Tag Archive for: divorce

Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree, Court Order or Contract

A U.S. Court will recognize a foreign divorce decree under the doctrine of comity so long as the party has established domicile in the foreign country. As discussed in Hilkmann v. Hilkmann, [c]omity is a recognition which one nation extends within its own territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another. It is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience, and expediency. Although more than mere courtesy and accommodation, comity does not achieve the force of an imperative or obligation…Comity should be withheld only when its acceptance would be contrary or prejudicial to the interest of the nation called upon to give it effect. 2003 PA Super 25 (2005). A U.S. Court will invoke comity by its discretion and will usually look at two factors: whether the foreign court had jurisdiction, and whether fair procedures were used.

A U.S. Court will look to domicile as a basis for establishing jurisdiction. In Commonwealth v. Doughty, the court held “[i]t is an established and familiar principle that judicial power to grant a divorce is founded on domicile. In the absence of domicile by at least one of the parties to the action, the Court has no jurisdiction over the cause and its decree will consequently, not be endowed with extraterritorial effect.” 187 Pa. Super. 499 (1958). Accordingly, “[a]n absolute prerequisite to judicial recognition of an out-of-state divorce is that the plaintiff must have resided in the state or country for a minimum period of residency as determined by local authority and that the residency be accompanied by domiciliary intent, i.e., an intent to remain the foreign jurisdiction.” Sargent v. Sargent, 225 Pa. Super. 1 (1973). These principles extend beyond divorce and hold the same for other family law court orders as well as contracts.

Click here to read more about divorce in Bucks County.

by

Discovery in Family Law

Discovery is the process of obtaining information from the opposing party in the course of a lawsuit. Discovery is governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Pa. R.C.P.). Rule 1930.5 states that there shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection from Abuse proceeding unless authorized by court. In order for you to be allowed to send discovery in a support matter, you must get your case deemed complex by the court. Discovery is allowed in alimony, equitable distribution, counsel fee and expense proceedings and in complex support cases without leave of court. The information requested must be relevant to the case pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1. In divorce, the court gives much leeway as to what is relevant since the factors for equitable distribution allow for broadness.

Formal discovery methods must adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the acceptable methods include interrogatories, depositions, production requests, subpoena to produce things and/or documents, and request for admission. Interrogatories and production request are the most frequently used methods of discovery in divorce cases. Interrogatories are a written set of questions for the other party to answer. A production request lists all the documents a party is seeking. Subpoenas are utilized as well when it is necessary to get information directly from the source in the instance a party does not have it or will not cooperate in turning it over. Due to the expense to the parties for discovery, lawyers will sometimes agree to exchange discovery informally. This generally involves the lawyers deciding what information is relevant and then gathering that information and sending it to the other side in exchange for receiving documentation that they need from the other side that is also relevant.

Click here to read more on Discovery.

by

Factors in Equitable Distribution

Equitable distribution is the term used in Pennsylvania referring to division of marital property at the time of divorce. Marital property will consist of nearly everything acquired in either party’s name from the date of marriage through to the date of separation. Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean a 50/50 split of all marital property. Instead, the statute on equitable distribution sets out 13 factors to be considered. Those factors are listed in 23 Pa C.S. 3502 and include the following:

(1) Length of the marriage; (2) Any prior marriage of either party; (3) Age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties; (4) Contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning capacity of the other party; (5) Opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income; (6) Sources of income of both parties, including but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits; (7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as a homemaker; (8) Value of the property set apart to each party

(9) Standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (10) Economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective; (10.1) Federal, State and local tax ramifications associated with each asset to be divided, distributed or assigned, which ramifications need not be immediate and certain; (10.2) Expense of sale, transfer or liquidation associated with a particular asset, which expenses need not be immediate and certain; (11) Whether the party will be serving as the custodian of any dependent minor children

The remainder of 23 Pa C.S. 3502 goes on to discuss the courts powers relating to who can reside in the marital home pending the divorce, maintaining life insurance policies, interim partial distributions, and enforcement powers in the event of contempt of a court order on equitable distribution. Parties should keep these factors in mind when fashioning a settlement agreement of their own. If the parties have to go to court for equitable distribution, they will be required to submit a statement beforehand laying out what they allege is the marital property at issue, how the factors listed affect their case, and what they are ultimately seeking as an “equitable” distribution.

Click here to read more on Equitable Distribution.

by

Reconciliation Pending Divorce

Potential reconciliation between parties going through a divorce can have an impact on the course of the divorce. Specifically, if a party is pursuing a divorce on the grounds of two-year separation, a reconciliation may result in a new date of separation date and hence a new two-year waiting period. Case law has distinguished what actions/behavior will be considered a successful reconciliation, hence tolling a new period of separation, versus those actions/behavior that will not change the initial separation date. Separation for the purposes of divorce is defined as the “complete cessation of any and all cohabitation.” Cohabitation, though not specifically defined in the divorce code, is generally understood to be living and dwelling together as husband and wife with the mutual assumption of all marital rights, duties and obligations. It requires more than just remaining in the same house overnight or for the weekend or taking a week long trip together. This is still true even if the parties engage in sexual relations. Instances of sexual relations during a separation will not alone establish a reconciliation. The public policy of the Commonwealth is to encourage a reconciliation where possible and so it is reluctant to punish parties for unsuccessful reconciliations by causing the period of separation to have to start again because of a failed attempt.

In Thomas v. Thomas, 335 Pa. Super. 41 (1984), the Court expressed its agreement with neighboring states who treat the issue of reconciliation similarly. For example, in a New Jersey case the court held that a four week trial reconciliation period did not defeat the previously established separation date (Brittner v. Brittner, 124 N.J. Super. 259 (1973)). In Delaware, the law provides that any reconciliation attempts that occur prior to the 30 days immediately preceding the hearing on divorce will not affect the initial date of separation. Accordingly, attempts at reconciliation may not necessarily change the date of separation for the purposes of the divorce. The court would examine the facts of the reconciliation to determine if it was a full-blown resumption of the marital relationship which would potentially result in a different date of separation or alternatively, treat the failed attempt as further evidence that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the divorce should proceed on the initial separation date. In Britton v. Britton, 400 Pa. Super. 43 (1990) a reconciliation did defeat the period of separation when the reconciliation lasted three months, the parties resumed living together, ceased to maintain separate residences, jointly purchased a townhome, shared the same bedroom, engaged in sexual relations, shared a joint bank account and had a social life as husband and wife.

Click here to read more on divorce.

by

Couples Workshop

The Philadelphia Center for Emotionally Focused Training is sponsoring a workshop for couples on February 2, 2013 titled “Hold Me Tight.” The focus of the workshop is to help couples reconnect and move forward in a more loving relationship. Dr. Ruth Jampol and Dr. Nancy Logue will be facilitating the workshop which will use the book written by Dr. Sue Johnson titled “Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love.” The workshop will be held at 102 West Maple Avenue, Langhorne, PA 19047 from 9:30 AM until 4:30 AM. Potential participants are encouraged to register in advance. Additional information regarding the workshop can be found in the flyer on our home page as well as the link below.

“Hold Me Tight” Couples Workshop

by

Agreements in Family Law

Parties are often encouraged to try to reach an agreement to resolve whatever issues have arisen in any legal matter. In family law, agreements are especially encouraged due to the personal nature of the issues at hand along with the belief that it is better for the parties to draft their own agreement rather than allow a stranger to dictate their family dynamics going forward. Most agreements in family law will be treated as any contract would and the parties will be obligated to comply with the provisions or face an action for contempt. The family court will retain jurisdiction over all agreements entered that are subsequently submitted to the court to be made an order. As with any contract the court is generally only concerned that the agreement was entered into voluntarily and knowingly. The court will not necessarily be reviewing the content of the agreement before allowing it to become an order of court.

If a provision of the agreement needs to be enforced and one party seeks the court’s help in pursuing contempt, at that point the court would need to examine the content of the agreement in order to make a decision on a resolution of the contempt. Many agreements will include a provision that the party who breaches the agreement will be responsible for attorney fees if contempt must be sought through the court to gain compliance. The most comprehensive agreement in a family law matter is a marital or property settlement agreement. This type of agreement sets out to resolve all issues in a divorce matter including, but not limited to, how the divorce will be proceed to finalization, division of property, child and spousal support and/or alimony, and custody. One provision that will not hold up in court even if the parties agreed to it is the waiver of child support. The PA Supreme Court ruled in Knorr v. Knorr, decided in 1991, that a parent may not contract away a child’s right to support as the court views child support as an entitlement of the child rather than the parents.

Click here to read more on family law issues.

by

Reunification Counseling in Custody Cases

Reunification counseling is a process meant to rebuild a relationship. Often times, reunification counseling will be used in the context of a custody dispute to reintroduce and/or reinforce the relationship between a parent and their child. There are several reasons why reunification counseling may become necessary. It could be a situation where one parent was not involved in the child’s life for a long period of time and so some type of counseling becomes helpful in assisting both parties ease back into a normal relationship. Alternatively, a course of reunification counseling can be used after a sudden change in relationship has caused damage or anger. For example, a child may not understand why his or her parents have separated and may show anger or resentment towards the parent who moved out of the home. Or perhaps, it is not even the child initiating the feelings of resentment or anger, but the other parent who then projects those same feelings onto the child.

Reunification counseling can be viewed as a more collaborative approach to re-establishing a relationship as opposed to just having the court force certain periods of visitation when the child may not be willing or emotionally ready. This is especially a concern when dealing with teenagers. A custody order forcing visitation with the other parent may serve a temporary goal but ultimately result in lifelong resentment once the child is over 18 and free to make his or her own choices. It may be more beneficial to be patient on the front end in exchange for a healthy relationship that has the potential to last past their “childhood” years. It is the role of the reunification therapist to facilitate the process with the end goal of repairing the relationship going forward. If you are facing a high conflict divorce or separation or have been inactive in your child’s life for a certain period of time and feel you may need help rebuilding the relationship, consider reunification therapy as an option to get the relationship back on the right foot again.

Click here to read more on custody.

by

No Fault Divorce

The divorce rate reached an all time high in the 1970’s due to the introduction of no-fault divorce. A no-fault divorce meant that the parties could get a divorce without having to prove any wrong-doing in court. Essentially, all the parties have to do for a no-fault divorce is indicate the marriage is over. Prior to the influx of no-fault divorce, parties had to prove that the requirements for a fault divorce were met. Fault grounds for divorce in Pennsylvania include desertion, adultery, cruel and barbarous treatment, bigamy, imprisonment, and indignities. The majority of divorces will go through on the basis of no-fault since it is easier to litigate and often times there is no benefit in the outcome of the divorce to pursuing a fault ground for a divorce.

To move forward with a no-fault divorce in Pennsylvania, the parties need only allege an “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” and either consent to the divorce after a 90-day period or establish 2-year separation. A no-fault divorce can also be obtained if one of the spouses is institutionalized for a period of 18 months provided they will likely still be institutionalized 18 months following the commencement of the divorce. No-fault divorce became available in Pennsylvania in 1980 when the Divorce Code was revised. Originally, a separation period of three years was required but that has since been reduced to the two year separation period currently required.

Click here to read more on Divorce.

by

PA Children’s Trust Fund

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 250 community based programs across the state have received grants to aid in the fight against child abuse and neglect.

The PA CTF recently 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 focusing on prevention due to the negative and potentially long-term impacts of abuse and neglect including, but not limited to, poor physical, mental, and emotional health, social difficulties and behavioral problems. There is also a corresponding economic impact associated with dealing the aftermath of abuse and neglect making an even greater case for the importance of prevention. Many other states across the country also have a similar fund 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

Consequences of Bankruptcy in Family Law

Financial obligations in the context of a divorce can create a strain on the party ordered to pay. If a party is simply unable to keep up with all their obligations they may consider filing for bankruptcy. A bankruptcy filing generally 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. 11 U.S.C § 362 (b) provides that 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.”

Another component of filing for bankruptcy is the potential for certain debts to be discharged, meaning the obligation no longer needs to be fulfilled. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) provides that a debtor cannot discharge a debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree, or other order of a court of record. This statute is interpreted to mean that a party cannot discharge an obligation to provide support. A party used to be able to 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. However, amendments to the bankruptcy law in 2005 provided that any order arising under any family law docket including equitable distribution is no longer dischargeable.

by