Pennsylvania Family Law : Pennsylvania Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : PA Family Law Blog : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Family Law Serving Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Bucks County, Montgomery County, Chester County

With statistics indicating that roughly half of all marriages end in divorce, it is not surprisingly that half of all children in the United States will grow up with their father’s living elsewhere. Those statistics include all children, not just those of divorced parents, as recent studies by Penn State University sociologists and demographers Valarie King and Paul Amato (highlighted in a June 16, 2010 article in USA Today) point out.

Interestingly, the study found that fathers who pay child support and were divorced from the children’s mothers were far more likely to stay involved in their children’s lives than those fathers who never married their children’s moms. The “non-resident” father, as the study suggests, is becoming increasingly active compared to the non-resident father of a generation ago: in 1976, 18% of non-resident fathers saw their kids at least weekly, while in 2002, 31% saw their kids weekly; meanwhile, the number of fathers with no weekly contact fell from 37% in 1976 to 29% in 2002.

The role of fathers in their children’s lives, particularly the lives of boys, has been well-publicized and is often cited as a contributing factor to delinquency, educational achievement, and substance abuse. That 29% of children still have no weekly contact with their fathers is disturbing, but the number is moving in the right direction.

Ultimately, a non-resident father’s tendency to stay involved is influenced by his relationship with the child’s mother. Fortunately, technology is offering fathers more opportunities to stay connected to their children, even if they can not see them every day, and the ability to bypass (or at least minimize) a contentious interaction with the child’s mother. There is no substitute for personal contact between a father and his child, but in an age where kids text, twitter, Facebook, and Skype from their cell phones, it is becoming easier for a non-resident parent to keep in touch and stay involved in the child’s life without having to go through the custodial parent.

It took 26 years to achieve an 8% decrease in the number of fathers who did not see their children on a weekly basis. During that time, we have seen a considerable evolution in family law and the emphasis on the father in raising children. It will be interesting to see whether in the eight years since the statistics were compiled that the proliferation and incorporation of technology into our every day lives brings about a sharp increase in the number of fathers in contact with their children. 

Opinions and studies will vary as to what constitutes a contact between a father and child, but in terms of whether the non-resident father is involved in that child’s life is not decided by a clinician, the child’s mother (or her lawyer), but by the child.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We live in a world where people travel.  And often travel takes them across state lines without their realizing the consequence.  Meanwhile, we need to have rules so that no two states are deciding custody of a child at the same time. The Rennie v. Rosenthal case, decided by the Superior Court in late Spring of this year helps us understand the process.

The basic rule surrounding custody jurisdiction is that, in the first instance, custody should be decided in the state where the child has been living.  This is called the “home state”.  It is where the child is spending most of his or her time.  But once a state assumes jurisdiction over a child, that state is supposed to retain jurisdiction until another state becomes a more appropriate place for child decisions to be made.  The Rennie case illustrates that jurisdiction tends to stick where it starts even in situations where the child has more contacts with another state.

Mother and Father are married in California in 1996.  They move to Pennsylvania six months later and a child is born here in September, 1997.  Custody is contentious and there is a series of orders entered beginning in Fall, 1998. One of the orders entered in 2003 says that Philadelphia County will retain jurisdiction.  Just about the same time the mother moves to Minnesota with the child. Two more orders are entered in Pennsylvania in 2004 and 2007 relating to the child.  Both orders were agreed to by the parties but said nothing more about Pennsylvania retaining jurisdiction. 

In May, 2008 Father filed for primary physical custody.  He was still living in Pennsylvania.  By this time the child has been living in Minnesota for five years.  So Mother responded with a request for the case to be transferred to Minnesota.  Almost a year later a hearing was held concerning this issue.  By this time the child had been living in Minnesota for six years. The Court denied the transfer but certified that Mother’s arguments merited appellate review.

The law in question is what is termed a uniform law. That means that states try to mirror its provisions throughout the country so there are not conflicting standards on a subject as one travels from state to state. Just about every state in the US has adopted a version of the 2004 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

Mother’s argument in this instance was that the child lived in Pennsylvania for only one year and had resided in Minnesota for six.  Accordingly, most of the significant contacts between the child and any jurisdiction involved Minnesota.

But the Court in Pennsylvania parsed the language of the statute involved carefully.  Under Section 5422(a)(1) of the Act a court has made an initial custody determination in a case retains jurisdiction over the child until “neither the child nor the child and one parent have a significant connection with Pennsylvania and substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships is no longer available here.”

The term “significant connection” is not defined by the statute.  But the Superior Court reasoned that so long as the child and at least one parent have a meaningful relationship to the Commonwealth custody jurisdiction should remain here.  The Court found that the child’s five year residence in Pennsylvania was significant.  The Court also seemed swayed by the fact that the child spends 4-6 weeks in Pennsylvania each year with her Father.  She has grandparents here and step sisters resulting from Father’s recent marriage. The Court explicitly states that where one parent remains in Pennsylvania and has a significant connection to the child jurisdiction should not be changed.

Curiously, the Court takes on a ruling in 2008 by another panel of the Superior Court in Billhime v. Billhime.  In that case the trial court was reversed for retaining jurisdiction in a case where the child had been living in Florida for approximately four years.  In Billhime, the Superior Court found that the test over jurisdiction centered upon where the most significant connections for the child rested.  Rennie says that the panel deciding Billhime misread the statute.  The appellant in Rennie asked the Superior Court to reconcile Billhime and Rennie.  The Court declined in an order entered in early July, 2010.

What happened here?  It’s tough to say.  Sometimes the facts sway these kinds of cases.  Had Mother filed a request for Pennsylvania to relinquish jurisdiction before Father filed for contempt of the existing order and modification, we suspect that request would have been granted.  But here, she is arguing for the Court to relinquish this case after she was found to have violated the Pennsylvania Order and after Father had asked for modification.  Commentators in this field assert that custody should be decided in that state where the most evidence can be found.  Clearly, after five years of residence, Minnesota would appear to have the trump card. But not in this case.  Father gets to seek modification here, although that trial will have to begin more than two years after he started the process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Eric Solotoff, a partner in our Roseland, New Jersey office, recently posted a piece on our New Jersey Family Law Blog about his experience with a mediator who sought to apply “settlement anxiety” on the parties to help force a settlement in the case.

Eric explores the ethical and practical application of “settlement anxiety” in settling cases and it is an interesting topic for practitioners and litigants, alike.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the process of handling a divorce where minor children are involved it is not uncommon for the parties to at least broach the subject of contributions to an undergraduate degree or vocational training for a child following high school.  This was once a pretty easy subject as Pennsylvania required separated parents to contribute to this form of enterprise from 1963 to 1992.  But that abruptly ended when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that lower courts had imposed this duty without the imprimatur of legislative approval.  With the 1992 ruling in Blue v. Blue, 616 A.2d 628 college was only going to be ordered where the parties agreed.

The other driving force that had affected this area is the spiraling cost of college.  This author graduated from George Washington University in 1977 at a time when a year of college was a $5,000 experience.  Today, that same experience at the same university is 10x more expensive.  And while recent alumni have been quick to remind me that the school has improved vastly in the thirty years since I was emitted, I feel safe in my retort that it certainly is not 10x better. Even when adjusted for the Consumer Price Index, the $5,000 of circa 1977 should today be just under $18,000 in 2010 dollars.

So, we live in an age when a commitment to send a child to college can easily be a $200,000 obligation.  That will require roughly $300,000 pre-tax dollars, a fairly staggering sum for even affluent parents who are living together.  It becomes all the more dicey when net worth and income have been subject to proceedings to dissolve a marriage.  This means that agreements relating to support a college kind of experience need to be carefully considered and drafted if the commitment is to be something more than “We’ll do what we can.”

The easiest approach is to start the savings process early.  Uniform Transfer to Minors Accounts is one device. 529 Accounts are a second.  They come with different characteristics relating to accessibility but the key point is that the more you save now, the more will be available when college time comes.

But, what about limits on the contributions.  There is a big difference between a college education and a child’s dream college experience. We recently litigated a case where a child with a C+ average and board scores in the 1000 range wanted her parents to underwrite a $45,000 per annum private college experience. Is that a reasonable expectation? One parent said yes and the other no.  The agreement was silent except for a consultation clause related to college selection.  There is a tendency on the part of parents to be lenient when they execute these agreements because they feel guilty that they have “ruined” their child’s adolescence by splitting up. Kids are certainly affected by divorce but does an expensive college somehow make up for an experience, like divorce that is ubiquitous. Does the child of divorce get a BMW as his first car if mom and dad are separated, but a Focus if they stay together.  Economic decisions need to stand on their own and not be driven by guilt.  They also need to have some fail safe provisions.  We are seeing many folks who were earning hefty incomes and could easily have once afforded almost any college costs caught in the crossfire of a bad economy that this time has afflicted the management class almost as harshly as the working poor. Unemployment benefits of $400 a week leave little room for contributions to college.

Then there is the role of the child.  What are to be his or her responsibilities?  Today a child with mediocre grades and boards can still pull a quality college admission if he or she is willing to pay full freight. Does that mean the parent must commit as well? And if so, for how long?  Today only 30% of liberal arts majors complete their degree in four years. Is there a minimum grade point average that must be maintained or will the standard be how low can you go? Bear in mind that without a waiver of the student’s rights under a law called the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a parent has no right to a student’s grades or to know whether the student missed class because he was at the university hospital’s detox unit.

The issue of timing payment is also a minefield.  We have many agreements in our files that say each parent will pay a percentage of tuition or other costs.  But, we are seeing that many parents don’t reveal their incapacity to pay until the arrival of the college invoice. In once recent instance, we had a parent decide that the best way to save for college was to roll the child’s tuition savings plan into a lovely beach house.  That was four years ago when shore property was hot.  Chances are that child is not going to college until the market absorbs the huge inventory of unsold property that has been accumulating since 2007.

We conclude that college is a good thing and sensible provisions for it are as well.  But the price of education has escalated to a point where college or any other post secondary education needs to be carefully planned for if the investment is to be achievable and productive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent article by Harvard physician Atul Gawande in the New Yorker discussed how poorly our society does in addressing end of life decisions where a person is afflicted with a diagnosis of terminal disease.  These are questions we don’t like to deal with.  And as the article poignantly illustrates, neither the patient nor the family wants to be candid about what is really going on. The result is often the employment of heroic measures that might possibly produce a favorable outcome but which are certain to make the patient’s life miserable. The author proposes that in these cases, patients are afraid to tell family members that further experimental treatment is not what they want out of fear that the family members will judge them a “quitter.”  Family members fear discussion that suggests abandoning further treatment will be construed by the patient as a signal that the family is tired of dealing with the illness.

Dr. Gawande has noted that as recently as thirty years ago, many physicians would not tell their patient how grave an illness was. This prompted us to consider whether attorneys and their clients are guilty of the same lack of candor when managing litigation.

Litigation of any kind is an evolutionary process where facts are collected and ultimately presented to a judge or jury for evaluation and decision.  In a family law context, clients tell us their vision of the world.  From that start, we try to collect evidence that supports the theory of the case.  Many times, the collection of evidence may change the strength of the client’s theory.  In some situations what sounded like a strong case on interview fails because there is little to no evidence to support it.  In other instances, as attorneys we see the evidence as supportive of our theory of the case but the trier of fact (usually the judge or hearing officer) telegraphs that he or she does not see the case as having the same merit we do as advocates.

In either case, either unsupported facts or an unpersuaded judge, there needs to be a frank reassessment of the litigation between attorney and client.  This is a difficult process because clients often don’t see weaknesses in their cases and when confronted with them, there is a tendency on the part of clients to suggest that the lawyers is losing faith or misled the client to begin with.  There are times when it makes sense to “tough out” the litigation process and go to trial and or appeal from an adverse ruling.  This requires frank discussion throughout the decision making progress.  Without it, the risk is high that a bad decision will be made and that the next dollars invested in the litigation will be poor investments.

As we have written before, every litigated matter involves an investment.  As with any other investment, it comes with cost and it comes with risk.  No case is a certain winner.  As you proceed with any such investment clients need to ask the questions that need to be asked.  Is the case growing stronger or weaker premised upon the evolution of the facts and the rulings in the case before trial?  Do not fall prey to the kind of blindness to which Dr Gawande alludes where you the client are not being realistic about the range of outcomes and their relative likelihood. Litigation is not life threatening in ways that disease can be. But it is no fun to buy lots of it when the outcome will only drain your pocket and leave you unhappy.  That’s a question clients need to ask if the case takes a bad turn.  Our reaction is often to just throw more at it and threaten to do more and not less. This is the American way. It’s what made Stephen Decatur and Davy Crockett folk heroes.  But, it is worth noting that when all was said and done the outcome for Crockett is not what he intended.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week included a radio interview by WHYY’s Marty Moss-Cohane on the subject of the “graying” of divorce.  The two academicians featured were a historian from the University of Hawaii Stephanie Coontz and a business professor from Penn, Betsey Stevenson.  The program is archived at WHYY for June 9, 2010.

Early in the program one of the professors noted that, as the title suggests, we are conflicted over whether marriage remains an institution or whether it is now simply a relationship.  By definition institutions are things to revere.  Relationships smack of practicality; like the fellow who mows our lawn or services our cars.

From childhood, we were taught that marriage was an institution to celebrate for all of one’s life.  The vows of marriage tell us so.  But a look back through history informs us that lifelong marriage was more the exception than the rule. We remember the lengthy and apparently happy marriages of Washington, Franklin, Adams and Madison.  We choose to forget that for two of these founders there were months and in some cases years of enforced separation.  We should recall that for many couples marriage often produced childbirth accompanied by huge mortality rates for both child and mother.  So it was not uncommon for people to marry two or three times during a lifetime that rarely exceeded fifty years.

The other thing that changed over time was the “meaning” of marriage. It is not until the Enlightenment that the idea of marriage for love gained currency.  Before that time, marriage had to do with financial security.  Fornication and its close friend bastardy were crimes because the result was children who might become public charges.  Changes in society’s wealth and sexuality have changed much of this over the past fifty years.

Professor Coontz has been reading marriage manuals of the 1950s and concluded that marriage counseling had spoken more in terms of obligation than happiness.  Unhappy women were advised that it was their duty to make a marriage work even if this meant resigning themselves to an otherwise miserable condition.  At a time when women were far less educated and worldly, few had much choice but to accept their plight. There weren’t many other options.

Much has changed.  But old habits die hard.  Consider the fact that marriage for “love” has been around for more than two centuries yet the notion that women were entitled to be happy in their marriages seems to have gained currency in the past forty years alone.

We don’t know whether Al is dumping Tipper or vice versa.  There is even the prospect that they actually agreed that notwithstanding the importance of the “institution” the relationship was no longer working.  Certainly, there is something to be said for discouraging people to end marriages for transient causes.  But as we live longer, what sustained a relationship for forty years may not be enough to make it for fifty.  We are seeing more seniors choosing to move on.  In the saddest cases, they have barely enough to sustain themselves together through retirement.  This often means that once separated and with their meager assets divided, each will live very close to poverty.  But couples like the Gores have the resources to go on without significant economic sacrifice. Their separation will be emotional.  Unless both parties come to the same conclusion at the same time, it always will be emotional.  But life is a journey and not a destination and all of us are well advised to consider that when thinking about marriage in the first place.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Every once in a while, a good deed does not go unpunished.  About a month ago I received a call from an acquaintance with whom I worked performing community work several years ago.  Could she stop in and chat?  As one might expect, people do not just stop in to “chat” with divorce lawyers without some particular thoughts in mind.

We met for about 20 minutes.  By the standards of our parents’ generation she had the perfect marriage.  Beautiful kids, financial security and prominence in the community.  But as is so often the case things were not feeling that way. There was a suggestion that perhaps her spouse had not been faithful and, being an intelligent woman, her response was to research.  The results were not encouraging.  Because we knew each other, I got what I call the “ultimate question”.  Was it time to end it? Personally, I hate this question.  I have been doing this line of work for almost thirty years; I have been married twice during that time.  But, who am I to tell another person whether he or she should try to preserve a relationship that was once seen as a lifetime commitment?  There are days when I hear stories that make me want to blurt out: “You must be kidding.”  But that’s not a lawyer’s role.  Lawyers are at their best when they are Socratic.  Ask the questions.  Explore the options.  Then let the client make the decision.

The subsidiary question I had posed in this meeting was whether marriage counseling made sense.  Having once done it, I am not a big fan of marriage counseling.  It is my own belief that when confronted in meetings by people we don’t know, our first goal is to try to look like reasonable people and to impress our new found acquaintance, the marriage counselor. Of course this comes at a price and that price is called ‘candor’. Second, there is a tendency to pull punches.  I wish I could recall how many times a client has lit up in appreciation when I observed that it sounded like a spouse was more committed to a job or the children than the marriage.  A recent article about how couples fight about money noted that many fights over money are merely stalking horses for other issues.  I can’t look you in the face and tell you that I am unhappy about your weight, your lethargy, your inability to discipline our child, your fawning admiration of the idiot neighbor.  But I can easily summon the courage to tell you that you should mow your own lawn or cut back on the credit cards.

So, I find that marriage counseling tends to work best as a second step.  Step one is to see a counselor individually and do the preliminary work.  With your own counselors you and your spouse can each let loose not only about each other but about what is working or not working in your own life besides your marriage. You can say what you want and not fear immediate rebuttal, rejection or impeachment.  You can hopefully sort out where life has brought you and, most important; where you want to go next.  That next step may mean separation and divorce.  That’s alright too.  But many times, individual therapy causes the patient to gain perspective.  Also, don’t kid yourself.  In individual therapy it’s easy to throw the punch and, as Napoleon once suggested, blame everyone not in the room.  A good therapist is going to spar with you; challenging your views and asking questions intended to make you think.

Once you have put some time into getting your own emotional house in order; it is time to take the show on the road and do some couples counseling.  But if your individual counseling convinces you that you are absolutely destined to end your current relationship; then don’t dishonestly go into marriage counseling.  Ask your spouse for permission to speak to her therapist.  Lay your thinking on the line.  If nothing else this will help your spouse get insight from her own therapist as to how you got to your conclusion.  That’s healthy for both of you.

I’m also a big fan of the written word.  Not the texted or instant messaged thought.  I mean something you will put hours into just as you did a paper in college.  Your marriage is a relationship in which both you and your spouse have made an enormous investment.  Don’t sell out cheap.

Divorce is often made more expensive because the lawyers are carrying their clients heavy emotional baggage. Carry your own.  You will not find it pleasant but you will ultimately feel better about the experience.  And you will save a stack of money.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Given the current economic climate, divorcing parties are more vigilant than ever about the value and disposition of their marital assets. This article discusses methods and concepts which will help divorcing parties streamline the process of dividing their marital personal property, or personalty, during a divorce. Personalty can mean anything from an apple corer to a Rolex. Basically, it’s the “stuff” you acquired during your marriage. 

While it is often the case that divorcing parties cannot agree on anything, let alone go through their home piece by piece and divvy up personal effects, to the extent you are able to divide your possessions amicably, you should.   The primary reasons you should be dividing your own property are twofold: first, no one will have a better understanding of your assets and their value to you than you will; second, you should not have to pay an attorney to argue about who is keeping the living room sofa. 

Get as much of a “head start” as you can on the division of personalty. By head start I do not mean taking the assets you want and hiding them, I mean you should familiarize yourself with the plausible means by which you can divide your asset and the concepts that will help you do so in a streamlined fashion. The following are points you should consider when you and your spouse are dividing personalty.

Make lists and take pictures of your personal assets: Lists and pictures are a comprehensive way of inventorying your assets. Having an inventory allows you and your spouse to review the assets available for distribution. Inventories also serve as a way for parties to understand what items you can agree on and which will be at issue. Pictures can be used to illustrate whether items have been moved, have gone missing, or were inadvertently omitted from a list.

Account for depreciation: It is often the case that parties utilize different “accounting methods” when reviewing the value of assets depending on which party receives the item. For instance, the party getting a five year old car will use the blue book value while trying at the same time to claim that the five year old sofa is worth the same amount it was the day it was purchased. 

Keep in mind that the majority of your possessions have depreciated significantly and account for that depreciation in your internal calculation of who is getting what value. While you may feel like you are not receiving as much you would like from some of your items, provided your “accounting method” is consistent, you do not stand to lose as much as you might fear by accepting that the purchase price is not necessarily the current value, your property division will go more smoothly and you and your spouse will not spend as much in attorneys fees.

Agree on what should be appraised: Items of significant value which cannot be agreed upon should be appraised. The caveat here is what items you and your spouse think need to be appraised, who bears the cost of the appraisal, and how an appraiser is chosen. 

Creating a “cut off” value or a rule will help you decide which items to have appraised. For instance, agree on a dollar amount and do not have items you think fall below that dollar amount appraised. Alternatively, you can use a rule to help you decide, such as “if it should have been, or was, individually insured, have it appraised.” Laying these ground rules should help you and your spouse prevent later squabbling over which assets should be appraised.

With regard to who will pay the appraiser and how he or she is picked, call your attorney. While you do not want to rack up your bill arguing about these issues, your attorney will have insight as to how appraisal costs should be divided and be able to provide you with the names of appropriate appraisers.

Create a valuation methodology: It is imperative that you bear in mind the potential difference in the replacement value of your assets and their actual resale value. While something might be insured for one amount, its “street value” may be another amount. If you are getting something appraised, find out both how much you could sell it for on the day it is appraised and how much replacing it would cost. While it seems these numbers should be the same, many times they are not. When you are accounting for how much an asset is “worth” to you, remember this distinction!

When you cannot agree, use a neutral mediator or arbitrator: Using a neutral third party will save you money, time and hassle. Rather than having both you and your spouse pay your attorneys to listen to you bicker back and forth about personalty, choose one party to simply make decisions regarding the division of assets. Make the arbitrator’s or mediator’s decision binding. By having a third-party make a binding decision, you are essentially giving that person the power to make decisions about your property. 

While you may not be happy with any or all of the mediator’s or arbitrator’s decisions this process is more expedient and less expensive than many alternatives. Binding mediation or arbitration will move the process along and will allow you to move on to other (more important) issues. This method also has the benefit of keeping the division of personalty out of the judicial system. Court fights about property tend to be very costly and annoy the Court. Also, it is common practice for Family Court Master’s and Judges to enter an Order for equitable distribution and give the parties (30) days to divide personalty or appeal to binding arbitration. Remember, you are better off deciding the outcome than letting someone else.

Know your motivation: In most cases, there are two primary motivating factors affecting parties’ behavior as they attempt to divide their personalty; emotion and economy. While both these factors will play a role in parties’ decisions, they cannot be allowed to overwhelm your decision-making. Moderating, or at least staying attuned to, your motivations is essential. An over-emotional or overly economic approach will cause parties problems and cost money.

An example of an overly emotional reaction would be one spouse attempting to claim every chair, seat, and sofa from the house. Sadly, this does happen. While the spouse that does this may feel temporarily vindicated by the knowledge that his or her ex-spouse will not be able to sit down comfortably until he or she buys some seats, this impractical approach ultimately fails. The spouse who was controlled by his or her emotions will most likely lack artwork, tables, a bed… you understand my point. 

By the same token, an overly economic motivation will also lead to failure. For instance, adamant refusal to negotiate with your spouse over an item because of its economic value without taking into account other significant factors will lead to a negotiations deadlock. 

Even if you cannot control your motivating factors, at least be aware of them! Being cognizant of your motivations will allow you to “step back” and consider whether fighting about a particular item will help or hurt you in the long run. If you can understand your spouse’s motivations regarding the division of assets you will have even greater negotiating success.

Finally, if you and your spouse are at odds about an item, ask yourself whether you will care, remember or replace that item in (6) months or a year. If the answer is “no” then give it up and move on to something that really matters to you.

Keeping in mind the above points will allow you to make better decisions about dividing your personalty. Good luck!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Most people familiar with family law realize that “divorce” is usually a catch-all term for multiple “cases within the case” such as child support, spousal support, custody, or equity actions. One Divorce Complaint can open up any number of actions within it which must be adjudicated and addressed in order for the overall divorce to move toward a conclusion. In the case of economic issues (equitable distribution and support), an Order must exist before a Decree can be entered.

Due to the fact that there can be strict divisions among the various causes of action, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to address an inequity in one area with a remedy from another.

To illustrate this point, the Court in Centre County recently issued a holding in the case of Allen v. Allen, 110 PDDRR 71 (Pa.C.P. 2010) which acknowledged the Court’s authority to assess attorneys and lost income to Wife due to Husband’s failure to obtain a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The Court did not find that Husband’s overpayment in another aspect of the case precluded them from assessing him with these penalties.

I can only imagine the frustration the Husband felt in not having his credit applied to this deficiency, or in not getting similar satisfaction in recapturing that credit, but this case illustrates the fact that the courts will treat each aspect of the case on its own merits. In this instance, if Wife’s loss of income and attorney’s fees was a result of delay tactics, allowing the Court to simply redistribute a credit from another area will not have the same deterring effect as levying the costs and fees against him in this instance.

Furthermore, there are often policy restrictions in dealing with credits, particularly as it applies to child support. Domestic Relation Offices and the Pennsylvania State Collection and Disbursement Unit often preclude a payor from taking reduced support payments, and they will not issue a refund.  The credit usually carries until some intervening event occurs or the subject child is emancipated.

Be sure to discuss with your attorney how the different aspects of your divorce influence the other. You may find that what looks advantageous in your equitable distribution case, may be detrimental to your support case. Furthermore, understanding the financial restrictions between various causes of action, such as support and equitable distribution, will allow you to get a better grasp of your overall case. As always, if you have questions or don’t understand something, ask your lawyer; it is his or her job to make sure you understand what is going on in your case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link