Enforcement of Support

There are a number of remedies available to promote payment of support obligations within Pennsylvania. First, Pennsylvania does wage garnishment where possible to ensure payments are collected in full on a consistent basis. If a payor does fall behind, the court will call the party in for contempt proceedings. A payor who is able to catch up at the time of the contempt proceeding will usually avoid any further sanctions. Alternatively, if the court accepts a repayment plan offered by the payor there may not be any further enforcement remedies pursued. If a payor cannot make payment in full or offer a satisfactory plan for catching up on payments, they will have to go before a Judge to discuss their failure to keep up with their support obligations.

If a party fails to appear for contempt proceedings the court has the authority to issue a bench warrant to have that party taken into custody. Additionally, the court can order additional incarceration at subsequent support hearings as a means of reiterating the importance of regular support payments and demonstrating the severity of the punishment available for failure to comply. Other enforcement remedies include seizure of payments from a government agency such as unemployment compensation, social security, retirement or disability payments, seizure of works’ compensation benefits and seizure of retirement funds in pay status. The court may also place a lien on real property, seize funds from the payor’s bank, report overdue support to credit agencies and suspend licenses including occupational, driver’s and recreational.

Click here to read more about support.

by

Surrogacy

Surrogacy is the process whereby a third party is used to assist couples in having a child. Surrogacy may be traditional wherein the third party will have a biological tie to the child however has agreed to relinquish any legal rights as a parent. The other option is gestational surrogacy where the third party is just a carrier and the egg and sperm of the intended parents are implanted in the surrogate. Pennsylvania does not have a statute in place as it relates to surrogacy, however, case law has upheld a surrogacy contract. In J.F. v. D.B., the carrier mother attempted to keep the children following birth despite having entered a surrogacy agreement. 897 A.2d 1261 (2006). The court eventually held she didn’t have standing for a custody action and turned the children over to the intended parents per the contract. The courts went a step further in In re Baby S, when it explicitly upheld a surrogacy agreement. 2015 Pa. Super. 244 (2015).

In re Baby S, involved celebrity couple Sherri Shepherd and former husband, Lamar Sally. The couple had entered into a surrogacy contract to assist in having a child. Several months into the pregnancy, Shepherd refused to sign additional forms to have her listed on the birth certificate as the intended parent of the child because of the pending dissolution of her marriage to Sally. Sally ended up taking care of the child and subsequently sought support from Shepherd. The court ruled that Shepherd was an intended parent evidenced by the signed surrogacy contract and accordingly, ordered her to meet her child support obligation. Accordingly, parties who intend to use a surrogate should consult with an attorney first and draft a clear, unambiguous agreement.

Click here to read more about family law issues.

by

Donor Agreements

Donor agreements are vital for identifying the legal rights of parties considering artificial insemination as part of assisted reproduction. An agreement should indicate that the donor does not have any rights subsequent to the donation. Specifically, the agreement should explain that no parental relationship is intended for the donor. It should be clear that donor’s parental rights are terminated and that the donor forever forfeits the ability to file for any type of custody or visitation if a child is subsequently born. The agreement would allow the recipient to dictate what happens with the donation or any embryos created using the donation.

Similarly, the party receiving the donation should waive the ability to file for any support from the donor. The agreement should also direct that the donor’s name not be on the birth certificate or any other legal document concerning parentage of the child. In the event of a known donor, you may also want to spell out if the child will ever be introduced to the donor. If this is a possibility, you may want to ask that contact information be kept up-to-date. The more likely scenario, however, is the use of an anonymous sperm donor. Regardless of the identity of the donor, best practice is to make sure a clear written agreement is in place to protect everyone’s respective interests.

Click here to read more about family law issues.

by

Insurance companies prohibited from denying claims of victims of abuse

Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Insurance Practice Act, an insurance company may not deny a claim by an innocent co-insured where the loss was caused by the intentional act of another insured if the innocent co-insured is a victim of domestic violence. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently addressed this provision in Lynn v. Nationwide Insurance Company.

In this case, Husband and Wife owned a home, which was insured by Nationwide. Without Husband’s knowledge, Wife contacted their insurance agent and requested that the insurance policy be cancelled. Wife then drugged the couple’s children and set fire to the home while she and the children were inside. Wife’s plan failed and she was arrested.

Husband presented a claim to Nationwide for the fire damage. Nationwide denied coverage in part based on an exclusion for loss caused by intentional acts. Husband argued that he was a victim of domestic violence and that Wife’s attempted arson was part of a pattern of abuse. The Superior Court held that the issue needed to be submitted to a fact finder to determine if the Unfair Insurance Practices Act prevented Nationwide from denying coverage based on Wife’s conduct.

by

Costs of sale and taxes to be considered in equitable distribution of a business

In Carney v. Carney, a recent decision by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the Court held that costs associated with the sale of a business and related tax effects were relevant to an equitable distribution order.

The trial court entered an equitable distribution order, which gave Husband the couple’s trucking business. Husband was required to make monthly payments to Wife for 10 years to offset the value of the business with the remaining marital assets, all of which were awarded to Wife. The monthly payment was calculated without accounting for costs associated with a potential future sale of the business and possible tax effects.

Under Pennsylvania law, costs of sale and related tax effects are relevant to equitable distribution regardless of the likelihood of the sale. Therefore, the value given to a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution should be the value after deducting any expense required to liquidize the asset.

by

Assisted Reproduction

Assisted reproduction refers to a number of procedures that may be utilized to achieve pregnancy including fertility treatments, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. In vitro fertilization entails removing a woman’s eggs from her body and implanting the eggs with sperm to create an embryo. Those embryos can be stored until ready for use. However, couples should be aware of what happens to the embryos if they subsequently separate prior to using them. In Pennsylvania, frozen embryos are considered marital property and hence, subject to division in a divorce. The Pennsylvania Superior Court stated its position on the marital status of frozen pre-embryos in Reber v. Reiss, 2012 PA Super 86. In Reber, Wife wanted to use the frozen pre-embryos in order to have children of her own whereas Husband wanted the frozen pre-embryos either destroyed or donated for research.

Prior to reaching its decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court considered how other states have dealt with this issue. Some states have focused on whether there is a prior agreement between the parties concerning disposition of the pre-embyros in the event of divorce and if so, will uphold the agreement as enforceable. Other states have held the enforcing such an agreement is a violation of public policy and have declined to do so. Another approach is a mutual consent model requiring both parties to agree on disposition, however, Pennsylvania did not find this model feasible since parties would not be in court in the first place if they could agree. The approach that was ultimately adopted in PA calls for the court to balance the interests of the parties.


In Reber, the court found that Wife’s interest in procreation using the frozen pre-embyros outweighed Husband’s interest against procreation since evidence established that the pre-embryos were likely Wife’s only opportunity to procreate along with testimony that Wife would allow Husband to be involved and wouldn’t pursue support in response to the concerns raised by Husband. The court did acknowledge that the party against procreation should normally prevail in a balancing test, however, due to the unique facts of the case, the scales tipped in Wife’s favor. It also seems that the court would’ve likely enforced an agreement on the issue if there had been one. Accordingly, parties who intend to undergo in vitro fertilization should draft a clear, unambiguous agreement as to the disposition of embryos upon separation, divorce or death, or else be subject to a balancing approach by the court.

Click here to read more about division of marital property.

by

Dividing Property Outside of Divorce

A partition action is a legal proceeding to divide property amongst unmarried individuals that cannot agree what to do with the property. This may arise in a situation where two parties who were never married purchased a home together. It may also arise if real property is not properly dealt with at the time of the divorce action and the now divorced parties are still co-owners. Pennsylvania partition actions are governed by Rules 1551 – 1574 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. There are two options in a partition action. One option involves physically splitting the property, if possible. The alternative option, and more likely occurrence, involves the home being sold with the proceeds divided. As far as procedure, a complaint for partition should be brought in the county where the property is located and must include all co-tenants as parties.

The complaint must also include a description of the property along with each co-tenant’s interest in the property. Following the filing of the complaint and a court order on the partition, a court officer called a “master” is usually appointed to oversee the action. This usually includes an appraisal of the property to obtain an accurate value and setting up the sale of the property, be it private or public. The parties to the partition action are responsible for splitting all fees incurred during the partition proceeding as well as compensating the master. The parties can resolve at any time settle the matter amicably amongst themselves. Married couples should be sure to deal with real property issues at the time of divorce to avoid the potential for this additional proceeding down the road.

Click here to read more about real estate issues.

by

Social Security Retirement

Social security retirement benefits are payable based on the individual’s earnings history as well as age of retirement. Full retirement age is presently 66 years old. The benefit is reduced if electing to receive the benefit earlier. The minimum age to start collecting is presently 62 years old. An individual can elect to receive benefits under the spouse’s earnings history instead. An individual may receive up to 50% of their spouse’s benefit. This does not impact the spouse’s benefit in any way. An individual may elect to receive under their spouse’s benefit if their earnings history was substantially higher.

Even after divorce it may be possible to collect under your prior spouse’s earnings history. There are a few conditions that must be met. First, you must have been married for a minimum of ten (10) years. Second, you must not have remarried. Third, you must be at least 62 years old. Finally, the amount you will receive under your ex-spouse’s earnings history must be more than what you would receive based on your own work history. Electing to receive under your ex-spouse’s history will not affect any new spouse. Retirement benefits may also be payable to your children until they are 18 or graduate high school, whichever is later.

Click here to read more about divorce after 50.

by

Supplemental Security Income

Supplemental Security income (SSI) is cash assistance to individuals who are disabled or over 65 years old. SSI can be payable to disabled children as well. Living arrangements may affect the amount of SSI received. You should report changes in living arrangements to the Social Security office. Similarly, relationship status may affect the amount of the benefit received. For example, the amount may be decreased following marriage depending on the income of the new spouse. If marrying another individual who receives SSI, the benefit may be converted from an individual benefit to a couple’s benefit.

Any other income or windfalls may also affect the payment. The changes may be temporary in the event of a one-time payment or more permanent in the event of employment. Payments may increase every year to account for cost of living adjustments. SSI is not be considered income for purposes of a support calculation. This is because SSI is a federal means-tested benefit. It operates as a welfare benefit. It is not meant to replace lost earnings but instead to provide some income to disabled people who would otherwise be poverty-stricken. Even though SSI cannot be considered, if a party is otherwise capable of working, income from employment can still be considered for a support award.

Click here to read more about income for support.

by

Changes to NJ Custody Relocation Laws

If you are seeking to move to a distance that makes your current custody schedule difficult or impossible to follow it classifies as a relocation. In the event of a move that does classify as a relocation the party looking to move should obtain the written consent of the other parent or court approval. Previously, New Jersey courts primarily focused on if there would be any harm to the child in allowing the move. In a recent decision (Bisbing v. Bisbing) the New Jersey courts have shifted their focus to considering if the move is in the child’s best interests. This standard puts the burden on the party looking to relocate to demonstrate how it benefits the child. It also allows for a better look at how the move affects both parents.

In the instant case, a mother has primary custody of the parties’ two daughters pursuant to their marital settlement agreement. Mother sought to relocate with the daughters to Utah and Father objected to the move. At the initial court proceeding, the court agreed that the move would not be to the children’s detriment. On appeal, the court held that a best interest analysis should be applied instead. This change in the standard for relocation will certainly have an impact on the number of successful relocation requests given it requires a more stringent analysis as to the effects on the children.

Click here to read more about custody.

by