Technically, this is not a family court case. But it’s pushing the envelope right on the edge.

Boyfriend has Dog. A really cute little dog.

Boyfriend and Dog take up residency with Girlfriend.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend make videos of Dog visiting New York City tourist attractions. They post the videos on a website featuring the Dog.

And visitors flock to Dog’s website.

By the tens of thousands per month.

Dog is a celebrity.

Then Boyfriend and Girlfriend breakup. Boyfriend and Dog move out.

And this is where things turn unpleasant. According to Boyfriend, Girlfriend seizes exclusive control of Dog’s website (remember, Dog is his) by stealing Boyfriend’s iPad and changing the passwords to Dog’s site … and tries to file a trademark on the site’s name.

Resorting to self-help, Boyfriend tries to grab Girlfriend’s iPhone to get his hands on the re-set passwords to Dog’s website. That doesn’t work.

And Boyfriend is arrested for petty larceny. And that’s the last straw.

Boyfriend starts a new website for Dog’s adventures. And sues Girfriend … for $500,000.

Girlfriend contends that Dog’s website, while popular, never generated any revenue for Boyfriend and Girlfriend.

It is unknown whether there is any dispute over visitation with Dog.

It must also be noted that the fact that Boyfriend owns Dog (that much at least does not appear to be in dispute), does not by itself entitle Boyfriend to sole ownership of the contents of Dog’s website, for which Girlfriend was the primary photographer.

Read more in this Good Morning America ABC News piece: Popular Pomeranian’s Website, ‘Sammy and the City,’ at Center of Lawsuit and this New York Post article: ‘Sammy and the City’ online fortune scuttled by ex: lawsuit.

Where either spouse has a pension or retirement savings, they are not likely overlooked in a divorce.

What is often overlooked by and for younger couples are social security retirement benefits.

But what may have seemed irrelevant or unimportant then, could be relevant and significant now.

Divorce does not terminate a (former) spouse’s right to cash in on their higher earning ex’s social security benefits, at least not if they were married for at least 10 years.

An applicant can collect half of their higher earning ex’s social security benefits. If that higher earning ex has passed away, their surviving former spouse can collect 100% of their benefits.

The one catch is that the applicant must be single at the time they apply for benefits – unless they remarried after turning 60 years old.

The applicant can even collect before their ex starts collecting their own Social Security benefits.

A prevailing applicant is even entitled to collect their bump retroactively by six months.

Recap:

An applicant can collect Social Security benefits based on their ex’s higher earnings if the marriage was for at least 19 years plus:

1. The applicant is at least 62 years old and unmarried and their former spouse is currently collecting benefits.

2. The applicant has been divorced at least two years, their former spouse isn’t collecting benefits and they are both over 62.

3. The applicant is over 60 and their former spouse has died.

4. The applicant’s ex delayed taking Social Security until after their full retirement age.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal article by way of Yahoo Finance: Boosting Mom’s Social Security Payments – When a Divorce Pays Off.

We are happy to say that the Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law blog is back up and running again. We experienced some unprecedented technical difficulties in the last several days. We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your patience.