Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Is No-Fault Divorce a Good Thing? It may soon be the law in all 50 states.

According to a New York Times article, the New York State legislature recently approved legislation that would allow No-Fault divorces in New York. The state of New York is the last state that still requires one spouse to have committed a wrong (or at least to take the blame) for the dissolution of a marriage.

Many, including the Roman Catholic Church, oppose the change because they believe it will raise the divorce rates in New York. Interestingly, the divorce rates in New York, though low compared to all 50 states (ranking 33rd), are still higher than a state like Massachusetts where No-Fault Divorce has been the law for more than thirty years (3.4 per 1000 people per year in New York vs. 2.5 per 1000 people per year in Massachusetts according to StateMaster.com).

If No-Fault divorce doesn't cause a rise in divorce rates, then what is the impact?

According to a New York Times op-ed column, there are potential advantages a. The advantages include an 8-16% reduction in wife's suicide rates and a 30% reduction in domestic violence (according to a University of Pennsylvania report by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers). In addition, the ability of one participant to end the marriage can change the bargaining power in the relationship causing both partners to change how they view the marital relationship. This could cause either party to invest less in the marriage, or could cause both parties to be more attentive to unhappiness in the marriage.

A valuable impact of allowing no-fault divorce, though, can be the ability of more couples to use mediation. Because neither party needs to accept fault, they are more likely to try and work out their differences with a mediator than litigate their case. Increasing the number of mediations could be the single-most positive impact of no-fault divorce, because, as one study found, mediation increases the likelihood of settlement, improved co-parenting relationships between parents, and improved the relationship of non-custodial parents and their children.

Sounds like it's about time New York joined the other 49 states in offering a No-Fault option.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

How Much Will my Divorce cost? How Can I Pay for it?

The one question that everyone asks at the end of their initial divorce consultation is "how much is this going to cost?" And with good reason, because cost is a valid concern, especially for many of our clients who have lower or middle class incomes and lifestyles. Unfortunately, the answer is vague and unsatisfying because it depends on so many factors. I try to provide clients at the initial consult with some idea of what I expect the range to be for their case based on what I've learned during that brief time. But some of the factors are truly unpredictable, most significantly how much the other side wants to fight.

There are many ways to reduce the cost of a divorce. In some cases, where both parties are well-informed and willing to cooperate, mediation can be a cheaper option then hiring two lawyers for the whole process. Even if you both have attorneys, following the court Rules and providing documents and other information in a timely fashion can help reduce the costs. For example, just spending the time to draft a complete Financial Statement saves your attorney time having to walk you through each individual question.

Unfortunately, if your spouse does not cooperate with the court Rules and Orders by trying to hide assets, or delaying the disclosure of documents, the costs increase because your attorney has to do more work to chase down the information necessary to advise you. This can be frustrating for clients because it means they do not have control over some of the reasons that attorney's time (and therefore fees) can increase significantly. Because family court is a court of equity it is possible to request that the opposing party pay for fees that are due to their delay or wrongdoing, but often these requests are denied or ordered only partially.

So what do you do if you don't have the funds to pay for divorce counsel, or don't have access to the funds because your spouse controls the finances?

For those with significant marital estates, a recent New York Times article has highlighted the latest in divorce funding options: companies that invest in your divorce. Of course, these companies request a contingency fee in exchange for funding your legal fees (something which attorneys are not allowed to do in divorce cases pursuant to the ethics rules). Because they expect a contingency, these companies only invest in high asset cases, one of the owners describing their ideal case as one with two to five million dollars in marital assets.

For many of our clients and probably many of our readers, these figures are not realistic. However, if you cannot pay for a lawyer there are a number of options for you to still obtain legal advice. There are numerous legal aid services that you may qualify for, and there is a webpage that contains a directory of these services available in Massachusetts.

In addition, it is possible that the Judge will order your spouse to pay your legal fees if he or she has control over assets that would help you pay for counsel. This request will depend on the specific facts of your case and the availability of funds. You may be able to find an attorney who will take your case and file such a Motion based on a small retainer and the likelihood of receiving further funds.

Also, many attorneys offer a free initial consultation. Even if you are unable to eventually hire that attorney, the initial consultation could still provide you with invaluable information regarding your rights and obligations in a divorce case.

Finally, there is also a Lawyer-of-the-Day program in many courts in Massachusetts. As part of that program an attorney volunteers their time for the day to answer legal questions and help potential litigants fill out forms in the courthouse. If you plan to meet with the Lawyer of the Day try to get to the Courthouse early (it opens at 8:30 A.M.) because the line can fill up quickly on a busy day and sometimes they only stay until 3:00 P.M.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Divorce or Long-Term Separation: A Comparison.

According to a recent New York Times article, more couples are staying married in long-term separations instead of getting divorced.

There can be some advantages to staying married, even if separated. For some, their religious or family obligations make divorce impractical. For others, financial considerations can warrant staying married. If a couple continues to share finances, it can often be beneficial (at least for one of the parties) to stay married. But there are risks as well.

In Massachusetts, there is no such thing as a legal separation. This means that if you remain married, even if separated, then there are certain obligations and liabilities that continue. Although there is an action that allows for support in a separation (called a Complaint for Separate Support, Custody and Visitation), this action deals only with the issue of support, custody and visitation for parties living apart. A Separate Support action does not separate assets or debts, and does not address the ongoing obligations, such as joint liabilities.

Depending on the reasons that two people are staying together, long-term separation may make sense, but if your marriage is in reality broken down, you should at least consult with an attorney to know what effect long-term separation could have on your legal rights and obligations. As a simple example, property division and spousal support obligations can be significantly different based solely on the length of the marriage. If you are separated but remain married for a long period of time you could therefore end up with a completely different resolution if divorce was truly inevitable.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Financial Crisis? You are not alone.

Often people who are deep in debt, are more afraid to confront the reality of their situation than anything else. That fear can lead people to do things they never thought they would do: to stop opening their mail, to stop answering the phone for fear of dealing with bill collectors, or even to lie to their family and friends.

It is important to understand that you are not alone. You are not the first person to go through a crisis and there are resources out there to help you.

To read about how even an economic reporter fell into the trap of overusing credit check out this New York Times article: http://tinyurl.com/qukwpb.