While researching one of my child support cases (not anywhere near the realm of a professional athlete's salary), I ran across an interesting case. Antonio Freeman of the Eagles (at the time, he is more known for playing for the Green Bay Packers) was being sued by the mother of his child for an increase in child support. He had an agreement with the mother when the child was first born. He would pay $3500 a month in child support, pay all private school expenses, all medical and dental expenses not covered by health insurance and establish a college fund. It is quite clear that Mr. Freeman fulfilled his side of the agreement.
Mom was a student and did not work. One of Mr. Freeman's arguments was that an increase in child support would actually be supporting the mother, not the child. I get this a lot. The person paying the child support swears up and down that the person receiving the support is spending it on his/herself. Here's the deal, the support does not have to directly support the child. In other words, the kid does not pay rent to live in the house, the kid does not have his/her own jar of peanut butter and jelly or loaf of bread for sandwiches. If child support goes to pay the mortgage, that's fine. It is still benefitting the child. If the child support is used to pay groceries for the whole family, okay. The child gets to eat too. If the money goes to car repairs, great. Even if the child is too young to drive, they need to be in a safe car (it should be noted that Mr. Freeman bought the mom a car as agreed so she would have a safe car to transport the child). It's about the KID and all the things that go into raising and caring for a child. It's not about accounting.
Here's the other reality check for payors and payees alike -- for most cases, the child support is not nearly enough to really support the child. The good folks in the legislators who draw up the child support guidelines know that they are just making a best guess as to how to provide for the child. Child Support is not the end of the support for the child. At least in Maryland, the principle is both parents are expected to support the child. The child support payment is that parent's share of the support. The non-paying parent still has a duty to provide support for the child. They just aren't writing a check to the other parent for it. But, yes, raising a child means using some of your own money to support the child.
Back to Mr. Freeman. The trial court in this case was not amused to hear that the child got a lot of new shoes and clothes every month. Nor did they think N'Sync concerts were necessary to a child. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed. There is a difference between a child's "needs" and a child's "necessities." Necessities are food, clothing and shelter. And sometimes that is all parents can afford to provide. But in this case, the child was the child of a professional athlete who was making $1.2 million at the time of the agreement and was now making $3.2 million. It's a cruel fact of life that rich parents can provide more things for the child than poor parents.
Should child support be the great leveler and only provide for support at the most basic level for all children? Of course not. The justices of the CSA ruled that the "child is entitled to the standard of living of the economic position of the parents." Rich kids are entitled to a better standard living than poor parents. Perhaps "entitled" is not the best word. But, children should not be punished just because their parents happen to be rich. It is not the child's fault that the parents make more money than other kids' parents. It's life. To order less child support just because another child won't get as much makes no sense.
Because disparity of incomes mean child support is different in each case, so too do the needs of the child expand when there is more money to spend on non-necessities. The child attends private school, presumably with other children of wealth. Should she not be allowed to attend the same events, participate in the same extra-curricular activities just because her mother receives child support than the other children in the school? Of course not. Remember this is about the KID. It's about making sure the child has the appropriate lifestyle. In this case, this should be entitled to the same lifestyle as other children of professional athletes.
Of course, some would argue that because the parents were never married, the child never was used to the father's wealthy lifestyle. Bah humbug. Do I really have to say who it is about again? It is not about Mom and Dad and their relationship. Again, the child should not be punished just because Mom and Dad never married. It's 2012. Newsflash, there are unmarried parents out there. The child should not be relegated to the economic level of the mother just because that is who she lives with. She has a rich dad. She is entitled to that benefit. So what if once the parents were married. By the time you get to child support, the parents aren't living together anyway. So should children of married parents be reduced to the standard of living of the parent who gets custody, if it is less than the other parent? Or should the wealthy parent get custody just on the basis of wealth? Think about that for a minute. Again, the kids would be harmed based on what the parents did.
One of Mr. Freeman's arguements was that his career would be short as a professional athlete. This case was decided in 2002, he retired from the Packers in 2007. The court reasoned it is even more important to have high child support now because of it, rather than using it as an excuse to keep child support low. The idea being the Mother would save some of the money now for the child's care later (hey, one can hope). That is why the college fund needed to be established now because he might not have the funds later. However, his career has no more guarantees than any other career. As a lawyer, I could conceivably practice until my mind goes (let the easy jokes go people). However, there is no guarantee how long that will be. I could be hit by a bus tomorrow -- and the way I drive it is not that far fetched. No person paying child support has a guarantee of making the same income in the future. That's why one can petition for a downward modification as well as an upward modification. It's not just the person who is receiving the support who has the right to petition for modification. The person paying also has that right if there is a change. If one loses one job, or is cut by the team, one can request the court modify the support at that time. But there is no point doing it prospectively, none of us know the future -- not even the courts.
In sum, if you have the money pay up for your child's sake.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year's Resolution
Got a little behind in posting. My trial schedule was a little unbelievable. Then I was too exhausted over the holidays to do anything. Sorry about that.
Here's what I missed:
Kobe Bryant's wife filed for divorce. Apparently there was no pre-nup. All I gotta say on that one is "What an idiot." The guy makes millions because of his unique ability to play basketball, yet he does not protect his ass -ets by having a pre-nup. This is the wife he had a lot of explaining to do back in 2004, that one cost him a big old ring. This divorce could cost him even more.
Floyd Mayweather is sentenced to 90 days in jail for domestic violence. Well, it's a start. But 90 days is hardly getting tough on the crime of domestic violence. He must report to jail by January 6. Happy New Year, Floyd.
Okay, there are probably other stories. I promise to do better in 2012. More stories (provided the athletes cooperate), more analysis. All provided in a timely analysis.
Hope 2012 is a wonderful year for everyone.
Here's what I missed:
Kobe Bryant's wife filed for divorce. Apparently there was no pre-nup. All I gotta say on that one is "What an idiot." The guy makes millions because of his unique ability to play basketball, yet he does not protect his ass -ets by having a pre-nup. This is the wife he had a lot of explaining to do back in 2004, that one cost him a big old ring. This divorce could cost him even more.
Floyd Mayweather is sentenced to 90 days in jail for domestic violence. Well, it's a start. But 90 days is hardly getting tough on the crime of domestic violence. He must report to jail by January 6. Happy New Year, Floyd.
Okay, there are probably other stories. I promise to do better in 2012. More stories (provided the athletes cooperate), more analysis. All provided in a timely analysis.
Hope 2012 is a wonderful year for everyone.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Priorites People
So, TO has a bench warrant out for missing a child support hearing appearance. Bench warrants are not "no big deal" as his attorney claims. You can be arrested, you can be sent to jail. These are not good things.
Why did he miss the court appearance? It was the date of his open workout. His attorney claims the point of the workout was to get a new contract so he could have income to pay his child support. Which sounds good in theory. Except the man had a myriad of dates to choose from for his workout. He didn't have to pick the one day he was supposed to be in court. That's ignoring the fact no one showed for his workout anyway.
The Court is looking for responsbility where kids are concerned. If you can't even be bothered to arrange your schedule to make a hearing, the court does not want to hear any excuse from you. Court takes priority over pretty much anything else. You be in court or they MAKE you be in court -- often in an ugly orange jumpsuit.
According to his attorney, the child support is based on his old contract with the Cowboys from 2007. Now, TO has not played for the Cowboys since at least 2008 (don't make me look it up, I try to forget those years in Dallas). His last contract with the Bengals was nowhere near that much. Why hasn't he requested a modification long before this? Then he could have had his workout and his court date.
Now, that he is missed a court date? Court is not going to be sympathetic to his pleas of poverty. Especially when its his four kids who are paying for dad's irresponsibility.
Why did he miss the court appearance? It was the date of his open workout. His attorney claims the point of the workout was to get a new contract so he could have income to pay his child support. Which sounds good in theory. Except the man had a myriad of dates to choose from for his workout. He didn't have to pick the one day he was supposed to be in court. That's ignoring the fact no one showed for his workout anyway.
The Court is looking for responsbility where kids are concerned. If you can't even be bothered to arrange your schedule to make a hearing, the court does not want to hear any excuse from you. Court takes priority over pretty much anything else. You be in court or they MAKE you be in court -- often in an ugly orange jumpsuit.
According to his attorney, the child support is based on his old contract with the Cowboys from 2007. Now, TO has not played for the Cowboys since at least 2008 (don't make me look it up, I try to forget those years in Dallas). His last contract with the Bengals was nowhere near that much. Why hasn't he requested a modification long before this? Then he could have had his workout and his court date.
Now, that he is missed a court date? Court is not going to be sympathetic to his pleas of poverty. Especially when its his four kids who are paying for dad's irresponsibility.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Could Football Have a McCourt Problem?
On Friday, I had the honor of meeting and speaking to Richard Cass, the President of the Baltimore Ravens. He was the keynote speaker at a conference I was attending. I also got a chance to speak to him at the reception after the conference. He even shook my hand. Squeeing like a fan girl would not have been professional, but I really wanted to do so.
During his speech, Mr. Cass mentioned that one of the cool things about the NFL was that it was basically 31 family owned teams -- and Green Bay which is community owned. It makes it easier to know who is in charge of the team and makes for a different attitude towards the business of football. Now some could argue that the idea of an NFL team as a Mom and Pop business is long gone. Let the business blogs argue that one out. This is a family law blog.
Which brings up my concern. If the team is family owned, what happens when the family disintegrates? What happens when Mom and Pop split up? We also saw what happened to the Dodgers in the McCourt divorce (quick note, that one finally settled - Frank got the team, Jami got cash, MLB still ticked at everyone involved).
I asked Mr. Cass that very question. He very graciously answered me. Seriously, the guy is super nice and approachable. He said it was unlikely to happen because the teams are not business where you have to sort out shares, etc. In the NFL one person has to own at least 30% and one person has to have total voting control. He also mentioned that the NFL has debt limits rules to keep a team's finances from getting too out of whack.
All that may be true, but Mr. Cass is clearly not a family law attorney. I hate to disagree with such a great guy, but I just don't see how these things save a team from a McCourt style fight over ownership. I raised these issues in a previous post of the Blank divorce and the Falcons.
Yes, the teams are family owned. But to keep the families from being personally liable for the debts of a team, they tend to be corporations or limited liability partnerships. One person may have voting control, but they are still businesses.
Businesses get divided in divorces ALL the time. A spouse may have made monetary contributions to the business. A spouse may have made non-monetary contributions such as working at the business without pay or even just making sure the face of the business has a clean shirt and ate recently. All of these factors go into dividing up a business.
In community property states such as California or Texas, the law may consider the teams to be comunity property automatically entitling the spouse to half. This would effect 5 teams in the NFL -- the Chargers, the 49ers, the Raiders, the Texans and the Cowboys. Other states may also be community property states.
Marital property states, such as Maryland where the Ravens are based, would consider whether marital funds were used to purchase or maintain the team. Marital funds are any money earned during the course of the marriage (with some exceptions). In a marital property state, the court would consider the contributions of each spouse, the source of the funds, and what an equitable distribution of the property would be.
It is conceivable that a court may consider a team part of the community/marital property subject to division in th event of a divorce. A court is not really going to care about the NFL bylaws -- except for possibly guidance on how teams are owned, structured and what the League might do in the event of a court fight. But, the NFL bylaws are not the law of the land. A judge is bound to apply the rules of the state in which the court hearing the divorce is located.
All is not lost. The team is probably not the only asset of the divorcing couple. They most likely have other assets in the pot of community/marital property that need to be divided up. Contrary to popular belief, it is not half of everything as in half of each thing. It is half (or whatever figure) of the total. So in this situation, a judge realizing the NFL really frowns on split ownership (remember guidance of the bylaws) such that frowning could result in the complete loss of the asset to both parties, will most likely give the team to one party and more cash and other assets to the other party. In other words, one spouse gets the team and the other spouse gets more of the other goodies in the pot.
Of course, the problem arises when BOTH spouses want to control the team. A judge is probably not going to divide ownership -- even without the bylaws -- because that would require the spouses to continue working together. If they got along, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. A judge would have to choose between the spouses. Some very fancy lawyering would have to go on here. If someone is determined to keep ownership of a team in event of a divorce and can afford to keep fighting, this would go to trial.
In summary, sorry, Mr. Cass, I can see a prolonged court fight over control of a team despite all the rules the NFL has in place. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't meant it won't.
During his speech, Mr. Cass mentioned that one of the cool things about the NFL was that it was basically 31 family owned teams -- and Green Bay which is community owned. It makes it easier to know who is in charge of the team and makes for a different attitude towards the business of football. Now some could argue that the idea of an NFL team as a Mom and Pop business is long gone. Let the business blogs argue that one out. This is a family law blog.
Which brings up my concern. If the team is family owned, what happens when the family disintegrates? What happens when Mom and Pop split up? We also saw what happened to the Dodgers in the McCourt divorce (quick note, that one finally settled - Frank got the team, Jami got cash, MLB still ticked at everyone involved).
I asked Mr. Cass that very question. He very graciously answered me. Seriously, the guy is super nice and approachable. He said it was unlikely to happen because the teams are not business where you have to sort out shares, etc. In the NFL one person has to own at least 30% and one person has to have total voting control. He also mentioned that the NFL has debt limits rules to keep a team's finances from getting too out of whack.
All that may be true, but Mr. Cass is clearly not a family law attorney. I hate to disagree with such a great guy, but I just don't see how these things save a team from a McCourt style fight over ownership. I raised these issues in a previous post of the Blank divorce and the Falcons.
Yes, the teams are family owned. But to keep the families from being personally liable for the debts of a team, they tend to be corporations or limited liability partnerships. One person may have voting control, but they are still businesses.
Businesses get divided in divorces ALL the time. A spouse may have made monetary contributions to the business. A spouse may have made non-monetary contributions such as working at the business without pay or even just making sure the face of the business has a clean shirt and ate recently. All of these factors go into dividing up a business.
In community property states such as California or Texas, the law may consider the teams to be comunity property automatically entitling the spouse to half. This would effect 5 teams in the NFL -- the Chargers, the 49ers, the Raiders, the Texans and the Cowboys. Other states may also be community property states.
Marital property states, such as Maryland where the Ravens are based, would consider whether marital funds were used to purchase or maintain the team. Marital funds are any money earned during the course of the marriage (with some exceptions). In a marital property state, the court would consider the contributions of each spouse, the source of the funds, and what an equitable distribution of the property would be.
It is conceivable that a court may consider a team part of the community/marital property subject to division in th event of a divorce. A court is not really going to care about the NFL bylaws -- except for possibly guidance on how teams are owned, structured and what the League might do in the event of a court fight. But, the NFL bylaws are not the law of the land. A judge is bound to apply the rules of the state in which the court hearing the divorce is located.
All is not lost. The team is probably not the only asset of the divorcing couple. They most likely have other assets in the pot of community/marital property that need to be divided up. Contrary to popular belief, it is not half of everything as in half of each thing. It is half (or whatever figure) of the total. So in this situation, a judge realizing the NFL really frowns on split ownership (remember guidance of the bylaws) such that frowning could result in the complete loss of the asset to both parties, will most likely give the team to one party and more cash and other assets to the other party. In other words, one spouse gets the team and the other spouse gets more of the other goodies in the pot.
Of course, the problem arises when BOTH spouses want to control the team. A judge is probably not going to divide ownership -- even without the bylaws -- because that would require the spouses to continue working together. If they got along, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. A judge would have to choose between the spouses. Some very fancy lawyering would have to go on here. If someone is determined to keep ownership of a team in event of a divorce and can afford to keep fighting, this would go to trial.
In summary, sorry, Mr. Cass, I can see a prolonged court fight over control of a team despite all the rules the NFL has in place. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't meant it won't.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The Pain of Divorce
Last night I was working at a pro bono clinic. Slow night due to all the rain we have had. Another attorney -- who does not do family law -- and I were talking. He mentioned some scene in Entourage (a show I have not scene) where the agent says he would murder his wife rather than go through the pain of divorce.
Now, I get it. Divorce is horribly painful -- both emotionally and financially. It is basically saying that the people once in love now can't stand to live together. All that warm fuzzy love turns to cold prickly hate. It can get messy, even for the most calm, mature person.
Then there is the financial aspect. You gotta decide who gets what and how much. If you worked hard to develop your skills to advance in your chosen profession, it really sucks to hand half of it to someone else. (Of course most people ignore the help the other spouse provided so that you could develop the skills to advance in your chosen profession).
But murder? Really? That is the better choice?
Let's compare for a moment the two options.
Divorce:
Dividing up the stuff. Sure your spouse gets half (for the sake of simplicity, we are going with a straight division of property, MMV in each particular case). But only the half that was earned up to the date of the divorce. After that, you got all the rest of your life to accumulate more -- that your ex can't have. If you do remarry -- Prenup is a really good idea to protect your new stuff.
Alimony. Maryland has moved away from permanent alimony, and I believe so have most states. Permanent alimony was a check to the spouse for the rest of the spouse's life or until the spouse remarried. Not a lot of incentive to move on with one's life there. Now, the courts favor something called rehabilitative alimony. Rehabilitative alimony is only for a limited time until the spouse can get back on his/her feet and become self-supporting. Incentive to get off one's butt and work, because the checks won't keep coming forever. There are a lot of factors to consider in determining rehabilitative alimony: length of marriage, age of kids if any, skills of the spouse, time needed to acquire a job or skills to become self-supporting. But, the key here is that it ends at a definite date. It is over eventually. Then you never have to pay the spouse again. Your ex can't come back and say "Oh I know I was supposed to be self-supporting by now, but I'm not, keep paying."
In summary: After a painful period of time, the divorce is over and you get to go on with your life, accumulating more stuff and keeping the money you earn.
Murder
You will get caught. You will go to jail for the rest of your life. You will not have the opportunity to enjoy all the stuff you managed to keep your spouse from having, you will not have any money to spend because you lost your job because you went to jail. You will have no opportunity to recover from this because you will most likely die in jail.
In summary: You never get a chance to recover from being an idiot for thinking murder was a good option.
Did I make that clear for everyone?
One final note: bet a family law lawyer is cheaper than a criminal lawyer in the long run too.
Now, I get it. Divorce is horribly painful -- both emotionally and financially. It is basically saying that the people once in love now can't stand to live together. All that warm fuzzy love turns to cold prickly hate. It can get messy, even for the most calm, mature person.
Then there is the financial aspect. You gotta decide who gets what and how much. If you worked hard to develop your skills to advance in your chosen profession, it really sucks to hand half of it to someone else. (Of course most people ignore the help the other spouse provided so that you could develop the skills to advance in your chosen profession).
But murder? Really? That is the better choice?
Let's compare for a moment the two options.
Divorce:
Dividing up the stuff. Sure your spouse gets half (for the sake of simplicity, we are going with a straight division of property, MMV in each particular case). But only the half that was earned up to the date of the divorce. After that, you got all the rest of your life to accumulate more -- that your ex can't have. If you do remarry -- Prenup is a really good idea to protect your new stuff.
Alimony. Maryland has moved away from permanent alimony, and I believe so have most states. Permanent alimony was a check to the spouse for the rest of the spouse's life or until the spouse remarried. Not a lot of incentive to move on with one's life there. Now, the courts favor something called rehabilitative alimony. Rehabilitative alimony is only for a limited time until the spouse can get back on his/her feet and become self-supporting. Incentive to get off one's butt and work, because the checks won't keep coming forever. There are a lot of factors to consider in determining rehabilitative alimony: length of marriage, age of kids if any, skills of the spouse, time needed to acquire a job or skills to become self-supporting. But, the key here is that it ends at a definite date. It is over eventually. Then you never have to pay the spouse again. Your ex can't come back and say "Oh I know I was supposed to be self-supporting by now, but I'm not, keep paying."
In summary: After a painful period of time, the divorce is over and you get to go on with your life, accumulating more stuff and keeping the money you earn.
Murder
You will get caught. You will go to jail for the rest of your life. You will not have the opportunity to enjoy all the stuff you managed to keep your spouse from having, you will not have any money to spend because you lost your job because you went to jail. You will have no opportunity to recover from this because you will most likely die in jail.
In summary: You never get a chance to recover from being an idiot for thinking murder was a good option.
Did I make that clear for everyone?
One final note: bet a family law lawyer is cheaper than a criminal lawyer in the long run too.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Another Divorce, Another Team
It was announced today that Arthur Blank and his wife of 16 years are separating. Arthur Blank is the owner of the Atlanta Falcons. He married his current wife in 1995 and bought the team in 2002. The press release said the separation will have no effect on his business enterprises.
The last time this happened was the McCourt divorce which engulfed the Dodgers. The mess got so bad that MLB had to take over running the team.
Most NFL teams are owned by corporations, although NFL Bylaws require one person to have majority ownership. The NFL wants one person making the decisions. That person might then incorporate in order to protect assets or for other business reasons. So, it sounds like everything would be protected in the event of a divorce.
I reached out to a friend who is a Georgia lawyer to see if GA is a community property state (He's also a Falcons fan). No word yet from him on the news.
If Georgia is a community property state and he bought the team with marital funds, even if he incorporated, she has rights to the team. (Or some share of it). Here's why. There might be a corporation that owns the Falcons. But corporations issues shares. If his shares have any value, they are a marital asset. Which means they can be divided in the event of a divorce. If GA is a marital property state, same thing essentially.
Now, it is possible that Blank bought the team with separate funds earned before the parties married. If the source of the funds for buying the team can be traced to separate -- not marital -- property, then the team is free and clear.
Also, it is possible that unlike Jami McCourt, Mrs. Blank wants nothing to do with running a team. She may relinquish her interest in the team in exchange for some other financial consideration. Happens all the time in divorces. Okay, usually not sports teams, but there is always something that someone really wants.
That is why practicing family law is so much fun. You can get creative. You can negotiate and think outside the box to reach a solution agreeable to all parties. You don't have to go to court and pursue a scorched earth strategy. In fact, court is not a good place to get what you want. The court is bound by statutes, precedent and other considerations. There may limits to what a court can grant. But, a really good family law attorney can reach an agreement that a court could not grant, but is still enforceable and acceptable.
Here's hoping the Blanks go the peaceful route not the McCourt route. Football just survived one nasty court fight, it does not need another one.
The last time this happened was the McCourt divorce which engulfed the Dodgers. The mess got so bad that MLB had to take over running the team.
Most NFL teams are owned by corporations, although NFL Bylaws require one person to have majority ownership. The NFL wants one person making the decisions. That person might then incorporate in order to protect assets or for other business reasons. So, it sounds like everything would be protected in the event of a divorce.
I reached out to a friend who is a Georgia lawyer to see if GA is a community property state (He's also a Falcons fan). No word yet from him on the news.
If Georgia is a community property state and he bought the team with marital funds, even if he incorporated, she has rights to the team. (Or some share of it). Here's why. There might be a corporation that owns the Falcons. But corporations issues shares. If his shares have any value, they are a marital asset. Which means they can be divided in the event of a divorce. If GA is a marital property state, same thing essentially.
Now, it is possible that Blank bought the team with separate funds earned before the parties married. If the source of the funds for buying the team can be traced to separate -- not marital -- property, then the team is free and clear.
Also, it is possible that unlike Jami McCourt, Mrs. Blank wants nothing to do with running a team. She may relinquish her interest in the team in exchange for some other financial consideration. Happens all the time in divorces. Okay, usually not sports teams, but there is always something that someone really wants.
That is why practicing family law is so much fun. You can get creative. You can negotiate and think outside the box to reach a solution agreeable to all parties. You don't have to go to court and pursue a scorched earth strategy. In fact, court is not a good place to get what you want. The court is bound by statutes, precedent and other considerations. There may limits to what a court can grant. But, a really good family law attorney can reach an agreement that a court could not grant, but is still enforceable and acceptable.
Here's hoping the Blanks go the peaceful route not the McCourt route. Football just survived one nasty court fight, it does not need another one.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Shut the Heck Up
Gilbert Arenas lost his bid to keep his ex-girlfriend/fiance from appearing on the show Basketball Wives (a misnomer of a reality show as all the participants are ex-wives or ex-girlfriends of b-ball players). One of his arguments in asking for the injunction was the invasion of his privacy that would occur if the ex were allowed on the show to complain about him. The judge found that this claim was so much noise signifying nothing. Specifically, Arenas has a twitter account -- with allegedly thousands of followers -- from which he tweets constantly about his personal life. In other words, you can't claim your personal life is personal if you splash it all over the internet.
Newsflash: the internet is not private.
Everything you post on the internet is public. Someone somewhere will see it. Even if you have "privacy" settings, do the people who have access to your "private" account also have privacy settings? Do their friends? And so on and so on and so on. If you post it, they will see it.
This is true for celebrities with thousands of twitter followers and true for folks with all of 5 friends on Facebook. Let me repeat: the internet is not private.
If you are going through a custody/divorce/child support, do not post on facebook, twitter, google+ or anyplace on the internet anything about your ex. Just don't. Smart attorneys (like me) will get that information and use it against you. The judge won't buy your argument of "I was just venting, I didn't think anyone would see it."
Besides, do you want your kids to see what you posted about the other parent or have their friends see it? It doesn't help the situation, can only hurt it, so just don't do it. Resist the temptation to "get even."
If you have been so foolish as to do post all over the internet what a jerkface your ex is, do not then try to remove it. You can bet your last pleading that someone already screen captured the posting and sent it to your ex. Who then helpfully forwarded it to the lawyer. Now, they can bring up something called "spoliation of evidence" meaning you destroyed possible evidence in the case. This is a very bad thing to have happen.
One last thing about the internet, do not friend your ex, or have your friends do so for you just to gather incriminating evidence. Yeah, it sounds like a good idea. In practice it 1) doesn't help things at all and 2) just makes you look petty and vindicative in court. As an attorney, I really try to avoid having my clients look petty and vindicative.
In short -- SHUT THE HELL UP. It will help your case much better than any posting anywhere on the internet you can make.
Newsflash: the internet is not private.
Everything you post on the internet is public. Someone somewhere will see it. Even if you have "privacy" settings, do the people who have access to your "private" account also have privacy settings? Do their friends? And so on and so on and so on. If you post it, they will see it.
This is true for celebrities with thousands of twitter followers and true for folks with all of 5 friends on Facebook. Let me repeat: the internet is not private.
If you are going through a custody/divorce/child support, do not post on facebook, twitter, google+ or anyplace on the internet anything about your ex. Just don't. Smart attorneys (like me) will get that information and use it against you. The judge won't buy your argument of "I was just venting, I didn't think anyone would see it."
Besides, do you want your kids to see what you posted about the other parent or have their friends see it? It doesn't help the situation, can only hurt it, so just don't do it. Resist the temptation to "get even."
If you have been so foolish as to do post all over the internet what a jerkface your ex is, do not then try to remove it. You can bet your last pleading that someone already screen captured the posting and sent it to your ex. Who then helpfully forwarded it to the lawyer. Now, they can bring up something called "spoliation of evidence" meaning you destroyed possible evidence in the case. This is a very bad thing to have happen.
One last thing about the internet, do not friend your ex, or have your friends do so for you just to gather incriminating evidence. Yeah, it sounds like a good idea. In practice it 1) doesn't help things at all and 2) just makes you look petty and vindicative in court. As an attorney, I really try to avoid having my clients look petty and vindicative.
In short -- SHUT THE HELL UP. It will help your case much better than any posting anywhere on the internet you can make.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Record Setting Child Support Hearing
Okay, this one is not about celebrities, but I couldn't believe it when I read it. It is record setting not because of the amount. $14K in back child support is nothing these days. It's how long the case has gone on. The divorce was finalized in 1977. Yeah, last century.
Apparently, when the couple split, Dad agreed to pay Mom $14K in child support and half of the sale of the house. He sold the house and kept all the money. Mom has been fighting ever since. She lost on everything related to not getting the money from the house. I don't know why. Then she found out that child support enforcement has no statute of limitations. I can bet Dad thought with the kids grown, he was home free. Dad thought wrong. With interest and penalties it is now over 100K he owes*.
He could have been over and done with it long ago. Now he is 77 years old and still dealing with it. I know I don't want to still be dealing with old debts when I am 77.
Mom is not exactly into moving on either. She is still apparently bitter over the divorce. Telling your ex he is "stuck on stupid" is really not a good way to resolve things. Folks tend to get less agreeable the more you call them stupid. I want to know how she has afforded a lawyer all these years. At some point, realizing a contingency fee was not going to come through (you can take collection on a contingency fee, not the custody proceedings), the attorney was going to want something for the time and effort spent. Attorneys only have their time and effort to sell, it deserves reasonable compensation.
The moral here: pay your child support when incurred, unless you want your social security garnished. The other moral: name calling is incredibly unhelpful in family law proceedings.
* I have no idea why the tax refunds were not withheld. Guess no one thought to do that, even though it is routine now.
Apparently, when the couple split, Dad agreed to pay Mom $14K in child support and half of the sale of the house. He sold the house and kept all the money. Mom has been fighting ever since. She lost on everything related to not getting the money from the house. I don't know why. Then she found out that child support enforcement has no statute of limitations. I can bet Dad thought with the kids grown, he was home free. Dad thought wrong. With interest and penalties it is now over 100K he owes*.
He could have been over and done with it long ago. Now he is 77 years old and still dealing with it. I know I don't want to still be dealing with old debts when I am 77.
Mom is not exactly into moving on either. She is still apparently bitter over the divorce. Telling your ex he is "stuck on stupid" is really not a good way to resolve things. Folks tend to get less agreeable the more you call them stupid. I want to know how she has afforded a lawyer all these years. At some point, realizing a contingency fee was not going to come through (you can take collection on a contingency fee, not the custody proceedings), the attorney was going to want something for the time and effort spent. Attorneys only have their time and effort to sell, it deserves reasonable compensation.
The moral here: pay your child support when incurred, unless you want your social security garnished. The other moral: name calling is incredibly unhelpful in family law proceedings.
* I have no idea why the tax refunds were not withheld. Guess no one thought to do that, even though it is routine now.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
McCourts in Court - Update
UPDATE: I knew I should have posted this sooner. MLB rejected the tv deal today 6/20/11. Bud Selig said it would benefit Frank personally too much. This voids the settlement. The War of the McCourts is back on. Again, the lawyers should have planned for this obvious contingency.
They are defintely going back to Court. The McCourts have agreed to have a trial. Umm, that is usually what happens when they can't agree. An agreement usually avoids a trial.
Apparently, the McCourts are so hung up on who owns the Dodgers (not a lot of argument over anything else) that all they could agree to was to have a one day trial on whether or not the team is community property. If it is community property, Frank can buy Jamie out. If it is separate property, then Jamie gets $100 million and all the houses. No word on what happens to the houses if the team is community property.
Of there are asterisks all over the place. First of all, MLB must approve the settlement. Considering Bud Selig is not happy with the McCourts right now, that is not a done deal. MLB must also approve the Fox TV deal so that Frank has the money to buy out Jami if necessary (they got SIX houses, surely unloading a couple of those might help his finances). See the previous sentence about Bud Selig's opinion of the McCourts.
Now most folks don't have a baseball team to argue over. But, you would be amazed at what people will argue over in a divorce. It's not about the object that is the point of contention. It's about not letting the other person have it. With a sports team, there is also the prestige of owning such a team. A prestige that can be denied to the spouse.
However, the key to remember in any divorce is not so much what you get, but the end goal. You want a divorce. You want this person out of your life. If you continue to fight, you still have to interact with the person. Which can be the other person's motivation. By refusing to engage, you get what you really want -- freedom -- and deny the other person their desire -- continued interaction.
This does not mean be a doormat. But it does mean sometimes walking away rather than continuing to fight. Sometimes keeping the bigger picture in mind is the best strategy.
Someone tell the McCourts this (but not their expensive lawyers who don't even know how to hit print more than once).
They are defintely going back to Court. The McCourts have agreed to have a trial. Umm, that is usually what happens when they can't agree. An agreement usually avoids a trial.
Apparently, the McCourts are so hung up on who owns the Dodgers (not a lot of argument over anything else) that all they could agree to was to have a one day trial on whether or not the team is community property. If it is community property, Frank can buy Jamie out. If it is separate property, then Jamie gets $100 million and all the houses. No word on what happens to the houses if the team is community property.
Of there are asterisks all over the place. First of all, MLB must approve the settlement. Considering Bud Selig is not happy with the McCourts right now, that is not a done deal. MLB must also approve the Fox TV deal so that Frank has the money to buy out Jami if necessary (they got SIX houses, surely unloading a couple of those might help his finances). See the previous sentence about Bud Selig's opinion of the McCourts.
Now most folks don't have a baseball team to argue over. But, you would be amazed at what people will argue over in a divorce. It's not about the object that is the point of contention. It's about not letting the other person have it. With a sports team, there is also the prestige of owning such a team. A prestige that can be denied to the spouse.
However, the key to remember in any divorce is not so much what you get, but the end goal. You want a divorce. You want this person out of your life. If you continue to fight, you still have to interact with the person. Which can be the other person's motivation. By refusing to engage, you get what you really want -- freedom -- and deny the other person their desire -- continued interaction.
This does not mean be a doormat. But it does mean sometimes walking away rather than continuing to fight. Sometimes keeping the bigger picture in mind is the best strategy.
Someone tell the McCourts this (but not their expensive lawyers who don't even know how to hit print more than once).
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
What's Old is New -- Athletes and Child Support
While researching what expenses should be considered when calculating child support, I ran across this case:
Jackson v. Proctor
Seems Mr. Jackson and Ms. Proctor were the proud parents of a little girl. Well, Ms. Proctor was proud. Dad was trying to cheapskate the child support. Mom was a full time student. Dad played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. At the time of the filing for child support in 1997, Dad was making 18K a month. The final order required him to pay $2500 a month in child support*. He complained that was too much and was unfair.
Let's do the math. 18,000 - 2500 = 15500. In Maryland (yay, a case in the state where I am licensed) child support is calculated before taxes. Even taking out taxes, that leaves a lot left over for living expenses -- providing you aren't buying a lot of bling or big houses and cars. $2500 is a mere 13% of the Dad's monthly income.
This is what we love to call an "above the guidelines" case. The Guidelines are the chart of basic child support that the wise legislators in Annapolis decided was necessary to care for a child. It's a simple chart. You have income down one side (both parent's combined income since both parents are presumed to contribute to their child's support) and the number of children across the top. You figure the combined income, then go to the chart and find where the income cross the number of children. That's the basic child support amount. In 2010, the legislature finally updated the numbers for the first time in umpteen years. This case was decided under the "old" guidelines.
The problem is that the chart only goes up to so much per month. The old guidelines only went to $10K a month. The new ones go all the way up to $15K. If the parents' income is greater than the chart has, the judge has to go "above the guidelines" to determine the correct child support amount. Now, people much, much, much smarter than me and much, much, much more involved in the issue talk about parabolic curves and extrapolations and the like. All that gives me a headache. Basically, a judge has to determine what is the appropriate amount of child support to care for a child in a manner befitting the parent's lifestyle and income.
Sorry, its a fact of live, but a football player making 18K+ a month is going to have a better lifestyle than someone working at McDonald's. The child of the football player should have a corresponding better lifestyle -- whether the child lives with the football player or not. Parents are expects to support and care for their minor children (adult children are a whole other matter -- GET. A. JOB.)
Dad in this case though, wanted his offspring to live at Mom's lifestyle. He claimed that Mom didn't live that extravangantly so why should the child? Yes, Dad actually tried to argue that is was wrong that Mom lived within her means. Mom responded that she would provide the things a child of a football player should have, if she had the money to do so. Since Dad was not paying child support to allow her to do so, she could not.
The Court followed Mom's reasoning. They further did not take too kindly to Dad trying to stiff his own kid out of kid's activities. The Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest appellate court) agreed with the trial court.
Look, every parent paying child support believes the other parent is wasting the money on his/herself instead of spending it on the child. But, a well-paid athlete can afford to provide for his child's reasonable needs without getting too hung up on a little bit going to benefit mom too (like a better house in a safer neighborhood). If your child is cared for and protected, pay up. If not, ask for custody yourself.
But remember, it is for your kid. No matter how you get along with Mom, don't stiff your kid.
*This despite evidence his income had tripled since the original filing.
Jackson v. Proctor
Seems Mr. Jackson and Ms. Proctor were the proud parents of a little girl. Well, Ms. Proctor was proud. Dad was trying to cheapskate the child support. Mom was a full time student. Dad played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. At the time of the filing for child support in 1997, Dad was making 18K a month. The final order required him to pay $2500 a month in child support*. He complained that was too much and was unfair.
Let's do the math. 18,000 - 2500 = 15500. In Maryland (yay, a case in the state where I am licensed) child support is calculated before taxes. Even taking out taxes, that leaves a lot left over for living expenses -- providing you aren't buying a lot of bling or big houses and cars. $2500 is a mere 13% of the Dad's monthly income.
This is what we love to call an "above the guidelines" case. The Guidelines are the chart of basic child support that the wise legislators in Annapolis decided was necessary to care for a child. It's a simple chart. You have income down one side (both parent's combined income since both parents are presumed to contribute to their child's support) and the number of children across the top. You figure the combined income, then go to the chart and find where the income cross the number of children. That's the basic child support amount. In 2010, the legislature finally updated the numbers for the first time in umpteen years. This case was decided under the "old" guidelines.
The problem is that the chart only goes up to so much per month. The old guidelines only went to $10K a month. The new ones go all the way up to $15K. If the parents' income is greater than the chart has, the judge has to go "above the guidelines" to determine the correct child support amount. Now, people much, much, much smarter than me and much, much, much more involved in the issue talk about parabolic curves and extrapolations and the like. All that gives me a headache. Basically, a judge has to determine what is the appropriate amount of child support to care for a child in a manner befitting the parent's lifestyle and income.
Sorry, its a fact of live, but a football player making 18K+ a month is going to have a better lifestyle than someone working at McDonald's. The child of the football player should have a corresponding better lifestyle -- whether the child lives with the football player or not. Parents are expects to support and care for their minor children (adult children are a whole other matter -- GET. A. JOB.)
Dad in this case though, wanted his offspring to live at Mom's lifestyle. He claimed that Mom didn't live that extravangantly so why should the child? Yes, Dad actually tried to argue that is was wrong that Mom lived within her means. Mom responded that she would provide the things a child of a football player should have, if she had the money to do so. Since Dad was not paying child support to allow her to do so, she could not.
The Court followed Mom's reasoning. They further did not take too kindly to Dad trying to stiff his own kid out of kid's activities. The Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest appellate court) agreed with the trial court.
Look, every parent paying child support believes the other parent is wasting the money on his/herself instead of spending it on the child. But, a well-paid athlete can afford to provide for his child's reasonable needs without getting too hung up on a little bit going to benefit mom too (like a better house in a safer neighborhood). If your child is cared for and protected, pay up. If not, ask for custody yourself.
But remember, it is for your kid. No matter how you get along with Mom, don't stiff your kid.
*This despite evidence his income had tripled since the original filing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)