The proposed housing reform package may offer some bail-outs for those who have experienced losses as a result of the downturn in the housing market, but it may not offer enough help for average families trying to get out from under overwhelming mortgages, especially if those families are trying to divorce and complete settlement negotiations.

The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, a bipartisan bill proposed by Senators Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) is intended to head off the nation’s housing crisis. However, divorce financial analysts question whether it goes far enough to help families avoid foreclosure, especially divorcing couples trying to hammer out settlements.

The bill has yet to face a vote in the U.S. Senate. After that, a similar bill must make it through the U.S. House of Representatives. Some highlights of the Senate bill:

• A $7,000 tax break, spread over two years, to homeowners who buy homes in or near foreclosure.
• A tax credit for homebuilders who have experienced financial losses during the past two years.
• A total of $100 million allocated to debt counseling to aid families in avoiding foreclosure.
• Tax-free revenue bonds to help families refinance their mortgages.

But that might not be enough, said Stacy Francis, a certified divorce financial analyst and president of Francis Financial, in New York City. “It’s a great bill in the sense that it is moving in the right direction,” Francis said. “I have to say, though, I don’t think it goes far enough to remove the pressures that couples are facing like high mortgage payments and oppressive taxes.”

Divorce is one of the greatest triggers of foreclosure, Francis said, so many of the families in dire financial straits may be those who are also trying to navigate divorce settlements. ”It helps them give them the tools so they don’t necessarily have to forclose,” Francis said. “Sadly, it doesn’t do enough.”

She said that one of the elements of the bill that was denied was modifying mortgages to allow for lower payments. She said that the provision was removed to avoid mortgage lenders’ responses of tightening standards for granting mortgages, but the caution seems misplaced in light of the fact that the lenders are already increasing their requirements. “The days of the 100 percent financing… those days are gone,” Francis said.

SOME ASSISTANCE IN PROPOSED BILL

Some of the most positive elements of the proposed bill for divorcing couples are the tax deductions for new property taxes because they will offer help after the negotiations are completed and the spouses are setting out on their own, Francis said. The same is true for the tax breaks for those who have bought foreclosed properties, she said, if those buyers are coming out of a divorce.

Another positive allocation is to providing debt counseling services to those facing foreclosure, Francis said.  Divorcing couples whose homes may be near foreclosure can use the counseling to learn how to spend their money more wisely and to reprioritize where their money is going, Francis said. “I think anyone going through divorce, and anyone in general, can have better clarity about their expenses.”

Clients who are in the middle of divorce proceedings tend to respond to the emotional upheaval by spending more money during shopping sprees for nonessential items, Francis said. “It is one of the most traumatic times in your life,” Francis said. “One of the ways people deal with that is spending therapy. Deep down inside they have this unbelievable wound.”

For those people, financial counseling can help redirect their spending to the essentials in their lives, she said. “The number one place people need to be paying their money is paying down their mortgages,” Francis said. “Food is right there, too, and the basics of clothing.”

And if it seems as if foreclosure is on the horizon, then they must consider selling their homes, Francis said. It is one of the most difficult decisions a divorcing couple may have to make, she said, but it may be unavoidable. ”If it’s bad now, what’s it going to be like for you in a few years? I think that’s a real frank discussion that you need to have. A hard one, but a frank one,” Francis said. “People like to keep the home, and you have to make sure you truly can afford it.”

SELLING A HOME TO AVOID FORECLOSURE

For couples who find they can’t afford their mortgages either together or alone, selling is probably the best solution, said Linda Leitz, a certified divorce financial analyst with Divorce Solutions, Inc., in Colorado Springs, Colo. She said she often sees couples in which one spouse wants to keep the house, and needs help doing so, and the other wants to sell the house and get out from under the mortgage. She said the question becomes: Which spouse will bear the heaviest burden and take on an overwhelming mortgage? ”Both people have to share the asset and share the pain,” Leitz said.

She said she is conflicted about the proposed legislation because she doesn’t want to see couples financially ruined by their mortgages, but then she also wants people to take responsibility for the financial straits in which they find themselves. So when divorcing couples are facing the difficult decision about whether to try to save the house or cut their losses, Leitz said, she said the only answer may be to sell.

“I think if they are concerned about it, they may need to do what is considered the worst case scenario for many of them, which is to sell the house right now,” Leitz said. “If they can’t agree on how to share that burden, that that’s what they are going to need to do.”

TOO LATE FOR DIVORCING COUPLES

The proposed package may not even be relevant to divorcing couples, said Rita Medaglio-Barrera, a certified divorce financial analyst and collaborative divorce financial specialist with Paragon Divorce Management, LLC in Smithtown, N.Y. “I don’t think that its going to do much for couples that are in a house that is currently foreclosed,” Medaglio-Barrera said. “That package is really helping the builders, more than the consumers. I don’t see it impacting divorcing couples.”

She foresees the housing rescue package becoming an issue to couples after they have completed their divorce settlements, they have sold their joint home, and they are looking to buy homes on their own. After the divorcing couples have waded through their own debts, when they have split their equities, then they will be considering buying or renting their own homes. She said the lower housing costs, especially the costs of homes nearing foreclosure, will become an asset at that point.

But during that process, Medaglio-Barrera said, the Foreclosure Prevention Act will not offer much assistance. “It’s unfortunate that it won’t be helping as many people as it should,” Medaglio-Barrera said.

Source for post: Divorce360.com

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

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

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.

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

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.

The Financial Times ran the below story in this weekend’s edition, looking at how shifts in the value of real estate can complicate property settlements. While the article focuses largely on how rising values - a thing of the past in most markets in the United States - can change how spouses approach their divorces and how such matters can affect timing, it is no doubt true that now declining values can have an impact, albeit perhaps in different ways, on such issues as well:

It will come as little surprise that the divorce rate is increasing across Europe and the US as changes in attitude to marriage and more liberal separation laws begin to take effect. Spain, for instance, has seen higher-than-expected divorce rates, with the Spanish National Institute of Statistics revealing that 126,952 dissolutions were registered in 2006 - a 74.3 per cent increase on the previous year - after Spain’s government introduced the “express divorce” bill in 2006.

In the UK, the rate has declined because there are fewer marriages in the first place. Yet according to the UK’s Office of National Statistics, cohabiting couples are nine times more likely to split up than married couples, easily making up for the decline in the divorce rate. While it might be more straightforward to end a union today, breaking up is still hard to do because the division of property is becoming increasingly fraught.
“When break-ups are not amicable, real estate becomes a point of contention. In an extreme one partner may want to punish the other and attempt to literally take the roof from over their heads … it can bring them joy and expresses power,” says Elyse Goldstein, a psychologist from New York who has witnessed increasingly hostile battles over homes in the city, which she says is linked to the recent explosion in property prices.

With some residences in Manhattan selling for more than $5m, couples feel there is more to lose and will fight harder. Yet for others, a phenomenon called “real-estate-enabled divorce” has become an increasingly tempting option: one partner waits for property prices to peak before starting divorce proceedings, knowing they will be able to start a new life somewhere else on the financial outcome.

“One of my clients used the proceeds of the sale of the house to buy herself a property in Florida. She received so much money that she won’t have to work again,” says Michele Kleier, a Manhattan-based estate agent who regularly receives phone calls from people asking whether she thinks the market is nearing a peak. She has also seen how the increase in home values has encouraged couples to play dirty in the ongoing property wars. “The more an asset is worth the more people are likely to fight over it,” she says. “In marriage both people are fighting to get a piece of it.”

One 52-year-old creative director from New York, who cannot be named because the legal case is proceeding, has been battling her husband for their property for more than two years. “He wants the house but I want my share of the equity to start a new life somewhere else,” she says. The fight has taken four lawyers and has already cost more than $400,000 in legal fees. “We didn’t get divorced over the property - there were other issues - but it is now the central issue. We are fighting over how much it is worth and how much he must pay me to buy me out.”

But as Kleier points out: “Prolonged fights aren’t worth it. The equity in the property will be eaten away by legal and real estate fees.” Often both parties will employ a number of real estate agents in an attempt to get the best price. “One will want the valuation to be as high as possible; the other, who is staying, [will want it] to be as low as possible,” she says. “They may think they are fighting for their own interests but they are so emotional that they don’t realise that it is better to come to a compromise and sell as quickly as possible.”

The creative director admits that this might be part of the problem. “It is difficult to get over the emotional barriers and once you have dug your feet in the dirt, it is hard to drag them out. We’ll probably end up giving the house to the lawyers when we finish,” she says.

Fighting couples can also make it difficult for estate agents. Kleier has known one half of a couple who didn’t want to sell simply refuse to allow her to show the property to potential buyers.

“One woman refused to make the beds, never cleaned the kitchen and would often be out when I called,” she says. “Another persuaded her teenage son to tell people viewing that the house had been burgled a couple times in the past few months. Others would leave out rat poison. There are many people out there who will do almost anything to sabotage the sale but it is harder to sell a dirty and problematic home and the price ends up being lower than expected, so neither party in the couple wins.”

Another emerging trend is that of men who know they want to leave but will persuade their wives to downscale before filing for divorce. “They will sell the larger, more expensive property before any divorce settlement to protect the proceeds,” Kleier explains. “He will then file for divorce so the wife only has claim to the smaller property. This happens a lot where the man already has another woman he wants to marry. Very often the [real estate] broker will know about the divorce before the wife.”

One 50-year-old New Yorker, who cannot be named for legal reasons, moved out of a $10m property into a $2m apartment because her husband suggested using the capital to buy a holiday home. “I was shocked and felt very foolish when I realised what he had done,” she says. “I thought it was a good idea and we’d be able to spend time on the beach but two months after the sale went through he filed for divorce and moved in with another woman. I have this property and he has $8m.”

But even when divorce isn’t contentious, selling a property successfully can still be riddled with difficulties, as London-based Jennifer Brown found when she tried to sell her house in Mexico following her divorce from her Mexican husband of six years. “It would cost me more in legal fees to sort out the mess of contracts than the property is now worth,” she says of her five-bedroom house, situated in a gated community with 24-hour security in the old colonial district of Mexico City.

Brown bought the house in the 1970s but decided to leave the relationship and return to the UK in the early 1980s, giving her husband power of attorney over the property. “He wanted to start a business so I let him keep the house initially to help with that. But the business folded and he defaulted on the mortgage payments,” she says.

Her husband then remortgaged the house. “I went over last year to try to sort out all the problems and attempt to sell the property but the legal paperwork was in a mess. The lawyer he got to do the power of attorney didn’t write into the contract the power to remortgage, which made the current loan illegal,” she says. “The bank can’t repossess the house because it doesn’t have the correct legal documents, I can’t sell it and the legal fees are more than the house is worth, which is about £150,000. I’m going to have to leave it and it will probably go to rack and ruin. There is nothing else I can do.”

She adds: “The Mexican legal system is completely different from the UK. In the UK you can look information up on the internet or go to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau; you can get informed. But I found that there was no help or clarity [in Mexico].”

On returning to the UK, Brown and her two children moved in with her parents. She now lives in a two-bedroom flat with a garden in west London. “I would have to move many miles out of London if I wanted to buy a similar-size property to the one I owned in Mexico,” she says. “But I am lucky in a way. I was only able to buy the flat I have now because I bought in 1996, before the housing boom. If I was coming back from Mexico today I don’t think I’d ever be able to afford a decent family home in London.”

Moving out of the UK or owning a holiday home can cause difficulties during a divorce, especially if the legal system abroad is used to file the divorce. New laws in France, for example, mean that dependent wives get a lump sum from the breadwinning husband, considered a redundancy payment, in order to help start a new life, rather than receiving maintenance.

This can mean that if the wife keeps the property she might not be able to afford to live in it - as in the case of a mother of four who divorced her husband last year. Only a few years earlier, the couple had bought a six-bedroom house in need of renovation in south-west France. Now, although she and the children can stay in it as the family home, the French law means that she won’t get any money to help maintain it.

“My ex-husband is not giving me anything, so I don’t know how long I will be able to stay here,” she says. “It was a tough fight to get to keep the property, which I have always dreamed of owning, but now we will have to sell up as I can’t afford to keep it on.”

David Yeates, editor of online real estate website Frenchproperty.com, recognises the difficulties of such a case. “The big problem for expat couples concerns assets based in the UK, over which the French courts don’t have any jurisdiction,” he says. “This can mean that court orders concerning control of these assets need to be obtained subsequently in the UK. There is a big issue of enforcement here, which applies in this case, as they jointly hold property in the UK and in Portugal, which would need to form part of the settlement.”

The couple will now have to seek legal recourse in the UK in order to divide up their remaining properties. “It will be very expensive and ugly,” the mother of four says. “Getting divorced was the easy part, dividing up the assets, especially the property, has been very stressful. I knew it would be difficult but not this difficult.”

Source: The Financial Times

Honesty may be the best policy for a successful marriage. But when it comes to divorce, couples are becoming increasingly devious in concealing their wealth from each other.

One fifth of couples who divorced last year tried to conceal their assets or income from their spouse - a figure which has doubled since 2006 - a report has found.

The study - by the accounting firm Grant Thornton, which surveyed 100 family lawyers - found that husbands were much more dishonest when a marriage crumbled.

In cases where assets had been hidden, 88 per cent involved men concealing wealth from their wives. Just two per cent involved women hiding assets. In the remainder of cases, both partners tried to conceal wealth from one another.

Family law experts say a spate of expensive, high-profile divorce cases, such as that of Sir Paul McCartney and his wife, Heather Mills McCartney, is spurring couples to hide their wealth from each other.

John Charman, the insurance magnate, was forced by the courts to pay his ex-wife a record $48 million settlement last year.

The property multi-millionaire Stuart Crossley was involved in a dispute with his wife Susan after she alleged during divorce proceedings that he had failed to tell her about millions in offshore accounts. She later dropped her claim for a financial settlement.

Andrea McLaren, the head of Grant Thornton’s matrimonial practice, said: ‘The number of couples hiding assets from one another has increased by 100 per cent since last year, which is staggering.

‘High-profile, big-money cases have scared individuals into trying to hide assets and there is now the perception that women are receiving more favourable settlements than men.’

Vanessa Lloyd Platt, a specialist in divorce law, said she had seen a surge in the number of men trying to conceal wealth from their wives.

‘Men are seeing these huge settlements and they are terrified,’ she said. ‘If they think a marriage might break down, more and more men are panicking and trying to put their capital into trusts and offshore accounts or buy assets in a third party’s name so that they are hidden from their wives.

‘It is not unheard of for women to lie but, in my experience, men are more likely to be dishonest when it comes to matrimonial disclosure.’

The succession of high-profile divorce cases has also seen a surge in the number of couples drawing up pre-nuptial agreements. A survey of law firms found that 67 per cent reported taking on more pre-nuptial work in the past year.

SOURCE FOR POST: California Divorce and Family Law Blog
(Via Georgia Family Law Blog.)

Seems Pam Anderson is getting divorced again. If I recall correctly, this was the guy that she slep with because she owed him money. And folks wonder why these things don’t work out.

A lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in their home state of Rhode Island, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in a setback to gay rights advocates who sought greater recognition for same-sex relationships.The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, said the family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce because state lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.

‘The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent as expressed in the statutes enacted by the General Assembly,’ the court wrote in the state’s first case dealing with same-sex divorce.
Click here to find out more!

Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers wed in Massachusetts in 2004 after that state became the first to legalize same-sex marriages. The couple filed for divorce last year in Rhode Island, where they both live, citing irreconcilable differences.

‘My civil rights, my human rights have been denied,’ Ormiston said in a telephone interview. ‘It’s no small matter.’

Though the women could divorce in Massachusetts if one moved there for a year, Ormiston said that was an unfair burden and something she would not do. She said she was ‘embarrassed’ for the court.

‘I see this as a matter of justice not denied - but rather justice delayed,’ she said. ‘This is an issue that will in time be resolved correctly. Today’s not that day, but this issue will not go away.’

Nancy Palmisciano, Ormiston’s lawyer, said couples married in other states and other countries are routinely granted divorces in Rhode Island, and that the same freedom should apply in this case.

‘I’m disappointed for anyone who’s involved in one of these marriages who’s a resident of the state of Rhode Island,’ she said. ‘I think these people are being confined to a legal limbo.’

Louis Pulner, a lawyer for Chambers, said he was surprised by the decision.

‘I feel that it’s unfortunate that two people who are legally married cannot get closure here in the state of Rhode Island,’ Pulner said.

Palmisciano and Pulner had argued that the court should consider only whether Rhode Island could recognize a valid marriage from another state, and stressed that the court’s decision would have no bearing on whether same-sex couples could wed in Rhode Island.

Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, restricts the unions to residents of states where the marriage would be recognized, and a Massachusetts judge decided last year that Rhode Island is one of those states.

No law specifically bans same-sex marriages in Rhode Island, but the state has taken no action to recognize them.

The justices said Rhode Island laws contain numerous references to marriage as between a woman and a man. The court also said the General Assembly did not have gay marriage in mind when it created Rhode Island’s family court, which handles divorces, in 1961.

The couple’s divorce petition drew a broad range of supporters, including Attorney General Patrick Lynch, who earlier this year released a nonbinding advisory opinion saying Rhode Island should recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.

In earlier court filings, Gov. Don Carcieri, an opponent of same-sex marriage, had also argued in favor of granting the divorce. He said under Rhode Island law, the family court didn’t have to address whether the marriage was valid at all, avoiding a larger debate about same-sex unions.

But he hailed Friday’s court decision, saying in a written statement that, ‘It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage - and therefore divorce - only between a man and a woman.’

Karen Loewy, a staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said she viewed the court’s decision as a narrow ruling, but feared that same-sex marriage opponents would use it to argue against broader legal recognition for same-sex couples in Rhode Island.

‘You’re essentially asking these women to move to access justice’ Loewy said. ‘The door of the courthouse has been barred for them.’

Jenn Steinfeld, director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said she felt ‘incredibly upset’ but would continue to push the General Assembly to legalize same-sex marriages.

But opponents of same-sex marriage praised Rhode Island’s top court for rejecting even a limited recognition of same-sex marriage.

‘The meaning of marriage in Rhode Island is the union of a man and a woman,’ said Monte Stewart, president of the Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation, which filed a brief in the case. ‘You have to have a marriage before you can have a divorce.’

Source for post: The Boston Channel