Fathers See Gains in County Family Courts

Do the regularly maintained statistics support the contention that fathers are getting more time with their children in family courts?  To borrow a lyric from the 70’s band, Boston, “it’s more than a feeling”.

 

Divorce records maintained by the Michigan Department of Community Health reflect a trend that family law professionals have observed, and perhaps helped influence; fathers with joint custody and equal parenting time.

While family law attorneys will no doubt acknowledge this trend, hard statistics are difficult to garner.  Custody is still decided on a “case-by-case”, county by county, basis.

The form used by MDCH to collect information about divorces has a field to designate custody of minor children involved in a case.  The person completing the form, usually an attorney, selects from the basic options of joint custody, or designates custody to mother, or father.

Per usual, however, the devil is in the details.  For many practicing family law, the formal custody designation set forth in a judgment of divorce or custody order is merely a label, and a poor one at that.

Joint legal custody is usually a given; an accepted starting point.  Physical custody, however, is a more contentious battlefield.  The phrase “physical custody” does not even appear in the Michigan Child Custody Act; it is a mechanism used by family law attorneys and family court judges to identify a custodial parent.

The more significant provision is the parenting schedule set forth in the judgment.  Not only does that schedule establish how much actual contact the minor children get with each parent, it also determines the child support obligation for each parent.

Purely anecdotal evidence from our recent divorce cases is consistent with the trend that Fathers are awarded joint custody (legal and physical) more often and, roughly, equal parenting time.  One size, however, does not fit all.

An article titled Throwaway Dads, from the Michigan Bar Journal from 10-years ago, decrying a gender bias against fathers, provides an interesting barometer relative to the climate change in Michigan’s county family courts.

There must be good reasons to establish where the children of a divorce will live, and even better reasons to limit them from the home of one of their parents.  Focusing on the parenting schedule rather than the custody label is the real trend at work here.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Bankrolling the Divorce Settlement

We've all heard about lenders that specialize in loaning to personal injury plaintiffs in advance of their settlement. These firms front the money to the plaintiff, at a significant discount from the amount expected to be realized in the ultimate settlement.

This same princple is being applied to divorce judgments.  Get your money now and your divorce later.

Mind you, this is not for folks with middle-class marital estates.  Rather, this brand new industry is developing on the left and now the right coasts for married couples that have estates north of 2 or 3 million.

For example, Balance Point Divorce Funding of Beverly Hills, CA was started last year by an attorney, Stacey Napp, with funds she obtained from her own divorce.

In New York City, it looks like it's going to be Churchill Divorce Finance; a firm gearing-up for a mid-winter opening with the promise of, "leveling the legal playing field."

Each of these lending firms will specialize in lending money to parties involved in divorce who are expecting to walk away from court with a fair amount of hard cash; millions in fact.  Hard to believe here in Michigan, but those folks are out there.

One advantage of such firms is the ability for a "non-earning" spouse to obtain money in order to pay lawyers and forensic accountants to go after hidden assets, or "cooked" books in the family-owned business.

For others, it's simply an opportunity to get the money now in order to fuel that new, post-divorce lifestyle.  In  many cases, a little money up front goes a long long way.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Overreaching, Post-Divorce Style: Michael Douglas' Ex Demonstrates "Greed is Good"

Michael Douglas divorced his ex-wife, Diandra, in California back at the turn of the century.  She reportedly received $45 million as well as rights to half Douglas' earnings from the "spinoffs" of his completed movie work.

Demonstrating the chief principle from Douglas' hit movie Wall Street, that "greed is good", Diandra filed suit in Manhattan last summer seeking half the actor's royalties from the reprise of Douglas' character, Gordon Geckko. A Manhattan Supreme Court Judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds, finding that venue was improperly laid.

The judge got it right.  Diandra's rights to Douglas' earnings would come from the terms of their divorce decree rather than a separate cause of action filed in another state.

Here at the Law Blogger, we have to wonder why Diandre's attorney advised her to file in Gotham rather than California.  The reason stated in the pleadings was that both parties currently reside in New York.

Procedural defects aside, Douglas' lawyer asserted that Diandre was not entitled to any of Douglas' earnings from his new movie to the extent they are derived from a "sequel" to the original movie and thus does not qualify as a "spinoff", as referenced in the divorce judgment.

Sequel vs Spinoff?  Sounds like Diandre's lawyers have twice let her down...

info@clarkstonlegal.com

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Macomb Woman Obtains Divorce from the Grave

In a recent case originating from Macomb County, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a woman, scorned by her long-time but absentee husband, could effectively divorce him from her grave. The case, Tkachik v Mandeville, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision that ruled she could not do so.

In this case, the wife became ill and died of breast cancer after nearly three decades of marriage. Although the long-married couple was estranged at the time of wife’s death, they never filed for divorce or legal separation (known as separate maintenance in Michigan).

Because her husband had abandoned her during the 18-months she battled breast cancer, the wife executed a trust and will which left him nothing and appointed her sister as personal representative of her estate. At the time she died in 2002, the wife had spent years maintaining the “marital home” as well as a vacation property near West Branch. She paid all the property-related expenses without contribution from her husband.

Six-months after his wife’s death, the husband filed a petition in the Macomb Probate Court to set aside his deceased wife’s will and trust and to remove the cloud his wife placed on their marital properties. In the resulting probate court battle, the wife’s sister, relying almost extensively on out-of-state caselaw, asserted equitable contribution and abandonment theories, arguing that allowing husband to posthumously reap the benefits of his deceased spouse’s labors amounted to an unjust enrichment.

The sister was granted summary disposition and the Husband's challenge to his deceased wife's will and estate plan was thrown out of the Macomb County Probate Court.  In doing so, the probate court made a finding that Husband should not be considered a "surviving spouse" because he had abandoned his wife for more than a year.

Next, the sister went on the attack, suing her former brother-in-law on behalf of her sister's estate and seeking a determination that the probate court's finding (i.e. that Husband was not a "surviving spouse") destroyed the "tenancy by the entireties"; the mode of ownership of the former marital home.

When that didn't work, the sister amended her complaint to seek contribution from the Husband for Wife's sole maintenance of the properties.

The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the sister's legal arguments in equity, deciding that a married person cannot execute an estate plan that effectively acts as a “posthumous divorce”. The appellate court’s ruling emphasized the sanctity of marital property intact and declined to “invent a claim” from which a decedent spouse can reach her surviving husband from her grave.

In reversing the intermediate appellate court, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine of contribution to find Husband liable for his portion of the maintenance of the property.  The high court was persuaded to fashion an equitable remedy where Sister had no remedy at law.

Essentially, the Supreme Court found that Husband had been unjustly enriched by reaping the benefits of his wife's maintenance and improvements to the properties, while contributing nothing.

The case is illustrative of how our court system processes a case.  The initial decision is never final.  In this case, the sister's case went all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court; went back down to the Court of Appeals for an opinion after that court passed on the case; then went back up to the Supremes.

After its epic journey, this case is binding common law and will determine the result for other subsequent and similar cases.  Lesson: if your spouse abandons you with ongoing obligations, he or she may be liable, either in family or probate court, for past maintenance and the cost of  improvements on an equitable contribution theory.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

www.clarkstonlegal.com   

Cheating Spouse App Gets Pulled by Droid

A controversial new application for Motorola's popular Droid phone has apparently been pulled before it had a chance to hit the cell phone application market-place.

The idea behind the "Secret SMS Replicator" application is to forward text messages from the target phone to a designated phone.  What's more, the application on the target phone is invisible and cannot be detected.

Similar applications have failed Apple's application store approval process.  In the case of the SMS Replicator, Google said the covert application violates the "Android Market Content Policy."

Just because this application did not make it to market does not mean it won't be applied.  The technology is available to those who do not mind installing rogue applications.

In Michigan, it is illegal to download the emails of another person without permission by using spyware and keystroke programs.  These products, however, remain on the market.

Perhaps the best policy if you are in a marriage or a committed relationship is to stay faithful.  On the other hand, if you believe your spouse or significant other has strayed, or is thinking of doing so, it may be time to move on through separation or divorce.

Often, a cuckholded spouse feels the need to acquire rock-solid proof of infidelity. Sometimes, this is sound pre-divorce strategy. Getting the goods on your significant other, however, should never come via breaking the law.

Good luck out there!

www.info@clarkstonlegal.com

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Change of Domicile Case From Clarkston Gets Supreme Court Treatment

One of the saddest things in a divorce proceeding is when a parent moves the family court for permission to change the domicile of the minor children.  When that occurs, not only is the family rocked by the initial shock of divorce, the future relationship with the parent left behind is placed in jeopardy.

A case from Clarkston, MI is instructive on the factors considered when such a motion is brought before the family court judge.

In Sunde v Sunde, mother petitioned the court to change domicile.  After considering evidence presented during a hearing on the issue, Family Court Judge Mary Ellen Brennan denied the motion.  Although mother's application for  leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order remanding the case to the family court for further evidentiary proceedings.

Specifically, the Supreme Court found that Judge Brennan erred by not considering mother's proffered evidence of domestic violence; one of the five statutory factors the court must consider when deciding a domicile motion.  The high court also instructed the family court to consider "up-to-date information or evidence of other changes in circumstance arising since the trial court's most recent order."

Essentially, the Supreme Court has allowed mother a second evidentiary bite at the "domicile" apple.  The fate of the Sunde children continues to hang in the balance.

As in all family court cases that are brought to trial, the family court judge is charged with deciding what is in the children's best interest rather than weighing the competing interests of the parents.  Hopefully, after hearing all the evidence on each statutory factor, the path becomes clear to the judge.

This case pits long-time Clarkston-area attorney Lawrence Russell against Ann-Marie Okros, also from the Clarkston area.

Our firm has an excellent track-record of prevailing in domicile trials.  If you or a family member would like a free consultation on this, or any other family law issue, use the contact information below to schedule an appointment.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com