<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>BV Source &#124; Pittsburgh Family Lawyer &#124; 2010 Super Lawyer &#187; decisions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bvsource.com/category/decisions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bvsource.com</link>
	<description>Pittsburgh Family Lawyer Experienced in Resolving Divorce, Child Support, Marital Property, Alimony &#124; Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, SuperLawyers.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:25:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Fair Value Standard Rejected by Colorado Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/fair-value-standard-rejected-by-colorado-supreme-court/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=fair-value-standard-rejected-by-colorado-supreme-court</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/fair-value-standard-rejected-by-colorado-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FMV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discounts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fair value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketability discount]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valuation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This decision contains a good explanation of the reasons why "fair value" is not necessarily appropriate to divorce cases.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/fair-value-standard-rejected-by-colorado-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Abbott Dissent: Opposing View on Hague Convention</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/abbott-dissent-opposing-view-on-hague-convention/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=abbott-dissent-opposing-view-on-hague-convention</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/abbott-dissent-opposing-view-on-hague-convention/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 19:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abbott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hague Convention]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1039</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Justice Stevens wrote that the non-relocation order was merely a restriction on the mother's custody rights, not "rights of custody" that would justify the more stringent remedy under the Hague Convention. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/abbott-dissent-opposing-view-on-hague-convention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS Rules on International Custody Case: Child Removed in Violation of Non-Relocation Order Must be Returned</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/scotus-rules-on-international-custody-case-child-removed-in-violation-of-non-relocation-order-must-be-returned/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=scotus-rules-on-international-custody-case-child-removed-in-violation-of-non-relocation-order-must-be-returned</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/scotus-rules-on-international-custody-case-child-removed-in-violation-of-non-relocation-order-must-be-returned/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 19:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abbott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hague Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the international child custody treaty (the Hague Convention) requires the return of a child who was removed in violation of a non-relocation order.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/scotus-rules-on-international-custody-case-child-removed-in-violation-of-non-relocation-order-must-be-returned/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should You Prepare for Custody Mediation?</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/should-you-prepare-for-custody-mediation/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=should-you-prepare-for-custody-mediation</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/should-you-prepare-for-custody-mediation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 14:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allegheny]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[co-parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Generations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gosselin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jon and Kate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1024</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Jon and Kate divorce provided another example this week of what not to do.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/should-you-prepare-for-custody-mediation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy-Sell Controls Value of Medical Practice in Texas Divorce</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/buy-sell-medical-practice-texas-divorce/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=buy-sell-medical-practice-texas-divorce</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/buy-sell-medical-practice-texas-divorce/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 01:18:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FMV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buy-sell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[common law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1019</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Texas has once again proven itself to be a haven for the affluent divorcee. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/buy-sell-medical-practice-texas-divorce/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another State Stops Child Support for College Students</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/child-support-for-college-students/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=child-support-for-college-students</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/child-support-for-college-students/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 May 2010 15:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[child support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Carolina]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1016</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The law may not treat separated or divorced parents differently than married parents, who have no legal obligation to pay their children's college tuition.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/child-support-for-college-students/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Constructive Notice is Sufficient in Child Support Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/constructive-notice-is-sufficient-in-child-support-cases/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=constructive-notice-is-sufficient-in-child-support-cases</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/constructive-notice-is-sufficient-in-child-support-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Murphy v. Murphy, a recent Superior Court decision, the father appealed a support order entered in absentia because he claimed that he never received notice of the June 2008 support hearing. The father argued that the notice mailed to him was too late (less than 20 days before the hearing, contrary to Rule 1910.6) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/constructive-notice-is-sufficient-in-child-support-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Premature Termination of Child Support Reversed, Affirmed</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/premature-termination-of-child-support-reversed-affirmed/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=premature-termination-of-child-support-reversed-affirmed</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/premature-termination-of-child-support-reversed-affirmed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arrears]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=1005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recent Superior Court decision, Castadi v. Castaldi, the Domestic Relations Section mailed notices to the child&#8217;s mother inquiring whether child support should terminate in January 2007, when the child would be eighteen years old. Mother did not respond to the inquiries, and the Domestic Relations Section terminated child support. Unbeknownst to the DRS, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/premature-termination-of-child-support-reversed-affirmed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Case Law &#8211; Business Valuation in Divorce</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/new-business-valuation-divorce/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=new-business-valuation-divorce</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/new-business-valuation-divorce/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:22:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capitalization rates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goodwill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restaurant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valuation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two articles from BV Wire recently caught my attention. Both deal with business valuation in divorce cases where personal goodwill was an issue. I will post my own analysis soon. Meanwhile, here are excerpts from BV Wire&#8217;s blast email, published by BV Resources. Med practice valuations still plague appraisers—and the courts A trio of new [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/new-business-valuation-divorce/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spouses Have Bathroom Privacy Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/spouses-have-bathroom-privacy-rights/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=spouses-have-bathroom-privacy-rights</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/spouses-have-bathroom-privacy-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:42:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[married]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiretapping]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=992</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A link on How Appealing alerted me to a recent decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, finding that a person has a right of privacy from being videotaped while alone in a residential bathroom shared with that person&#8217;s spouse. Even married persons can be found guilty of violating privacy laws in that state when [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/spouses-have-bathroom-privacy-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
