Family member hurts or even kills another family member.

Then seeks to profit from having harmed their family member.

Perhaps they will collect an inheritance.

Perhaps they will collect alimony in a lump sum.

Etc. Etc.

Some Florida legislators don’t think that’s right. And aim to prevent it from happening.

So they have drafted legislation to block a convicted criminal from profiting from hurting a family member.

The proposed legislation is inspired by similar legislation in New Jersey.

Read more in this Sunshine State News article: Bipartisan Bill Aims to Stop Criminals Profiting After Injuring Family.

Connecticut Husband and Wife divorce.

Theirs is not the garden-variety divorce.

Husband is an advertising executive. Wife is an attorney.

Husband allegedly kidnaps Wife, holding her hostage in one of their homes. During the hostage crisis, Husband asserts to police that the home is rigged with explosives.

Before torching the home.

The home, by the way, is contingently awarded to Wife in the event that Husband fails to pay her $100,000 in attorney’s fees. Accordingly, Wife is entitled to any insurance proceeds.

Husband is also required to transfer to Wife his interest in another marital property, a beach home.

But, rather than do that, prior to his deadline, Husband allegedly burns this house to the ground too.

At this time, Husband stands charged with two counts of arson, as well as other charges related to the hostage-taking situation.

Trial in both cases lies ahead for Husband.

Notwithstanding all of the above, Husband sues his property insurer … for his emotional distress. He attributes same to the insurer denying his insurance claim – after reportedly summarily concluding that Husband burned the home down himself.

Husband asserts that the insurer should have commissioned an independent investigation before reaching any conclusions about it.

The civil trial court dismisses Husband’s lawsuit against his property insurance company.

On appeal, however, an intermediate level court unanimously reinstates Husband’s claims for emotional distress.

Read more in this Insurance Journal article: Connecticut Court: Man Charged in Arson Can Sue Insurer.

It’s tax season.

Alimony or spousal support is deductible by the paying spouse or ex.

Alimony or spousal support is includible by the receiving spouse or ex.

As long as the alimony is required by a court order. One adopting and approving a settlement agreement will suffice.

End of discussion? Not quite.

Note that the alimony or spousal support check doesn’t have to be made out to the spouse or ex, or even given to them directly.

Payments made directly to a third party for the spouse or ex’s account are treated as alimony or spousal support … as long as the payments are required by court order. Again, one adopting and approving terms of settlement will do.

Examples of third party payments that may fall under this heading are medical expenses paid to health care providers, rent or mortgage payments paid to landlord or lender, tuition payments made to an educational institution, life insurance premiums paid to an insurer, auto insurance payments made to an insurer, car payments made to a lessor or lender, etc., etc.

Similarly, if a spouse is required to make the entire mortgage payment on a home co-owned with a spouse or ex, half the payment may be deducted as alimony or spousal support by the paying spouse or ex.

If a spouse is required to pay real estate taxes and/or insurance on a home co-owned as tenants in common (the most common arrangement after divorce), half the payment may be deducted as alimony or spousal support by the paying ex.

But taxes and insurance are not deductible by the paying ex if the former spouses own the real estate as joint tenants after the divorce (less likely).

Type of real property ownership is a technical legal issue with nontax consequences as well as tax consequences.

Each spouse should consult with their own attorney regarding which type of real state ownership best suits their particular needs, and also to ensure that the new deeds are drafted so as to conform to those needs.

Read more in this Main Street piece: Tax Tip: Deductible Alimony.

This blog generally steers away from family law issues arising with celebrities from the entertainment world. They receive more than enough coverage from other sources.

But every “rule” is made to be broken.

In a recent television interview with a Celebrity on a media campaign, the topic of his alleged domestic abuse was broached … and casually dismissed, as though nothing.

The celebrity reportedly accidentally shot his then-fiancee some years ago.

Later on, a different woman accused him of smacking her in the head for rejecting his sexual overtures. The Celebrity settled her civil suit against him out of court.

Later, yet another woman pressed criminal charges against him for allegedly knocking her to the floor of his home. The Celebrity reportedly pleaded “no contest”.

Later, the Celebrity’s ex-wife got a domestic violence restraining order of protection against him.

Later, his subsequent wife pressed criminal charges against him for assaulting her with a knife. The Celebrity pleaded guilty and was put on probation.

Later, yet another woman pressed criminal charges against the Celebrity over the Celebrity’s rampage in a hotel room, that chased her into hiding in a locked bathroom. Police declined to prosecute.

Later, the Celebrity’s latest ex has obtained a domestic violence restraining order against him for graphic violent threats. The Celebrity’s children were removed from his home by child welfare auuthorities.

The Celebrity is handled with kid gloves and is enjoying great popularity. His recent interviewer seemed reportedly downgraded domestic violence.

Is something wrong with this picture?

What does it say about our collective attitude toward domestic violence?

Read more in this New York Times editorial: The Disposable Woman.

A former juvenile court judge in Pennsylvania retired in disgrace about two years ago.

Part of his job was sentencing youth offenders.

There are many reasons to favor one juvenile correctional facility over another with respect to any particular juvenile offender’s circumstances and needs.

Keep in mind that juvenile courts’ objectives generally include treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents, rather than mere punishment.

This particular judge allegedly chose correctional facilities for sentencing based on his own personal financial gain, not the juvenile offenders’ circumstances and needs.

And, as a result, this particular judge was recently convicted of twelve separate counts of racketeering and conspiracy … for extorting up to millions of dollars from the developer and owner of certain juvenile correctional facilities to which he sentenced juveniles in his court.

Read more in this New York Times article: Pennsylvania: Mixed Verdict for Disgraced Judge

Texas Mother and Father have Daughter together.

Mother and Father split up.

Father picks two year old Daughter up for visitation … and disappears with her – for two years.

A nonprofit association recently located Father and Daughter.

And the police have reunited Mother with Daughter.

Father has not been charged with kidnapping. It is unknown whether he will be charged with custodial interference or similar criminal charges.

Read more in this [San Antonio] KENS 5 TV news article: Local mother holds her daughter again after two-year separation.

Although this may not be as relevant for many people in the current economic climate as it has normally been, what happens to the marital home in the divorce may generate significant tax consequences, either good or bad. Handled properly, it should be good.

Under the right circumstances, a single taxpayer may avoid tax on $250,000 in capital gains resulting from the sale of a primary residence. For a married couple, that amount doubles to $500,000.

This shelter is available to the couple both during the divorce and after the divorce is finalized, provided all other requirements are met.

Where the couple continues to own the residence together indefinitely after the divorce (think exclusive use and possession of the home with the custodial parent until the children are grown), the other spouse risks not qualifying due to the home not being his or her principal residence.

According to tax experts, an explicit provision in the marital settlement agreement or final judgment of divorce for temporary exclusive use and possession with one spouse preserves the primary use position of the other spouse as well if both spouses continue to own the home, or even if the spouse who vacated has sole ownership after the divorce.

Of course, a taxpayer should always consult their own tax advisor for tax advice relative to their specific situation.

Read more in this BST Financial newsletter article: A House Divided.