(a) Facts: The parties were divorced in 2006. The divorce decree, which incorporated a separation agreement, ordered the husband to maintain any employer-provided life insurance policies for the benefit of the parties’ daughter until her emancipation.
(a) Facts: The parties were divorced in Delaware in 1995. The trial court divided the husband’s pension and ordered the wife to prepare a DRO. No DRO was ever signed.
(a) Facts: A husband divorced in Utah. A Utah state court entered at least two DROs dividing retirement benefits, each time reserving jurisdiction to amend the order in the future. The plan qualified the DROs.
Kirkpatrick v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2018-20, 2018 WL 1040955 (2018)
(a) Facts: The wife sued the husband for divorce in Maryland. A Maryland court issued a pendente lite order, providing for temporary support. In addition, the order required the husband to “transfer to Ms. Kirkpatrick the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) directly (and in a non‑taxable transaction) into an IRA appropriately titled in Ms. Kirkpatrick’s name” and to “pay to the Plaintiff a lump sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) . . . for Pendente Lite Attorney’s Fees and Suit Money.” 2018 WL 1040955, at *4. The parties were eventually divorced.
(a) Facts: The parties divorced in Florida in 2011. While the divorce was pending, the husband was in the process of liquidating his business, Vicis Capital, LLC. He received, while the action was pending, $4.7 million in distributions.
(a) Facts: When the parties were divorced, the husband agreed to pay the wife $2,400 per month in alimony. Twenty-four years later, the husband filed an action against the wife in federal court for breach of contract, arguing that he had overpaid alimony and that the wife was required to return the overpayment. The action was dismissed quickly as time-barred.
(a) Facts: The parties entered into a premarital agreement. The agreement provided, among other things, that the wife would receive, upon divorce, a lump sum of $100,000, plus $10,000 for each year the parties were married.
(a) Facts: A husband and wife signed a separation agreement to settle a California divorce case. In a section entitled “Spousal Support,” the agreement awarded the wife $7,000 per month, stating expressly that it would end upon either party’s death.
(a) Facts: The parties were divorced in Illinois. The wife remained in the former marital home, and the husband was ordered to pay the mortgage. Upon an eventual sale of the home, the parties were to split the net proceeds. Continue reading →
As has been widely reported, Congress has repealed I.R.C. §§ 71 and 215, thereby eliminating the federal tax reduction for alimony. In addition, Congress has repealed former I.R.C. § 61(a)(8), which expressly defined alimony as taxable income. Continue reading →
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog