Hughes v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-89, 2015 WL 2180505 (2015)
(a) Facts: A husband owned stock in a consulting business that was growing in value. He was afraid that if he retained the stock, his former wife would seek to reopen their divorce decree. He therefore gave the stock to his present wife. Continue reading →
Muniz v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-125, 2015 WL 4126356 (2015)
(a) Facts: A Florida separation agreement provided that the husband would pay wife $1,000 per month in alimony. The husband did not pay on time, and the court entered an enforcement order directing the husband to pay $6,000 in alimony due under the agreement. The husband paid this amount. Continue reading →
Milbourne v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-13, 2015 WL 393040 (2015)
(a) Facts: A husband and his wife separated. She proposed a separation agreement, which required him to pay $6,000 per month in alimony. The husband refused to sign this agreement, as he did not want to pay more than $2,500 per month in alimony.
The parties could not agree upon an amount of support and no agreement was initially signed. While the parties were negotiating, the husband paid the wife $36,000 in monthly payments of varying amounts, usually $2,000 but sometimes $4,000 or $5,000. After a total $36,000 had been paid, the parties signed an agreement calling for support of $4,500 per month, with certain possible future reductions.
Iglicki v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-80, 2015 WL 1886010 (2015)
(a) Facts: A Maryland separation agreement required a husband to pay $735 per month in child support to a wife. If the husband defaulted on child support, he would immediately become liable for $1,000 per month in spousal support. Liability would continue until the wife died, the husband died, or the husband made 36 payments. The agreement was incorporated into a Maryland divorce decree.
The husband defaulted on child support and thereby became liable for spousal support. The husband’s wages were eventually garnished by a Colorado court. He took an alimony deduction for the total amount paid. The IRS disallowed the alimony deduction and assessed a deficiency Continue reading →
Dear Carolyn,
My ex is posting all kinds of things about me on Facebook. She calls me names like bastard, devil, asshole, and you name it. She doesn’t even have privacy settings on her Facebook, so I fear that my (our) children who are ages 13 and 15 may somehow get access. She also said: “I hope to run my ex over with my car next time he comes for the children,” which I take as a threat. Can I stop this? I am filing a case for custody.
Dear Carolyn,
I am a mother of girls ages six and ten. I am separated, and I have half custody. I work hard, and the girls sometimes create havoc. I spanked the six-year-old with a belt, just like my mother did me. My church belief is “spare the rod and spoil the child.” Child Protective Services showed up at my house to investigate. Should I be concerned?
~Scared
1. Change your email address and password when you begin your family law case. Change your computer and cell phone, if possible. Electronic devices, computers, and cell phones can be serious “leaks” of information and strategy in your case.
This day, June 9, was one of the most interesting days of my life. Alosha and I were set to perform at the Kremlin Palace, in Star Duo—a one day show similar to Dance Legends in New York City. Dwight and I planned nothing else for the day as it would be full of getting ready for the show. Continue reading →
1. What is the date of marriage? Prior to October 2014, same-sex couples could not marry in North Carolina. But what date of marriage will North Carolina recognize if the same-sex couple was earlier married or entered into a civil union in some other state before October 2014? The date of marriage is obviously critical in equitable distribution as marital property is created from the date of marriage to the date of separation. The North Carolina legislature has not dealt with this important date of marriage issue (civil union date) where the couple married (created a civil union) in another state prior to October 2014.
a. Arguably, the date of marriage is the date of the marriage license and ceremony in a state that recognized same-sex marriage on the actual date of the marriage. North Carolina should recognize that original marriage date because the couple could return to the state of the marriage and get a divorce.
North Carolina General Statutes Section 50-20(b) (4) defines divisible property. Divisible property covers certain values created post-separation.
A husband that continued to work in a dental practice post-separation did not create active appreciation. Husband did not change anything about his business methods to increase business. The growth between the date of separation and the date of trial is presumptively divisible, and husband did not rebut the presumption. The increase in the dental practice was passive and was therefore not divisible property. Romulus v. Romulus, 215 N.C. App. 495, 715 S.E.2d 308 (2011).
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog