Pennsylvania Family Law Blog

A discussion of family law issues, published by Mark E. Jakubik

Archive for April, 2008

Is April 16 National Divorce Day?

Posted by Mark Jakubik on April 16, 2008

April 16 is National Divorce Day, according to Beverly Pekala, a Chicago divorce attorney who specializes in family law. She maintains that more people file for divorce the day after the federal tax deadline than any other day of the year. Money, she said, is at the heart of the problem.

That’s because on April 15, the deadline for federal tax returns to be filed, many spouses learn about a partner’s financial worth by latching onto his or her tax returns, she said. “What I’ve learned, along with everyone else in this business, is that people wait until their taxes are filed to get a divorce,” Pekala said.

“Lots of times what happens, people who want a divorce come in right after the first of the year and ask their lawyer what they should be doing? “Their lawyer tells them they need financial information and suggest they wait until their taxes are filed. Once their taxes are filed that gives us a starting place. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but it still a good place to start,” she said.

The tax information gives women, in particular, helpful information. “Even in this day an age I had a women the other day that came in to see me about getting a divorce who told me, ‘I have no clue what my husband makes,’” Pekala said. “That’s not so strange because there are still women who take care of the house and kids and their husbands take care of the bills.”

The problem today is that, with direct deposit, online checking and payments and other paperless methods of hiding money, there is no longer a paper trail for the spouse who doesn’t pay attention to the financials. she said. “I had a client who came in yesterday to see me with a joint tax return. I took a look at it and told her, ‘You didn’t tell me you owned property in Florida?’ Her reply was, ‘I don’t.’ ‘Yes you do,’ I told her, ‘according to your joint tax return.’

Then there was the woman who was seeking a divorce and learned for the first time her husband was a high roller in Vegas. “On tax returns today, gambling winnings are shown. Casinos are required by law to report an individual’s winning to the IRS,” Pekala explained. “This client’s tax return showed that her husband had won substantial sums of money in Los Vegas. I said to the wife, ‘You must have enjoyed going to Vegas?’ ‘I’ve never gone to Vegas. I didn’t know anything about my husband having been there before,’ she told me.”

Ginita Wall, director of the Women’s Institute for Financial Education in San Diego, Calif., said Pekala’s comments ring true with her. “Oftentimes I’d find that people who were trying to hid financial information would get an extension and delay filing their tax returns until Oct. 15 to avoid having to produce the damning evidence.”

When an I.R.S. media relations spokesman in Washington, D.C., was asked about the divorce rate increasing the day after the tax deadline, he was clueless. “It’s not something we track,” he said.

He wasn’t the only one flummoxed by Pekala’s opinions. Elizabeth Lehane, a divorce financial planner and tax consultant from Oakdale, N.Y., said, “I’ve been in the financial planning and tax business for 28 years, and April 16, the day after taxes are due, means nothing to me as far as an influx in divorces are concerned.”

{Asked whether she felt, after 25 years as a divorce lawyer she had seen it all when it came to marital relations, Pekala said, “I woke up today and looked on Youtube and discovered someone had made a movie about their divorce. I knew then I hadn’t seen it all.”

Source: Divorce360.com

Posted in Divorce, Finances, Taxes | No Comments »

Life Events Can Cause Problems With the IRS

Posted by Mark Jakubik on April 12, 2008

Did you know that changes in your lifestyle could affect your taxes? When these changes happen, you will need to make adjustments to avoid creating IRS Problems.

Have you recently gotten married? If you have changed your name, you will need to notify Social Security to get your name changed on your card. You will also want to check out community property issues.

Have you recently divorced? Again, if you have a name change, make sure you contact Social Security. You also need to be aware of innocent spouse relief especially if your ex-spouse has IRS Problems. There are child custody tax issues, alimony issues, and community property issues you need to be aware of.

If you have had a change of address, it is important to notify the IRS so you will continue to receive its correspondence. Use Form 8822 (Change of Address) for this notification. If you fail to do this, you might miss a correction notice, an audit notice, or notification of asset seizure. Remember to keep track of your moving expenses, as these may be deductible.

Have you had a child recently or adopted a child? You will now be able to receive child tax credit. Also, did you know you are allowed education credits?

A change in jobs or loss of a job will also affect your tax return. If you work in a job that allows you to receive tips, these need to be reported. If you use your home or car for business purposes, there are specific allowances for these. You will also want to check into cafeteria plans and medical savings accounts.

Have you become a first time homeowner or have you sold a house recently? Both of these processes will give you added tax allowances.

If your life has been affected by a disaster or theft, you may be able to receive tax relief. People with disabilities have specific allowances that apply to them.

If you have retired recently, your IRS status has changed. You will want to check out the allowances you are now able to take.

If you have experienced IRS Problems in the past and have chosen to file for bankruptcy, this will change how you prepare your taxes.

Source: IRS Problem Solver blog

Posted in Finances, General Family Law, Taxes | No Comments »

Schwarzenegger Opposes Gay Marriage Ban

Posted by Mark Jakubik on April 12, 2008

In an apparent shift in position, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says that he will oppose any attempt to impose a ban on gay marriage in California. From today’s San Francisco Chronicle:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a group of gay Republicans on Friday that an attempt to ban same-sex marriage by changing the state Constitution is a “total waste of time” and promised to oppose such an initiative if it qualifies for the state ballot.

Backers of the measure criticized the governor as a liberal despite his Republican Party affiliation, while supporters of same-sex marriage applauded Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger’s staff said the governor, who has vetoed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in recent years, has not changed his stance on the issue but simply wants the state Supreme Court to decide the legality of current state law.

Schwarzenegger said Friday he is opposed to amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

“I will always be there to fight against that,” the governor said in San Diego at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest gay Republican group, as the attendees erupted in loud applause.

The Austrian-born governor drew laughs from the crowd when he added:

“I think we need a constitutional amendment so that a foreign-born (person) can run for president, but not against gay marriage. That would be a total waste of time.”

He made the comments during a brief question-and-answer session with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon, who asked the governor where he stands on the proposed ballot measure whose proponents are gathering signatures for the November ballot.

That effort continues as the state Supreme Court considers the legality of Proposition 22, an initiative approved by state voters in 2000 that reaffirmed marriage as being between a man and a woman. The justices are expected to rule by early June.

In recent years, Schwarzenegger used Prop. 22 as the basis for vetoing a pair of bills that would have legalized same-sex marriage, arguing he would support the will of the voters. But Julie Soderlund, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the governor’s comments on Friday are not inconsistent with his vetoes.

“He has said many times … that people have spoken on the issue. However, if the Supreme Court would overturn the decision, he would enforce the law, and he would not support a constitutional amendment to ban” same-sex marriage, she said.

Although Friday was the first time Schwarzenegger has publicly stated his opposition to the proposed ballot measure to amend the Constitution, he has held that view for a while, Soderlund said.

Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative pro-family group in Sacramento, said Schwarzenegger’s latest statement “confirms what we have known all along.”

“He really didn’t support Prop. 22. … He’s always shown to be a liberal … and it’s disappointing,” she said.

England acknowledged that Schwarzenegger’s opposition to the ballot measure is a strike against the campaign to ban same-sex marriage.

“You never want someone with high-profile, movie-star quality against you,” she said. “But it won’t change the fact that Californians want marriage to be between a man and a woman.”

Proponents of same-sex marriage applauded Schwarzenegger’s stand.

“This is extremely significant, and it’s an enormous event to have our Republican governor come out against this ballot measure, which is opposed by Democrats as well. It makes this opposition a bipartisan issue,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group.

Equality California has been actively lobbying the governor to oppose the ballot measure, he said. While Kors hoped that Schwarzenegger would take a public stand on the measure, he said he was pleasantly surprised to hear the governor say the measure “is a waste of time and that he will stand with us in fighting this if it qualifies.”

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who wrote the same-sex marriage bills that Schwarzenegger vetoed, said the governor is “without a doubt showing leadership, and he should be applauded for it.”

“What the governor has pointed out is that even though he has not supported our marriage equality bills, one could still oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage,” Leno said.

Posted in Marriage, same sex issues | 1 Comment »

Divorce and Life Insurance Planning

Posted by Mark Jakubik on April 12, 2008

Divorce is never easy, and fear of one’s financial future often looms large. Property division, alimony, child support are usually negotiated. Then, if either or both spouses remarry, two or three sets of kids complicate matters.

Careful advisers always delve into the question of life insurance early in the process. What will happen, for example, if the person responsible for the alimony or child support dies? Here are some considerations for clients and their advisers:

Check and adjust beneficiary designations of all relevant policies. Then, six months or a year later, check them again to make sure no mistakes were made. Be sure to include group-life insurance in all such reviews. Do not assume the employer will take care of that. Only you can do so.

Review and adjust policy ownership as necessary. Policies that have built up cash value will be considered an asset that will figure into property division.

If one ex-spouse is entitled to payments for alimony or child support, he or she may want to insure that such benefits will continue even if the payer dies. Life insurance needs to be considered. If it is ordered by the court, it may be best for the beneficiary to own the policy on the life of the payer. If this is arranged, steps should be taken to be sure that policy ownership will revert to the payer at the end of the payment period.

There is often a concern in these circumstances that life-insurance benefits may never reach the children of the former marriage or, in other cases, the later marriage because the primary beneficiary does not see to it. It may be best for the concerned parent to set up a trust funded with life insurance to pay both the bills for these children as well as an intended inheritance.

On a related topic, if an older breadwinner marries for a second time to a much younger spouse, the children of the first marriage may be concerned that they will have to wait a long time for their inheritance that will come only after the death of the second, younger spouse. This can interfere with their relationship with that spouse. Life insurance on the breadwinner, payable directly to the children or to a trust for the children’s benefit, will negate that concern.

Source: The Cincinnati Enquirer

Posted in Divorce, Finances | No Comments »

Strahan Appeal Argued

Posted by Mark Jakubik on April 9, 2008

Sounds as if New York Giant Michael Strahan may have had a successful day in an appellate court, if the Newark Star Ledger is to be believed:

The slugfest that is Michael Strahan’s divorce case resumed today in state appellate court, where the football player found a sympathetic ear for his claim that a lower court went too far in awarding his ex-wife $14 million.

Strahan’s attorney, Angelo Genova, used the word “absurd” seven times to belittle a 2007 opinion by Superior Court Judge James Convery, who gave Jean Strahan twice what her husband’s attorneys felt she was due.

Arguing before a three-judge appellate panel in Morristown, Genova said that because the New York Giant failed to set aside 20 percent of his income per year under a pre-nuptial agreement, Convery in effect awarded his ex-wife far more than the agreement ever intended.

Based on questions the judges put to Jean Strahan’s attorney, Ellen Marshall, they appeared to be leaning toward Genova’s position.

“You want to penalize him, essentially, for not creating the 20 percent allocation,” Judge Lorraine Parker told Marshall. “You want to penalize him for that breach rather than reach a remedy that is equitable to both parties.”

Michael Strahan was not in court today, but his ex-wife wife watched from the rear of the spectator gallery.

The couple, who lived in a Montclair mansion with their twin daughters, filed for divorce in March 2005 and fought a nasty battle in a Newark family court the following year.

Convery sided with Jean Strahan in his Jan. 12, 2007, ruling, but the Superior Court Appellate Division stayed his decision two months later pending an appeal. Parker told the two sides today to not expect a quick decision because of the size of the record in the divorce case.

A Super Bowl win and an appellate reversal in the same year. Not too shabby.

Posted in Appellate practice, Divorce | 4 Comments »