments required in a divorce settlement:

• Child Support – Child support is not deductible by the parent paying it, nor is it taxable income to the parent receiving it.

• Alimony – Alimony (or spousal support), however, is a different tax story. Alimony is generally deductible by the spouse paying it and taxable income to the spouse receiving it. According to a California CPA, it should be noted that alimony is not deductible for the period that the spouses live in the same residence. That California CPA also highlights that, for income tax purposes, support payments are applied first to child support, until it is paid in full, and only then to spousal support. So, if the paying spouse is behind in their payments, they will not get a tax benefit for characterizing payments as alimony when child support is not fully paid.

Read more in this Merced [CA] Sun-Star article: David Bruner, The Tax Man: Alimony, child support.

Husband and Wife are going through nasty divorce.

And Husband is being prosecuted for numerous white collar crimes.

Husband owes Wife $10,000 in alimony.

And financial disclosure in their divorce.

Minnesota trial court holds Husband in contempt of court … and orders Husband to jail.

After three nights of incarceration, Husband promises the Court he will make full disclosure and has already made almost all required payments to Wife.

Court releases Husband from confinement on “furlough”, under threat of doing more time should he not keep up with his payments to Wife and not live up to his promise to make fair disclosure.

Incarceration is a highly effective, but little resorted to, remedy for noncompliance with Florida’s mandatory disclosure requirements and discovery process.

Read more in this Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune article: Hecker glad to be freed.

Husband’s father, an oil heir, is worth about $2 billion.

Wife is looking for more than $314,000 per month to carry on in the style to which she has become accustomed.

After living like an heiress for ten to eighteen years, anything less would be “slumming”.

And an award of attorney’s fees of $350,000, so she can retain counsel up to par with Husband’s.

And then there are the accountants’ fees. Another $100,000.

Imagine if there weren’t a recession on…

Read more in this Extra article: Getty Ex Wants Big Bucks in Divorce and this New York Post article: Getty oil heir’s ex demands $314K-a-month in divorce.

Recent restrictions on executive compensation are having significant impact on divorces of people in the financial services industry. Nowhere is this felt more than in New York, where so many people are employed in the targeted financial services industry.

Employers have dramatically reduced cash bonuses, until recently a huge component of compensation. Instead, employers are compensating employees with company stock of speculative value and varying vesting dates, and deferred cash payments.

The effect is to reduce current cash income for purposes of calculating child support and spousal support.

Depending on exactly how the compensation is structured, it may also change the character of the compensation from income available for support to property which must be divided.

Meanwhile, the reduced current cash income is overextending family resources for private school tuition payments and carrying costs for existing second homes, not to mention support payments.

The timing and uncertainty of real, cash income is breeding increasing litigation over the financial aspects of divorce for financial professionals.

Dependent spouses seem to be getting the shorter end of the stick in these situations. Less cash income available for support now. Disputes over whether deferred cash or benefits / assets is even marital and, if so, as of what date should they be valued.

Ultimate impact on divorces of financial professionals? More, expensive litigation in filed cases … but markedly fewer cases filed.

Read more in this Bloomberg BusinessWeek article: Bonus Pay Changes Put ‘Massive Wrench’ in Wall Street Divorces.