General legal information furnished as a service of Fort Lauderdale / West Palm Beach family law attorney Janet Langjahr
Husband and Wife divorce.
Husband used to work for large software company.
Husband’s financial disclosure in divorce reveals two large payments and anticipates a further large payment from a so-called hedge fund.
Wife seeks a share of such monies. Husband impliedly disputes her right.
Further complication …
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reportedly previously investigated suspicions of insider trading between Husband and the hedge fund in stock of Husband’s former employer.
SEC has reopened the investigation since certain information and evidence came to light in the divorce case.
Wife was supposedly in possession of Husband’s computer’s hard drive, which may have had evidence stored on it. The SEC subpoenaed the drive.
Family court judge ordered that $250,000 of past payments from the hedge fund to Husband be held in escrow pending outcome of the SEC investigation.
Read more in this Washington [DC] Examiner article: Conn. divorce judge puts $250K into escrow and this Washington [DC] Post article: SEC Reopens Insider-Trading Probe
Israeli Husband and Wife divorce.
Husband was unfaithful to Wife.
Husband is ordered to pay Wife alimony.
Fast forward six years.
Husband returns to court.
With videotape.
Of Wife and another man having sexual relations.
Prior to entry of the divorce.
Wife challenges videotape, of course.
But police authenticate it.
And, because of Wife’s unfaithfulness, the Rabbinic Court revokes Wife’s alimony.
Read more in this Jerusalem Post article: Rabbinic judges revoke alimony after husband proves wife cheated, too.
Florida Husband and Wife divorce.
Husband is ordered to pay Wife alimony.
Husband moves to Indonesia.
Husband allegedly stops paying support.
Indonesia apparently does not honor or enforce US court orders on support.
Husband’s support arrears are reportedly close to $200,000.
Husband returns to US to attend a wedding.
Husband is arrested.
Husband is held without bail.
Read more in this [Jacksonville] Florida Times-Union article: Busted: Exiled, alimony-owing ex returns to Jacksonville and stakeout and this News 4 Jax article: Man Owing $188K In Alimony Arrested.
Husband and Wife divorce.
Twenty-five years later, Wife approaches retirement.
Far-off-in-the-future social security benefits are not typically addressed in divorces, and many people are confused about or ignorant of their eventual entitlement.
Wife lets it be known that she is contemplating seeking to collect social security benefits by claiming through Husband.
Husband opposes.
But Wife can do this, even all these years later, even though this was not spelled out in Wife’s and Husband’s divorce.
Under federal law, a spouse who was married for at least ten years to someone who earned social security benefits, may claim social security benefits based on their former spouse’s rights - provided the claiming spouse did not remarry.
The claiming spouse’s benefits do not diminish the benefits that will be paid to the earning spouse.
Read more in this Philadelphia Daily News finance column: Harry Gross: His ex-wife can benefit from his SS.
The concept of “fault” has become nearly obsolete in divorce law throughout the United States.
But one state, Arizona, may be resurrecting it, at least to a degree, after a thirty year hiatus.
A bill may allow fault to be proven and weighed in property division, alimony and even child support.
Fault could include anything from domestic violence to blowing the family savings on gambling - or an affair.
Fault might even include seeking the divorce.
But fault would not be required as a ground for divorce.
Such changes would actually bring Arizona in line with some other states’ versions of no-fault divorce law, including, to a large extent, Florida’s.
Read more in this Arizona Daily Star article: Ariz. may get adultery and other ‘misconduct’ back in divorce court.
Retired NY police officer (Husband) is on trial for murder … of his former Wife. He allegedly killed her in 2007, while she was waiting to pick up their now 27 year old Daughter from a Park and Ride location.
The couple separated in 1999 and their divorce was finalized in 2003.
Wife was awarded child support, alimony, half the proceeds of sale of the marital home, her jewelry and most of Husband’s police pension. Husband was most recently employed as a manager at a fast foot restaurant in Florida.
Husband tried to negotiate a better settlement through Daughter, with whom he had had no other contact since 2000. He wrote in an unsolicited note that the judge “stole” from him and “I intend to get it back”.
Daughter had disowned Husband and, out of fear, had taken steps to keep information about herself from him. She found the note in her car.
Husband’s co-worker testified that he spoke more than once, over the course of a year, of wanting to kill his ex-Wife for taking his money.
At 63 years of age, Husband faces 25 years’ confinement to life. And his worries over his assets have likely been displaced by others.
Read more in this Staten Island Advance article: Daughter disowns cop who’s on trial for murder and Co-worker says cop joked about killing his ex-wife.
New Jersey Husband and Wife divorce. Husband is ordered to pay alimony, as well as child support for Son.
Wife and teenaged Son argue. Wife is angry and drunk.
Wife allegedly beats Son … to death.
Wife is sentenced to three years’ incarceration for Son’s death.
The trial court suspends Husband’s obligation to pay current alimony, but requires Husband to continue payments of arrearages into Wife’s “prison account”.
An appellate court later suspends Husband’s obligation to make payments on the arrearages, deferring payments of arrearages until Wife’s release from confinement.
The appeals court cannot not find any legal authority authorizing it to terminate Husband’s alimony obligation because of Son’s death.
But the Court invites the state legislature to address the issue by statute.
And address it the legislature eventually does.
A new New Jersey bill terminates alimony to a parent who kills a child intentionally or through abandonment or neglect.
The bill also cuts off a parent’s right of inheritance from a child the parent abandoned, abused, neglected, or endangered.
Read more in this North Jersey Crime Examiner article: No alimony for parent who kills child, panel recommends.
Canadian billionaire Father cohabits with much younger immigrant woman, Mother, for 10 years.
They have three children together.
They are not married.
Father pays $35,000 Canadian per month in child support.
Mother wants more.
Challenging Quebec province and other Canadian law that denies property division and alimony to common law partners or mere cohabitants, Mother sues for both.
Florida law also generally precludes a cohabitant from claiming an interest in the other partner’s property or seeking alimony or support other than for children in common.
This case has generated a lot of media attention in Canada.
Read more in this Montreal CJAD NewsTalk Radio article: Quebec multi-millionaire mystery man testifies in alimony case.
Married Chinese couple immigrate to Canada. Sort of.
Husband actually still spends most of his time in China. But Wife and Son live in Canada.
Husband is reportedly part of Chinese mob. Husband is incarcerated in China for what may be a very long time.
After about eleven years of marriage, Wife files for divorce in Canada.
Wife claims that Husband is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, although Husband claims the figure is “only” around thirty-five million. Close enough, apparently.
Wife seeks the marital residence, her car and back child and spousal support of approximately $900,000. Wife claims that her English is poor and she does not have marketable job skills.
Court apparently buys into Wife’s world view, due to what it characterizes as “exceptional” circumstances of the case.
Read more in this Vancouver Sun article: Jailed gangster was worth $400m: divorced wife.
Couple divorce.
Under settlement agreement, Husband pays alimony to Wife until Wife remarries or cohabitates with someone for over three months.
Wife is sentenced to prison for DUI.
Wife has female cellmate.
Husband pursues termination of alimony based on Wife’s “cohabitation” with her cellmate.
The trial court rejects Husband’s claim.
Husband appeals.
Intermediate appellate court reverses, holding that Wife is “cohabitating” with her cellmate within the meaning of their settlement agreement. Alimony terminates.
The ruling appears to be based solely on the literal meaning of the language of the settlement contract.
The ruling does not appear to interpret or be founded in any way upon the supportive relationship statute which permits modification or termination of alimony when the recipient cohabitates with another in a “supportive relationship”.
Read more in this Palm Beach Post article: Ex-wife’s alimony cut off because she has cellmate.
Ex-husband physician pays unemployed sixty-five year old woman almost three thousand dollars per month in alimony under court order.
Ex-husband repeatedly files motions to reduce his alimony obligation.
NJ rules require that alimony recipient file a response to other party’s motion to reduce alimony.
Upon receipt of latest such motion, ex-wife’s attorney requests additional time due to a “serious medical condition” afflicting him.
Ex-wife fails to file response to ex-husband’s motion to reduce alimony.
Court apparently denies ex-wife’s request for more time, but ex-wife’s law firm doesn’t realize that.
Court does not permit ex-wife’s law firm to defend against ex-husband’s motion because no response was filed … to this seventh incarnation of ex-husband’s motion.
Accordingly, court grants ex-husband’s motion to reduce alimony.
Court slashes alimony payment to $400 per month.
Court denies ex-wife’s motion to reconsider its ruling.
Appellate court reverses and rules that ex-wife must be given opportunity to defend the motion, because the ex-wife should not be punished for her attorney’s error.
Read more in this South Jersey News article: Bridgeton alimony reduction overturned by state appeals court.
Husband and Wife decide to marry.
Husband insists on prenup - or else.
Confusing prenup is quickly patched together with three different lawyers.
Under prenup, Wife waives everything. No property division in event of divorce. No alimony in event of divorce. No nothing in event of divorce.
Wife requests a valuation of Husband’s assets. Husband refuses - on the basis that it would be too expensive to obtain one.
Couple marry.
Turns out Husband is a multimillionaire.
Seven years later, couple splits up.
Wife asks for property division and alimony.
Trial court awards it, voiding prenup over Husband’s failure to disclose the value of his assets.
Canada’s Supreme Court refuses to hear Husband’s appeal, leaving the holding stand.
Some commentators vigorously condemn the trial court’s ruling. They criticize the court for requiring expensive asset valuations to validate prenups.
This attitude may be premature overreaction.
Several US states require asset disclosures in prenups. A precise formal valuation is not typically required though.
Just a disclosure of the rough nature and approximate value of the assets. Closer to $1 million or $10 million? $8 million or $12 million?
Is an “expensive, formal valuation” really required to give “fair notice” of the approximate value of what the spouse would be waiving?
Read more in this Canadian National Post article: Karen Selick: Court ruling means marrying for love is not an option.
Sadly, it is not unheard of for one spouse to murder (or attempt to murder) the other spouse in an effort to avoid paying spousal support or child support. I have posted on more than a few such stories.
A strange variation on that theme comes out of India.
Indian Husband files a case for theft against his Wife.
After that, Wife files for divorce.
Somehow or another, Husband’s Uncle is served with the divorce, instead of Husband.
Uncle forgets to pass the papers on to Husband.
The divorce Court enters an order for Husband to pay Wife spousal support, since Husband doesn’t show up to oppose.
Husband finds out.
Husband attends hearing in his theft case.
Before leaving the courthouse, Husband and his mother take poison … to avoid the spousal support obligation.
Husband and his mother are taken to the hospital for treatment.
Read more in this Times of India article: Mother, son attempt suicide.
When does the obligation to pay alimony end? That depends on many factors.
More and more, it is the intention of legislators, courts and divorcing couples that the alimony obligation end when the receiving spouse enters a marriage-like relationship, even if it lacks the ceremonial formality of marriage per se. In other words, “cohabitation”.
But what is “cohabitation”? That depends too.
New York’s highest appeals court recently addressed that very issue. In a case where a settlement agreement provided that alimony terminate if the wife lived with a new significant other for “60 substantially consecutive days”.
The evidence showed that she did in fact live with her significant other for the specified time period. What’s the issue?
Under prior New York case law, the intermediate appellate court concluded that cohabitation required “sharing of finances”. And that this “couple” did not do.
New York’s highest court held that the definition of cohabitation depends on diverse factors and the parties’ intent.
The decision is expected to incite much litigation over cohabitation as applied to the specific facts of particular cases.
Florida’s counterpart to NY law on “cohabitation” sets forth the factors comprising a “supportive relationship”.
Read more in this Newsday article: Court: ‘Cohabitation’ ambiguous in NY divorce law.
A Florida family court awards Wife $5,000 as a lump sum payment from Husband.
Husband is angry.
Husband knows he must comply with letter of order. But decides to play fast and loose with the spirit of the order, for maximum effect.
So Husband pays, in full - with wheel barrels full of pennies. 500,000 of them. Delivered to Wife’s attorney’s office.
It is legal tender. But …
Now Former Wife asks Court to hold Former Husband in contempt.
And the Court does, ruling that the Former Husband intended to harass Former Wife.
Read more in this Orlando Sentinel article: Frank rolls out the alimony barrel.
When the marriage starts heading south, it’s time to start paying attention to the finances - especially for spouses who never paid attention before. With some spouses, the window of opportunity to prove the existence of assets and that they are marital will close rapidly.
So it may be important to act quickly. And it may be necessary to engage various experts, ranging from divorce financial investigators to forensic computer analysts.
The things to look at, preserve and copy may include joint and the other spouse’s:
Once you have your hands on them, study them, or have an expert do so.
Read more in this Olympian [WA] article: Spouse hiding assets? Learn how to protect yourself from secrets, lies.
Ex-Husband has custody of Child. Ex-Wife is ordered to maintain medical insurance for Child.
Child seriously injured in bad accident. Dad discovers that Child’s insurance lapsed several weeks before.
Finding out that your child’s or your insurance coverage has been canceled or modified just when you need it most is a nightmare.
There are a couple of ways to prevent that from happening.
The source article discussed the Qualified Medical Child Support Judgment Order required in every Missouri divorce involving minor children where insurance is available.
But an endorsement to any insurance can be negotiated and ordered which requires the insurance carrier to provide 30 - 90 days notice to the insured prior to canceling or modifying (reducing) coverage. That works whether the insured is a child or a former spouse.
The party required to provide the insurance should be required to deliver the certificate of insurance / declarations page reflecting the special endorsement to the insured within 10 days after final judgment.
Read more in this South Side Journal article - Fox Family Files: Do you have a “Q-order in your divorce decree?
Work your fingers to the bone supporting the family while your spouse goes to school to eventually bring more bacon home to the family.
… Then get dumped when your spouse finally receives his or her sheepskin.
It’s a classic drama that plays out over and over again.
The exploited spouse views that degree as a commodity that he or she in essence bought for their spouse.
But is the degree itself property that has an intrinsic value that can be divvied up on the marital balance sheet?
Most states say no, Utah and Florida among them.
What about the understanding of the expected quid pro quo between the spouses?
Well, this varies from state to state, but it’s best not to expect too much based on an implied understanding or even a verbal agreement.
As in other areas of life, there is just no substitute for a solid written contract reflecting the expectations of both parties.
In Utah, a divorcing wife recently went outside of her husband’s divorce case to file a separate civil lawsuit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
While some have criticized taking this dispute outside the family court, the Utah Court of Appeals held that the wife could press her civil suit but that she would have to prove a written contract.
Not surprisingly, the couple never hired attorneys to draw up a formal legal contract. But there reportedly were a series of e-mails back and forth that may be deemed to constitute a contract.
Of course, even where there is no written contract and the degree per se may not be divisible, there may be more than one way for the exploited spouse to skin the cat. For example, the professional practice founded upon the degree may have a value that can be divided. Or the degreed spouse’s income may be split up, with a portion going to alimony. Or the exploited spouse may at least be reimbursed for the money spent on tuition to obtain that degree.
Read more in this Salt Lake City Deseret News article: Little redress available for ’support’ spouses.
A wealthy British advertising executive and publisher, husband and father, divorced his wife.
And, according to him, the rumors started. He abandoned them, leaving them with nothing, and so on.
Rightly or wrongly, he believes he has been maligned, criticized, scorned … speculated about.
Yet he believes the settlement was generous, and resents the whispers behind his back.
So, while most wealthy folks going through divorces are more likely to be looking to seal their court files from public scrutiny, this man decided to strike back in a very public way.
He launched a website intended to set the record straight about his divorce.
On the site, he purports to disclose the terms of his divorce settlement.
He hopes it will quell the wild rumors.
Time will tell.
Read more in this UK Independent article: Businessman puts divorce deal on web to stop ‘rumour mill’ and this [India] Economic Times article: Millionaire posts divorce details on net to stop rumours.
Your divorce is finally final. Now you can move on with your life.
Maybe you’d like to start over with a new condo or house. You find the perfect place.
You begin working with a mortgage broker. In the course of your chit-chat, you mention you were just divorced.
Don’t be surprised when your mortgage broker asks you for a copy of your … final judgment of dissolution (also known as divorce decree).
How come?
Read more in this WalletPop article: Mortgage Confidential: Why lenders want to see your divorce decree.
How long does a divorce take? It depends …
Couple marries in 1984. Marriage is a successful partnership of complementary business skills.
Couple prospers. In 1990, Wife in car accident. Husband reportedly drags them down into debt.
Couple separates and, in 1995, files for divorce.
Husband moves to Alabama, never to return to Florida - or its courts. Husband remarries, putting all of his assets into his new wife’s name.
In 2001, Court orders Husband to pay alimony of $6,000 per month plus Wife’s medical insurance. Court also orders property distribution to Wife of $240,000 plus substantial interests in Husband’s businesses and patents. Court also orders Husband to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees.
Husband didn’t comply with court orders, and no income deduction was ever established. Husband was held in civil contempt and indirect criminal contempt and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
All to no avail.
New actions were filed in Alabama, which culminated in court orders awarding Wife considerably less, $162,000. Period.
But Husband paid that amount.
And the attorneys took about half of it and Wife used the balance to pay off marital debt left to her.
Leaving Wife with … nothing.
Although it’s been about 13 years, and the couple has gone through 16 different attorneys and 10 different judges to arrive at that point, Wife hasn’t given up yet.
But her Florida judges have all but flat out told her she is just wasting her time, accumulating more worthless pieces of paper in her court file.
An unsatisfactory outcome, for reasons that are not entirely clear …
Read more in this St. Petersburg Times article: A divorce, unsettled , cited to from the Overlawyered website.
Pensions which are marital property may be divided as part of the marital settlement. But there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish that.
The right way is to use a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (”QDRO”). QDROs can be complex.
QDROs must comply with detailed retirement plan provisions, and even QDROs already entered by a judge may be ignored by the plan administrator with impunity under certain circumstances.
The moral is that pensions should not be divided as an afterthought or in a rush job. Both parties must work with the plan administrator to ensure that any QDRO is plan-compliant, accomplishes the parties’ objectives in the most advantageous way for both spouses and is entered by the judge simultaneously with the final judgment.
To drive the point home, there are law firms that specialize in drafting QDROs - and nothing else. Division of retirement accounts should not be done informally.
And the division may be deemed property division - or alimony.
Read more in this Chicago Tribune article: Court order needed to split retirement accounts in divorce.
Well-off Nebraska couple divorce. Husband ordered to pay substantial alimony ($12,500 per month for 106 months) plus substantial child support ($5,000 per month).
Husband purchased a $1 million life insurance policy for the benefit of his children, although it is not clear whether that was court-ordered. It appears that no other life insurance was ordered by the Court in the divorce.
It is common for courts to order life insurance, where it is obtainable, to secure both child support and alimony obligations.
After the divorce was final, Wife reportedly sought to purchase an additional $1 million life insurance policy on her ex-husband’s life, but Husband refused to submit to a required physical examination. So Wife sought a court order for the additional insurance.
But the Court rejected her claim.
Under Nebraska law, it is illegal to take out a policy on another person’s life without their consent unless the person whose life is insured will own the policy. It is against public policy, because the purchasing beneficiary would have an interest in the insured’s death.
Once the divorce is final, the law applies to ex-spouses the same as to anyone else.
The Court failed to order insurance to secure the alimony obligation at the time of the divorce because it presumably felt that Wife had adequate resources to carry on in the event of Husband’s death. After all, her net worth is reportedly over $4 million.
Read more in this Omaha World-Herald article: Nebraska court says no life insurance policy for ex-wife.
In lengthier marriages where one partner has been a stay-at-home spouse and parent for most of the marriage, the homebound spouse often asks: should I look to get a job now that I know my spouse and I are going to divorce?
There are differing schools of thought on this important question. And sometimes the answer really depends on all the particulars of a given case.
But whether one generally favors putting off (or avoiding altogether) a return to the workforce or diving back in as soon as possible, there are considerations to bear in mind beyond the current number of dollars of salary potentially traded for dollars of current alimony:
And, of course, the psychological and social benefits of working, which can be very beneficial to people going through divorce.
Read more in this Orlando Sentinel article - Divorce is pending: Is it wise to accept job offer?
Florida Husband (former attorney) ordered to pay alimony.
Ex-Wife diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Ex-Husband reportedly stops paying alimony.
Upon requests for payment, ex-Husband allegedly asked “aren’t you dead yet?”
Ex-wife needs alimony for medicine, housing, etc.
Ex-wife reportedly tried to move the case closer due to health issues. Judge allegedly refused.
An attorney has now offered to help ex-wife without charge.
The reader is left to wonder why an income deduction wage garnishing order was not entered previously.
Sadly, enforcement remains the Achilles Heel of the legal system for far too many dependent former spouses and children. Even those who aren’t dying of cancer.
Read more in this Tampa Bays WTSP-TV 10 news article: Ex-husband stops alimony payments for terminal cancer patient.
Massachusetts man buys lottery ticket.
Man wins $1 million lottery.
All is good in his universe.
Until …
Man gets charged with violating terms of his probation on bank robbery charges.
Not his first probation violation.
Then man is served with contempt of court papers for failure to pay almost $40,000 in back alimony and child support.
Man will not know his fate until next year.
Man’s story illustrates the saying: “be careful what you wish for…”.
Support recipients everywhere got what they wished for in this instance too.
A spokesman for the state lottery issued a statement that state lottery officials would comply with any court order for support.
Read more in this Cape Cod Times article: More bad news for lottery winner.
A sad and unusual scenario.
New Jersey Mother and Father divorce.
Mother is awarded alimony.
Mother and son reportedly get into violent argument at home when Mother is drunk.
Son dies as a result of injuries from fight.
Father is devastated.
Mother goes to jail.
Father falls behind in his alimony payments.
Father seeks modification of alimony obligation, apparently based on the killing of their son. (Not based on substantial change in her needs or his ability to pay.)
The intermediate level appellate court ruled that the killing did not warrant an automatic termination of alimony based on the statute or any legal precedent.
The court did, however, suspend alimony payments pending a final ruling and ordered a lower court hearing on Father’s ability to pay.
It was also noted that the Mother can apply for a modification when she is released from her incarceration.
The court indicated that it is up to the legislature to amend the law if it wants the result sought by the Father.
Read more in this North Jersey Record article: Court cuts alimony to mom who killed her son and this New Jersey Star-Ledger article: Court: No alimony for mom who killed.
Judge orders Nevada millionaire Husband to pay $10,000 per month in alimony.
Husband not happy.
So Husband stabs Wife to death.
Not satisfied, Husband shoots family court judge.
Judge survives.
Husband charged with murder and attempted murder.
Husband pleads guilty.
Husband sentenced to life in prison.
Under the plea agreement, Husband may become eligible for parole after twenty years.
That millionaire showed everyone. He avoided that alimony obligation.
Wonder what he’ll spend his savings on in prison?
Read more in this London Daily Mirror article: Man killed wife - then shot divorce judge.
One of the most common questions in a divorce is whether a spouse can qualify for temporary relief and, if so, how much. In the typical Florida divorce, these are not always easy questions to answer.
But, in one Pennsylvania case, the first question was easy to answer and the answer to the second question was “a shot heard round the bar of family law attorneys”. The case is anything but typical.
A Mellon Bank heir and publishing magnate, a billionaire, is divorcing his wife of more than fifteen years. He earns several million annually.
Pennsylvania, unlike Florida, has a formula for temporary support. The dependent spouse receives forty percent of the paying spouse’s income.
This elegant simplicity led to a court ordering monthly temporary support in this case of $725,000.
It sets an all-time record for temporary support in Pennsylvania - and probably elsewhere too.
The billionaire’s attorneys are, of course, fighting the amount of the award.
Other issues in this unusual case include custody of the couple’s pet Golden Retriever, property division, income determination for purposes of calculating permanent alimony, etc.
Questions about temporary support are still generally tough to answer. But not if the paying spouse is a billionaire.
Read more in this Editor and Publisher article: Scaife’s Wife Gets Giant Settlement After Messy Divorce — Claims Newspaper is ‘Hobby’ and this Pittsburgh Post Gazette News article: Millions up for grabs in Scaife divorce fight.
A South Carolina man embroiled in a drawn out divorce was not very happy with how his case was going.
The court had ordered him to pay temporary alimony and attorneys’ fees to his wife.
And he didn’t want to.
So he devised a way around it - or so he thought.
He allegedly torched his wife’s lawyer’s office.
But that turned out not to be the best way to handle the situation.
In addition to his other troubles, he was charged with stalking, burglary and arson - and held in jail without bond.
This is not a recommended strategy for success in family court.
Read more in this [Columbia, SC] WIS TV News 10 article: Bond denied for man accused of setting Columbia law firm on fire.
| Listen to Janet |
See if the nonprofit Association against Hidden Family Abuse, Inc. can help you or someone you care about.