Steps to take before moving with children

In a custody matter, court approval or permission of the parent is required prior to a relocation. A relocation is defined as any move that will substantially interfere with the custodial rights of the other parent. The specific details of your existing custody schedule are relevant in determining if any contemplated move would cause a substantial interference. Moving to a different school district is not necessarily a relocation though it triggers legal custody issues. Similarly, moving to a different state may not necessarily count as a relocation. 23 Pa CS 5337 lays out the specific procedures to be followed in the event of a proposed relocation which will interrupt the existing arrangements. First, the party seeking relocation should give 60 days notice to the other parent by certified mail, return receipt requested. If not possible to give 60 days notice, notice should be given within 10 days of becoming aware of the relocation.

The notice of relocation should include as much information as possible regarding the new address including names and ages of individuals who will be residing there, home telephone number, name of new school district and school, and date of proposed relocation. A counter-affidavit should also be supplied with the notice giving the other party the opportunity to object to the relocation. If notice is properly given and no objection is received, it is presumed the other parent consents to the relocation. The party seeking relocation would simply need to file a petition for confirmation of relocation. If the other parent objects, a hearing would need to be held prior to the relocation where the court would consider if the relocation will serve the best interest of the children.

by

Immigration Considerations

Family-based immigration is one of the more common pathways to legal residence in the United States. It is important to understand how family law actions may affect immigration status. Marriage to a US citizen potentially creates an opportunity for a noncitizen to achieve residence. The marriage must first be valid under state law as with any other marriage, but also must pass the criteria of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Marriage fraud, marriage for the sole purpose of obtaining residence, is a serious concern. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) will make inquiries into whether there is a bona fide marriage. Additionally, permanent residence is not an option unless the parties have been married for at least two years.

Just as marriage creates an opportunity for residence, divorce can end eligibility for immigration benefits. This is particularly true if the divorce or legal separation occurs prior to the spousal visa being finalized. Divorce may also draw the attention of the CIS to ensure the marriage was bona fide in the first place. If there were children born of the relationship, look into whether the foreign country would recognize a U.S. custody order if one of the parties will be returning to their native county. Federal law governs how the immigration process works whereas family law is governed by state law. Additionally, family law actions do not require any type of legal US citizenship by the parties. Instead, sufficient residency within the jurisdiction of the local court is generally all that is required for anyone to bring a family law action. It is important to consult with an immigration attorney regarding how family law issues may impact your immigration status.

by

Filing Fees

Most family law actions that will be filed include a filing fee for the initial complaint or pleading. A part of these filing fees go to fund the Pennsylvania Children’s Trust Fund (CTF). This fund has received approximately $40 million dollars from family law filing fees since inception. The initiative of the CTF is to prevent child abuse and neglect across the state. The main emphasis of CTF is to put prevention programs in place to decrease child abuse and neglect overall. The CTF grants its money to local community programs with the same initiatives. It is up to the respective community programs to apply with CTF to see if they are eligible for a grant. Currently, upwards of 280 community based programs across the state have received grants to aid in the fight against child abuse and neglect.

The PA CTF established a supporting organization, “Friends of the Children’s Trust Fund.” The goal of this supporting organization is to raise additional awareness and financial support for the mission of the CTF. The fund focuses on prevention because of the negative, and potentially long-term, impacts of abuse and neglect. Specifically, abuse and neglect is related to poor physical, mental, and emotional health, social difficulties and behavioral problems. There is also a corresponding economic impact in dealing with the aftermath of abuse and neglect making an even greater case for prevention as opposed to reaction. Many other states have similar funds to aid in the prevention of child abuse and maltreatment.

Please visit pactf.org for more information on the Children’s Trust Fund in Pennsylvania.

by

Steps to Take Post-Divorce

Receipt of the divorce decree does not necessarily mean nothing else needs to be done. In a case with a marital residence, the parties may still need to sell the house or one party may have a certain window for refinancing the property and buying the other party out. If you are a party retaining a marital residence by agreement or court order, you can change the locks once the property is formerly awarded to you. The party vacating the residence should be sure to change their address with the post office and update other accounts accordingly. In a case where retirement benefits are being split, the parties may need a qualified domestic relations order or QDRO for short.

A QDRO is a document used to rollover a portion of one party’s retirement plan/benefit to the other party. The benefit of a QDRO is that it allows a tax-free transfer of the funds from one party to their new or soon-to-be ex-spouse. The receiving spouse would then be taxed as they withdraw the money as the tax laws provide. The QDRO ultimately needs to be signed by both parties and the court prior to being sent to the plan administrator for implementation.

You will benefit from having an attorney review the terms of the QDRO before signing off on it and submitting it to the plan. If you have been paying support to your spouse, you should notify Domestic Relations if the support is ending or if it is converting to alimony. If switching to alimony, you should confirm the amount if there is any change from an existing charging order. You should also notify Domestic Relations of the term of the alimony.

by

Short Sale vs Foreclosure

A short sale is an alternative to foreclosure if you have fallen behind on payments on your home. In the instance of a short sale the lender allows the home to be sold for less than what is owed on the mortgage. This is because it is usually less of a loss for the lender to allow a short sale than to let the home go into foreclosure. Foreclosure is when the lender repossesses the home due to failure to pay the mortgage. The lender often stands to lose even more money in providing for the upkeep of the home on a monthly basis and paying the taxes in a foreclosure situation. Another benefit of a short sale is that it is usually less damaging to the credit of the seller as compared to a foreclosure. A seller should try to negotiate with the lender to minimize damage to their credit rating as part of the sale agreement.

To be eligible for a short sale, the seller must be behind on payments due to financial hardship. Proof of this hardship must be established by supplying tax returns, pay stubs, bank statements and list of monthly expenses. A short sale is not likely to occur if the seller is already in bankruptcy as a short sale is considered a prohibited collection activity. The short sale process can move quickly if it is pre-approved by the lender for a certain amount. It is a good idea to work with a real estate agent or attorney to help negotiate the short sale process between the lender and potential buyer and ensure a timely sale. The short sale process can become complicated if there is more than one lender. Second mortgages or home equity lines can muddy the short sale process especially since secondary lenders stand to take the biggest loss on a short sale and all the lenders need to be in agreement with the terms for sale.

by

Receipt of an Inheritance

The receipt of an inheritance may impact your divorce or support case. Section 3501 of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code defines what will be considered marital property, and up for division, versus what will be considered non-marital property. Marital property includes all property acquired by either party from the date of marriage through the date of separation. There is a presumption all property acquired during the marriage is marital regardless of how title is held (e.g. individually vs. jointly). However, property received as a gift, bequest, devise or descent is non-marital per 23 Pa. C.S. 3501(a). Accordingly, an inheritance that is received during the marriage can still be claimed as non-marital property. As a practical tip, parties should avoid commingling inheritance funds with other marital funds. Inheritance funds may still need to be disclosed since the separate assets of the party are a factor for equitable distribution under 23 Pa. C.S. 3502.

Money received by way of an inheritance should not to be considered income for a support matter. This was established in the case of Humphreys v. DeRoss, 790 A.2d 281 (Pa. 2002) wherein the court noted that the term “inheritance” was not expressly listed in the statutory definition of “income” under 23 Pa. C.S. 4302 and so was not intended to be included. However, Humphreys also established that receipt of an inheritance may still be a factor under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-5. Rule 1910.16-5 states factors for the court to consider for deviation from a guideline support obligation. One of the factors the court may consider is the assets and liabilities of the parties. In E.R.L. v. C.K.L., 2015 PA Super 220, the court upheld an upward deviation of a child support award where father had just received a $600,000 inheritance. The base support award was appropriately calculated in that case without the inclusion of the inheritance money.

by

Pre-Nuptial Agreements

A pre-nuptial agreement is a private contract between the parties entered into prior to their marriage that outlines how assets and debts will be handled if the parties subsequently divorce. A simple pre-nuptial agreement often provides that each party retains their respective premarital property and any increase of value of premarital assets. It may also provide that anything they acquire in their individual name during the marriage would remain their separate property. Property acquired in joint names can be divided based on the applicable divorce laws or the parties can agree to split at a certain percentage, e.g. 50/50. A pre-nuptial agreement may also address spousal support. It is not uncommon for the amount of support to a spouse to increase based on the number of years married or number of children produced. Alternatively, one spouse may be required to pay support as a punishment if they commit adultery during the marriage.

As a contract, a pre-nuptial agreement must meet several requirements to be held valid. One, there must be a full and fair disclosure of the financial resources/existing assets by both parties. If there is not such a disclosure, there must be a provision in the agreement providing that the parties voluntarily and expressly waived the right to disclosure. Two, it must be clear that both parties voluntarily entered the agreement. For these reason, the agreement should be signed well before the wedding to avoid any challenge to the agreement that a party was forced to sign because the wedding date was fast approaching. Finally, steps should be taken to make sure the agreement is not invalidated on the basis of fraud, duress and/or misrepresentation. Any challenge under the above listed causes of action will require a fact-based analysis with the standard being a preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. Overall, it is difficult to overturn a pre-nuptial agreement once entered into, however, it can provide some peace of mind if the parties do not end up living happily ever after.

by

Exclusive Possession

Many parties in the process of separating are anxious to find out how they can get the other party out of a shared residence. For married individuals, a decision on which party will keep a marital property will not come until the end of the divorce matter and in the interim both parties retain the right to access the marital property. There are two exceptions to this general rule. First, a party may be evicted from a marital property in the context of a Protection from Abuse Order. A final PFA Order can remain in place for a maximum of three (3) years. The second way to have a party removed from marital property is through an application for exclusive possession.

Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 3502(c), the court has the express authority to award exclusive possession of the marital residence to one or both parties during the pendency of the divorce. This provision gives the court the authority to issue injunctions or other orders necessary to protect the interests of the parties.

Laczkowski v. Laczkowski, decided in 1985, was the first case to hold that the court could award exclusive possession of the martial residence during a divorce. 344 Pa. Super. 154 (Pa. Super. 1985). In Laczkowski, the home was to be given to the spouse having physical custody of any minor children. Other cases have clarified and expanded the instances under which exclusive possession may be ordered. In Uhler v. Uhler, the court indicated exclusive possession should only be awarded sparingly. 428 Pa. Super. 630 (Pa. Super. 1993). Uhler also pointed to the emotional welfare of children as the most important consideration. In Vuocolo v. Vuocolo, the court held an award should be based not only on the needs of minor children, but also the age and health of the parties and their financial needs and resources. 42 Pa. D. & C. 398 (1987). In Merola v. Merola, the court granted exclusive possession in an instance where there were no minor children but the wife was vulnerable and confined to a wheelchair. 19 Pa. D. & C. 4th 538 (1993). In contrast, in Duzgon v. Duzgon, the court did not grant exclusive possession based on wife’s allegations of tension in the home because of husband’s phone calls to his girlfriend. 76 Pa. D. & C. 4th 538 (2005). The court’s rationale was that there was no abuse between the parties and hence no clear need for husband to be excluded from the home. In sum, an award of exclusive possession is a last resort remedy that will not be awarded without clear need and is more likely to be awarded where minor children are involved.

by

Bankruptcy and Family Law

Parties who are unable to keep up with their financial obligations may consider filing for bankruptcy. Chapter 7 bankruptcy involves liquidation of a party’s assets to repay debts. Chapter 13 bankruptcy involves a payment plan with all collected funds subsequently distributed to creditors in order of their priority. A bankruptcy filing results in an automatic stay meaning the party filing for bankruptcy is protected from creditors seeking payment from them until the bankruptcy is resolved however, there are exceptions to this general rule. Specifically, the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not operate as a stay for any proceeding regarding the establishment or modification of an order for domestic support obligations, concerning child custody or visitation, or for the dissolution of a marriage (including decree with court order or property settlement agreement except to the extent that such proceeding seeks to determine the division of property that is property of the estate). Accordingly, a party may not seek to dismiss all their obligations in a family law matter by filing for bankruptcy.

Pennsylvania case law reiterates this point. In Schulze v. Schulze, 15 B.R. 106 (1981), the court held that “there can be no doubt that the state court action as it pertains to divorce and the custody of the minor children should not be stayed.” A party that files for bankruptcy cannot discharge an obligation to provide support. A party may however discharge an obligation to split assets and/or debts under a property settlement agreement or order on equitable distribution. In Deichert v. Deichert, 402 Pa. Super. 415 (1991), the court discusses which marital obligations are dischargeable or non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and concludes the court is to look at the intent of the parties and/or the effect/function of the obligation since debts under property settlement are dischargeable but support obligations are not.

by

Irrevocable Trusts

A trust is a mechanism wherein assets are set aside for certain beneficiaries and managed by a trustee subject to the terms of the document. Irrevocable trusts cannot subsequently be modified or terminated. Irrevocable trusts can help protect assets for parties who may need long-term care. Elderly persons needing long-term care often try to utilize Medicaid to assist with the expenses. Medicaid is a need-based health care program so there are limits on the amount of income and assets a party can have when seeking eligibility. An individual should plan ahead to make sure any countable assets and income are structured so as not to affect any future applications for Medicaid. Medicaid can look back five years from the date of an application so it is important to do any relevant estate planning well in advance.

An irrevocable trust must be established prior to the five-year look-back period to avoid any penalty. Additionally, the beneficiaries of the trust cannot be the party needing care or their spouse. The children can be named as beneficiaries with the hope that they would utilize the assets to assist their parents as needed. This does come with some risk as the trust cannot specifically limit the children in this manner so the children would need to be trustworthy. It can also be problematic if the party is subsequently released from care and now needs to support themselves again. You should consult with an experienced estate planning attorney regarding the best options for your circumstances.

by