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
Pension plans can be complicated things. Documented in thick manuals filled with arcane rules.
In the case of Continental Airlines’ pension plan, one such rule permits divorced, retired spouses to collect retirement benefits attributable to pilots still in active service.
Such pension benefits can amount to lump sums on the order of $1 million per spouse.
Continental alleges that nine of its pilots fraudulently divorced their spouses so that their spouses could collect their pension benefits early … and then, after receiving their benefits, each couple reportedly remarried.
The airline has sued the nine pilots.
Read more in this Oklahoman article: Pilot divorces spur lawsuit.
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.
An 18 year New Zealand relationship has come to an end.
Leaving in its wake four frozen embryos produced as a result of fertility treatments.
The Woman wants the embryos to be born, either to her or to another woman.
The Man is apparently opposed.
Although no further legal action regarding the embryos is planned, the Woman is attempting to try the dispute over the embryos in the media.
Read more in this New Zealand TVNZ article: Child custody battle involving embryos and this New Zealand Herald article: Separated couple row over frozen embryos.
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.
Husband and Wife of twenty-seven year marriage split up.
Each gets a lawyer.
Against Wife’s counsel’s advice, they enter a separation or postnuptial agreement.
The couple owns a home, a dairy farm, land and vehicles, among other things.
Wife apparently settles for substantially less (to the tune of $650,000) than she is “entitled to” under the law.
When she “wakes up”, Wife seeks to challenge the agreement. She argues that she was too upset after the breakup to have the proper mental capacity to make a good deal and also that her husband misrepresented the value of his assets.
The trial court sides with the Wife, holding the agreement unconscionable.
The intermediate appellate court reverses, upholding the agreement.
The Canadian Supreme Court reverses yet again, citing Husband’s failure to fully disclose the value of his assets and the Wife’s mental state at the time of making the agreement.
The high court cautions that its ruling is based on the specific facts of the particular case, clarifying that it will not lightly void freely entered settlement agreements.
This ruling tweaks a 2003 ruling in another case.
Husbands and wives owe each other a fiduciary duty under Florida law as well. Failure to make full and fair disclosure for purposes of a marital settlement can definitely return later to haunt a spouse in Florida too.
Read more in this CanWest News Service article: Court reinforces rule separation agreements can be rescinded.
Anyone who has a pet knows that the pet is part of the family.
When couples break up, their children typically still spend time with each parent, including time on the parent’s turf.
But what about the family dog or dogs?
Believe it or not, it’s a lot more complicated with a dog.
First, if the couple can’t agree privately, the judge will decide the pet’s fate as though the dog were an item of personal property, based solely on its fair market value. The pet’s best interests will not be a consideration in most cases.
Second, unlike kids, who are pretty resilient and generally able to tolerate regularly bouncing from one parent’s home to the other’s, dogs aren’t. According to one animal consultant, dogs like “routine and predictability” and “structure”.
Read more in this Asheville [NC] Citizen Times article: Dog custody becomes an issue when relationships end.
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.
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.
A couple’s finances can sometimes get pretty complicated during divorce.
Take an Indianapolis couple as an example.
Husband and Wife operate an investment company together.
Presumably anticipating Wife filing for divorce the next day, Husband and his reported girlfriend, board his private plane, bound for Florida. This is captured on airport video surveillance.
Then law enforcement enters Husband’s and Wife’s home, seizing computers and money, and freezing the married couple’s assets. Husband allegedly has defrauded customers out of millions of their dollars.
Husband returns to Indiana. Then Husband boards his private plane again, once more bound for Florida and, reportedly, his girlfriend.
But Husband signals distress and bails out of the plane before landing. It seems Husband wants authorities - and Wife - to give him up for dead.
But instead Husband is found - and is now in jail, on Federal charges - with state charges to follow.
It is unclear whether Wife ever participated in Husband’s alleged fraud.
What is the marital property? Marital debts? How shall they be divided between the Husband and Wife?
Gets pretty complicated indeed ….
Read more in this MSNBC / WTHR TV article: Video shows Schrenker preparing for flight.
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.
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.
Some Cambodians are dissatisfied with their divorce courts - even more so than people in this country are with ours.
A Cambodian Husband decided to divorce his Wife, because he didn’t feel that she tended to his care during an illness.
They decided to try to circumvent the courts as much as possible in their separation.
Husband was willing to leave the kids with Wife, without any wrangling.
As to property, under Cambodian law, it is divided equally.
And so it was.
Husband sawed the couple’s house in half, right down the middle.
A quick, inexpensive resolution, if not entirely satisfactory.
Read more in this Earth Times article: Cambodian husband takes half the house in divorce - literally.
Older Canadian couple married ten years. Husband is two decades older than Wife.
Husband buys lottery ticket. Winning ticket will pay out $3.5 million Canadian.
Husband alleges Wife stole his winning ticket, gave it to her daughter and received a substantial gift from her daughter from the winnings. Husband also alleges that Wife manipulated his medications to facilitate taking advantage of him.
Then Wife files for divorce.
Then Husband brings a civil lawsuit against Wife, her daughters and their husbands and Wife’s grandson and his wife.
Then police arrest Wife and one of her daughters on fraud, forgery and possession of stolen property.
Civil suit judge freezes the assets of the whole lot of them - and orders them to prepare inventories of all purchases with the lottery winnings.
Wife’s defense in the civil suit appears to be that she spent some of the “gift from her daughter” on Husband.
Wife admits only that she did not tell Husband that his ticket won until that piece of news was published in the papers.
Read more in this Canadian Press article: Windsor, Ont., man claims wife stole winning lottery ticket before divorce filed and this Windsor Star article: $3.5M lottery lawsuit leads to family’s arrest.
Quebec couple married for twelve years, after living together for seven years. Husband is more than 20 years older than Wife.
Husband is a judge. Wife is a perpetual student, working temporary and/or part-time jobs from time to time during the marriage.
Husband has accumulated nearly one million dollars in retirement savings, most of it during the marriage.
Quebec apparently has a property division framework similar to the equitable distribution principles in effect in Florida and many other US states, with marital property generally being divided equally unless there are special circumstances.
Husband contended that this was such a case and that it would be unjust to divide his pension evenly because Wife hadn’t contributed financially to the marriage and he had borne most of the financial responsibilities in the marriage. Sort of an attempted revival of a bygone legal standard for property division.
At trial, the Court rejected Husband’s argument and gave the Wife half of the portion of Husband’s pension that was marital.
On appeal, the intermediate level appellate court reversed.
On the second tier appeal, the Supreme Court reversed again, holding that equal division of the marital portion of Husband’s pension was not so inequitable as to warrant setting aside the trial court’s ruling. The court looked to the fact that it was a joint decision of the marital partnership that Wife go to school and only work part-time or sporadically.
Read more in this Montreal Gazette article: Judge’s ex entitled to half his pension.
Once the divorce is out in the open, sometimes activity on the credit cards of one or both spouses suddenly escalates.
This can happen due to one spouse’s lack of cash to live on. It can also happen due to the malice of a spouse. Or any number of other reasons…
Both spouses’ credit ratings can potentially experience dramatic impacts in a very short timeframe.
A mortgage broker offers advice on protecting your credit.
It may be prudent to order a credit report early in the game, to gather all the pertinent debt information.
What is the current outstanding balance of each debt?
Is each debt secured or unsecured?
Who is legally responsible to the creditor on each debt?
(Which may have nothing to do with who family court assigns payment of the debt to.)
Does the current value of any security exceed the amount of the outstanding balance?
Can the security be sold to pay the debt?
Of course, while protecting your credit rating is important, sometimes there are other considerations as well.
Like short-term survival until court-ordered temporary support.
Sometimes the steps you should take to protect your credit rating will also deny you much-needed short-term access to credit to cover living expenses.
Read more in this American Chronicle article: Protecting Your Credit During Divorce.
New couple move into (guest) house on Husband’s parent’s property. Couple adopt two pet dogs.
Four years later, Wife moves out and gets an apartment. Wife leaves pets with Husband, but visits them often.
Couple files for divorce. The family court orders Husband not to dispose of any marital property or the couple’s pets.
Somewhere along the way after that, the Husband asks his parents to take care of the dogs.
Then the Husband dies of a drug overdose. The Wife then requests that Husband’s parents turn the dogs over to Wife.
Husband’s parents refuse. Who should get the dogs?
A trial court inexplicably rules that Husband’s parents are entitled to keep the dogs. Wife appeals.
The appellate court reverses and orders Husband’s parents to relinquish the pets to Wife, finding that the prior court order prohibited Husband from giving the dogs to his parents.
But Husband’s parents still refuse to give up the dogs. They describe the appellate court’s ruling as irrelevant or moot.
Apparently the Wife and her in-laws have been parties to multiple litigations. One was recently settled and the settlement agreement reportedly contained some language that arguably put to rest all disputes between them before the appellate court issued its ruling.
Depending on the precise wording of the release clause of the settlement agreement, the Husband’s parents’ reasoning may be questionable.
But it’s probably not questionable that they will all be back in court again soon.
Read more in this Cleveland Plain Dealer article: Widow’s custody battle in divorce court goes to the dogs.
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.
Georgia Husband and Wife prepare for second marriage each.
They make a prenuptial agreement. Wife waives claims to alimony, the marital home and other assets in the agreement.
Fast forward several years.
Divorce case begins. The Court awards temporary alimony to Wife and shared temporary possession of the marital home to both.
Although there is no prior history of violence in the marriage, the Court also orders Husband to turn his guns over to his father during the case. Perhaps an omen of things to come.
Next, the Court voids the prenuptial agreement. Husband not happy.
Finally, the Court orders mediation, a process by which spouses meet with a neutral third party in an effort to come to a settlement agreement.
Husband and Wife went to mediation one morning. They did not settle their case though.
The Husband called in to his job that he wouldn’t be at work that evening.
Just hours after the mediation, the Husband beat Wife to death with an aluminum baseball bat.
Afterwards, he fatally shot himself with a gun.
Husband reportedly confessed to Wife’s attorney and his own work supervisor.
No one anticipated this eruption of domestic violence - except perhaps the judge who ordered Husband’s guns removed from the home.
Among other things, this case demonstrates the potential danger of husband and wife living together in the marital home during a divorce.
If it is necessary, a Florida court (and courts in other states as well) can order that one of the spouses temporarily move out of the marital home until the end of the case.
Read more in this Athens [GA] Banner-Herald article: Couple’s legal fight ends in their deaths
Man marries woman. Couple has child.
Man becomes city manager of a Florida town.
Man has sex change operation.
Man-turned-woman gets discharged from city manager job.
Couple begins divorce.
Couple reaches agreement under which former husband pays former wife alimony and child support.
In an unusual property division provision of the marital settlement agreement, former wife will be entitled to one-half of any monies former husband receives from selling his / her story to the media in the form of a book or movie.
Read more in this Tampa Tribune article: Transgendered Ex-Largo Manager Gets Divorce Terms
A spouse wants to be able to spend money without having to account to or justify the expenditure to the other spouse.
How to accomplish it?
Either hidden savings or hidden credit cards.
According to surveys, anywhere from 40% to over 80% of couples have money secrets from each other or lie to each other about spending and/or credit.
According to financial counselors, concealing these financial misdeeds can place a strain on the offender and the marriage.
Sometimes it even drives a spouse to drinking or drugs.
“Financial infidelity” is most often discovered by accident.
According to a survey, 9% of couples felt this misconduct was “grounds” for divorce and 55% agreed it was a “major violation” of the marriage contract.
But in a no-fault state such as Florida, none of that really matters. What does matter is how that misconduct may end up haunting the unwitting spouse.
Some spouses may want to act to take steps to protect themselves from the other spouse’s debt, whether it is debt run up on a joint credit account on which a creditor may collect from either spouse, or marital debt that may have to be answered for in family court.
The easy ounce of prevention: frequent credit reports on the other spouse.
Read more in this CreditCards.com article: Hiding credit card debt - Secret credit cards and hidden debt exact high toll on couples.
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.
After the divorce. Before the remarriage.
Second and subsequent marriages are more likely to fail than first marriages.
At the same time, each spouse in a second marriage is more likely to enter the union with assets, debts - and children.
Making things more complicated.
A prenup is the way to think through, negotiate and agree upfront who gets what in the event of a divorce - or death - of a spouse. The surviving spouse. His kids, her kids, their kids, a combination of all of the above?
Before the marriage, either party can walk away if agreement can’t be reached - unscathed, at least financially.
But the instant the “I dos” are exchanged and wedding gifts received, there is no turning back and the other spouse and/or a court have a say in who gets what - and escape is less likely to be unscathed.
Read more in this Kiplinger’s article: Blended Family Finances.
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.
Local Boca Raton area couple divorced in 2001.
As part of an agreement between them, Husband paid Wife an extra $1.5 million on the condition that she not fight him for custody of their children. There were also provisions to block Wife from fleeing the jurisdiction with their children.
If Wife later challenged any part of the settlement agreement, the agreement required her to refund the $1.5 million paid to her.
Wife sheltered her settlement money offshore.
In 2003, Wife accused Husband of violating their agreement - and sought a modification of the settlement.
The Court ruled that her sought-after modification was a challenge to the settlement agreement, and ordered the Wife to refund the $1.5 million. The Court subsequently held her in contempt.
Warrants were issued for Wife’s arrest. And then Wife went on the run.
For two years. But Wife finally turned herself in early this year.
And served five months in confinement. Before agreeing to refund $1 million into a trust fund for the couple’s kids.
As part of this latest settlement agreement, Wife agreed not to contact their younger kids except by mail or e-mail, or to see their older minor child except under supervision - if the child gives written permission for any visitation. Wife also agreed not to live in the same town as the children - or any neighboring towns either.
And if Wife violates this settlement agreement, the agreement entitles Husband to recover not only the $1 million but also additional monies that he claims she owes him for her previous violations.
This case went up to the Florida Supreme Court while Wife was a fugitive. Three of the justices actually questioned the legality of the original settlement agreement, at least as to custody. But the majority of justices refused to entertain that position of the Wife while the Wife was on the run.
Read more in this Palm Beach Post article: Jailed mom let go, will return some divorce money.
Georgia couple divorce. Couple had owned real estate held in both names.
The final judgment awarded the Wife permanent possession of the property and she paid the mortgage from that point on. But, for whatever reason, the Court did not address ultimate ownership of the property, and neither did the parties.
Wife lived in the property for many years. But eventually she moved away to care for her elderly mother.
And when she moved, she rented the property out. For money.
At which point the Husband sought half of the rental income.
And the Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the Husband that he was entitled to half of the rental income.
The Court reasoned that the Husband had not waived his right to ask the Court to order a sale of the house (called partition) and division of the proceeds.
It is unclear whether the Georgia Court similarly divided the mortgage payments and maintenance expenses (insurance, taxes, repairs, etc.) of the property.
Read more in this Augusta Chronicle article: Woman must share rent with ex-husband.
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.
A Washington state woman is undoubtedly the envy of many spouses contemplating divorce.
Her husband simply up and disappeared one day - about four months ago.
In some instances, the disappearance might eliminate the need for a divorce entirely. Instead, the missing spouse could eventually be declared dead.
But, for whatever reason, this woman apparently couldn’t wait anywhere near that long.
She reportedly already filed for divorce, weeks ago. The grounds she relied upon were her husband’s alleged willful abandonment.
Interestingly, in her court papers, the woman alleges that she was a victim of domestic violence by her husband and requests that any visitation with their children be supervised.
She also sought a court award of all of the couple’s property and asked the court to distribute all of their debt to him. Good deal.
Police have tentatively concluded that the man’s disappearance was not suspicious.
Rather, they believe that he simply chose to disappear and start his life over.
Read more in this Seattle Times article: Wife of missing man files for divorce.
An elderly Australian businessman may harbor some regrets about allegedly defrauding the Family Court and concealing or misrepresenting assets.
The man reportedly characterized himself in court papers as a “supervisor” who earns $30,000. According to his much younger wife, he commands a $100 million fortune.
It is said that he kept mum about the $630,000 car he drives.
He also reportedly transferred $1.5 million in defiance of a court order.
Even worse, perhaps, the man allegedly ordered the destruction of financial records and conspired to transfer $30 million outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
For his misdeeds, the Court held him in contempt - and sentenced him to several months of confinement.
It is anticipated that the portion of the trial dedicated to dividing assets will take six weeks!
The couple’s combined legal fees are estimated to run between $1.5 million and $2 million.
If the man pays his wife just $133,000 toward her legal fees quickly, however, the Court will reduce his sentence to only three months.
Sounds like a real deal he should jump at.
Read more in this Sydney Morning Herald article: Divorce ends in slammer.
| Listen to Janet |
See if the nonprofit Association against Hidden Family Abuse, Inc. can help you or someone you care about.