Yesterday, I posted a summary of Abbott v. Abbott, 530 U.S. ___ (May 17, 2010), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Chilean non-relocation order was a “right of custody” under the Hague Convention, requiring the Texas court to return a child to Chile after the mother relocated to Texas without permission. The Abbott decision was an opinion of the majority, including six of the nine Justices. Only Justice Stevens dissented, with Thomas and Breyer, JJ, joining him. This post will look at the dissenting opinion.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens described the difference between “rights of custody” and “rights of access” under the Hague Convention. If a parent’s “rights of custody” are violated, the courts must return the child to the jurisdiction that granted those custody rights. On the other hand, if a parent’s “rights of access” are violated, there is no duty to return the child. Justice Stevens argued that under Chilean law, the father in this case did not have what we would call “joint legal custody”; that is, the right to participate in major decisions concerning the child’s health, education, upbringing and religious training. 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. Since the father did not have any rights or responsibilities to provide for the child’s care, the Justice argued, he should not have been able to interfere so deeply with the mother’s custody rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday in an international custody case governed by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of  International Child Abduction. In Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. ___ (May 17, 2010), the mother and father of a child who was born in the United States moved to Chile. When the parents separated, a Chilean court awarded primary custody to the mother and visitation to the father. Under Chilean law, a visitation order includes the right to prohibit the mother from taking the child out of Chile without the permission of the court or the father. The mother took the child to Texas without permission, prompting the father to sue in federal court under the Hague Convention. The Texas court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Hague Convention because the father had no “rights of custody” under the Chilean court orders. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the father’s right to prevent the mother from taking the child out of Chile amounted to “rights of custody” under the Hague Convention. In other words, the father’s right to deny relocation, which was implicit in the Chilean court’s visitiation order, was sufficient to invoke the protections of the Hague Convention.

The Hague Convention contains a definition of “rights of custody” which includes the right to determine a child’s place of residence. An order or law that prohibits a parent from removing the child from the court’s jurisdiction imposes a duty on a parent that is a right in the other parent. This right to veto the departure of a child is a “right of custody” under the Hague Convention. This Supreme Court decision overturned decisions made in the Fifth Circuit, Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.

Texas has once again proven itself to be a haven for the affluent divorcee. In Mandell v. Mandell, 2010 WL 1006406 (March 18, 2010), the Texas Court of Appeals held that a professional spouse’s 25% interest in a medical corporation was limited under the terms of a buy-sell agreement to a nominal fixed price payable to shareholders upon divorce. The decision was summarized at BVLaw Blog as follows:

In a case of first impression, the Texas Court of Appeals considered a buy-sell agreement that purported to bind shareholders and their spouses in the event of divorce. As a further complication, the husband had signed an employment agreement with the private medical association—but neither he nor his wife had signed the shareholders’ agreement.  This unsigned agreement limited the value of a divorcing shareholder’s interest to the equity buy-in price (in this instance, a mere $11,000 for a 25% share in a business with an estimated $3 million to $5 million book value).

I share BVLaw Blog’s incredulity, but my analysis is somewhat different.

In the opinion, the Texas appeals court emphasized that the doctor, who signed the stock purchase agreement during the marriage three years before separation, tendered a check for his buy-in but never signed the shareholders agreement (which was referenced in the stock purchase agreement); and his shares were never issued. After separation, the corporation returned the shareholder’s fixed buy-in payment. At that point, the trial court  might have held that the shares were never acquired, and only the buy-in payment itself was community property.

Yet, during the pendency of the divorce litigation, the wife filed motions compelling her husband and the corporation to complete the transaction. The doctor returned the fixed sum to the corporation, and the corporation issued the shares. When the wife attempted to introduce expert testimony to prove the fair market value of the shares, she was met with a motion in limine, which was granted. The trial court held that the wife was bound by the terms of the agreements.

In Texas, the fair market value of a business is presumed to be zero if the shareholders are contractually obligated to sell back their shares upon retirement, death or divorce. A divorcing spouse may present evidence of book value or comparable sales to rebut the presumption, but in this case, the court held that the net asset value was the property of the corporation, not the shareholders.

It might be signficant that Texas is a community property jurisdiction. Since the marital community exists throughout the marriage in those jurisdictions, it could be said that the doctor’s wife was in privity with her contracting husband when he signed the stock purchase agreement. Furthermore, property in Texas apparently cannot be owned simultaneously by one legal entity (a corporation) and another legal entity (the marital community). These principles might not apply in common law (marital property) states, such as Pennsylvania, where it might be argued that the spouses were neither in privity nor intended third party beneficiaries of such contracts, and where marital property is merely a fictitious estate rather than a legal entity.

A decision issued two weeks ago makes South Carolina the latest state to overturn its laws granting child support to college students. In Webb v. Sowell (April 19, 2010), the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the law could not treat separated or divorced parents differently than married parents, who have no legal obligation to pay their children’s college tuition. Such laws, it held, violate the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions, and no rational basis exists for treating divorced or separated parents differently. This decision, from which two justices dissented, struck down more than thirty years of law in South Carolina.

Nearly twenty years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Blue v. Blue, 432 Pa. 521, 616 A.2d 628 (1992). Interestingly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had never touched the issue before Blue, even though trial and appellate courts had been awarding college support in Pennsylvania since 1963. South Carolina’s top court, on the other hand, had granted college support in 1979, reversing itself this year.

Legislative efforts in Pennsylvania following Blue resulted in a statute granting college support to the children of separated and divorced parents. The Pennsylvania Legislature made findings that the children of separated and divorced parents have special needs and circumstances which justify a different treatment than the children of intact families. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed, striking down the law in Curtis vs. Kline, 542 Pa. 249, 666 A.2d 265 (1995). The law remains on the books but has no legal effect due to the Curtis decision.

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’s blast email, published by BV Resources.

Med practice valuations still plague appraisers—and the courts

A trio of new divorce cases highlights the constant challenge of appraising medical practices, everything from doctors who won’t disclose their finances to those who insist their opinions should determine value. In Garcia v. Garcia (Fla. App., Jan. 20, 2010), the husband’s expert argued for a strict application of the buy-sell agreement, which would have limited his share in a successful hematology practice to a mere $45,000—compared to the wife’s expert, who used a net asset value to appraise it at $900,000. At the very least, the husband argued, the restrictive buy-sell should considerably discount the NAV (but he lost both arguments on appeal).

Or consider Amaraneni v. Amaraneni, (La. App., Feb. 12, 2010), in which the doctor claimed his interest in an urgent care clinic had no value apart from goodwill attributable to his professional qualities. But he failed to provide any financial documentation to the court-appointed expert; at deposition, he was similarly “vague” and un-responsive. His name was on the wall but the clinic wasn’t named after him. A manager supervised all the operations and staff—and the expert apportioned all goodwill to the enterprise, also confirmed on appeal.

Finally, in Dickert v.Dickert, (S.C., Jan. 11, 2010), the trial court valued the husband’s successful dental practice at $360,000, including over $255,000 of “enterprise goodwill.” In an expedited appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court, the husband argued that state law precluded any consideration of goodwill in a professional practice, due to its speculative nature. The wife claimed the current majority rule on enterprise values was the better law, but the court disagreed, finding the goodwill asset “too intangible” to support an accurate valuation.  (All three case digests will appear in the April 2010 Business Valuation Update™.)

Is this recession enough reason to devalue assets in divorce?

In Mistretta v.Mistretta (Fla. App., Feb. 18, 2010), the trial court valued the husband’s restaurant at $854,000, based on a valuation report prepared nearly a year earlier. The husband moved for reconsideration, claiming the recession caused the restaurant to lose value. The trial court agreed, finding that no one could have foreseen the severity of the economic crisis—but the wife successfully appealed. “Economic recessions, like other vagaries in the business cycle, are contingencies appraisers must take into account in valuing a business,” the appellate court held, despite a strong dissent which likened the recession to a global economic “tsunami.” The wife’s expert, Gary Trugman, obviously agrees with the majority. “The truth is, we did consider the economic downturn, because we used dual valuation dates,” he tells the BVWire™. The husband also lost on his expert’s claim that 50% of the restaurant’s value was personal goodwill. “As I said to the judge, ‘Your Honor, when was the last time you went to a restaurant if the food was lousy, the service was terrible, but the owner was a really nice guy?’ I think that got my point across, that there was very little personal goodwill,” Trugman says. “I used Pratt’s Stats data for restaurants to demonstrate what portion of the purchase price was protected by a covenant not to compete, and used that percentage to allocate some personal goodwill—but it was a relatively small figure.”

What factors inflence a spouse’s eligibility for alimony after divorce under Pennsylvania law?

Under Pennsylvania law, post-divorce alimony “is a secondary remedy . . . available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of a party cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution award and development of an appropriate employable skill.” These are the well-known words of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in its Opinion in Nemoto v. Nemoto, 620 A.2d 1216 (Pa.Super.1993). Most of the important concepts in alimony jurisprudence are covered in this sentence. First, the trial courts must attempt to divide marital property in a way that avoids the need for post-divorce alimony. Why? Because the courts encourage a complete cessation of financial ties between divorcing spouses. If enough property (particuarly income-generating property) can be conveyed to a divorcing spouse, then that property can fulfill all of the spouse’s economic needs without the financial “umbilical cord” of alimony.

• The value of the assets and liabilities distributed to each of the parties must be considered before awarding alimony. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(b)(10), (16); Fee v. Fee, 496 A.2d 793 (Pa.Super. 1985).
• In its determination of alimony, the trial court must consider the income generated by a spouse’s marital and nonmarital assets. Ressler v. Ressler, 644 A.2d 753 (Pa.Super. 1994).

Second, our Courts encourage spouses to maximize their earning capacity and income potential through appropriate employment. In the first decade of the Divorce Code, enacted in 1980, the law provided that alimony could be awarded only for rehabilitative purposes, such as paying for college or vocational training. Alimony was not permitted in Pennsylvania prior to 1980, and the legislators who enacted the  Divorce Code worried that spouses would lose their incentive to become self-supporting if they could easily receive post-divorce alimony. The alimony law has been revised since 1980, allowing alimony for other reasons, such as meeting the budgetary shortfall of a spouse who is incapable of self-support. Still, the old law remains a strong influence among judges and lawyers in Pennsylvania. Several attempts to modernize the alimony law have failed, primarily because they might reduce a spouse’s incentive to go back to work. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(b)(1), (9), (17).

• The Court imputed an earning capacity to a dependent spouse who devoted her time to an unproductive start-up business instead of seeking gainful employment. Thomson v. Thomson, 519 A.2d 483 (Pa.Super.1986).
• An award of alimony for ten years was deemed excessive when a college education leading to a self-supporting job would require just four years. Barrett v. Barrett, 614 A.2d 299 (Pa.Super.1992).
• In cases where there is no evidence of an impediment that would prevent a spouse from becoming self-supporting, the court is authorized to limit an alimony award. Adelstein v. Adelstein, 553 A.2d 436 (Pa.Super.1989).
• In cases where a spouse’s earning capacity was limited by a medical disability or the disability of a custodial chid, Soncini v. Soncini, 612 A.2d 998 (Pa.Super.1992), the court may decline to impose a full time earning capacity upon a dependent spouse, justifying an award of alimony.

Finally, the law looks to the reasonable needs of a spouse. After a divorce, each spouse must have sufficient cash flow to meet his/her monthly household expenses. Yet, judges realize that two households cannot exist as cheaply as one combined household. The marital standard of living is just one of the seventeen statutory criteria for alimony awards, and in practice, it is one of the least influential. The expenses associated with custody of a child is more influential in an ex-spouse’s request for alimony. Just as important is the ability of a dependent spouse to become self-supporting through appropriate employment and the financial hardship that alimony may cause to the payor. When determining the amount and duration of an alimony award, the courts scrutinize the budget of a spouse seeking alimony carefully. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(b)(7), (8), (13).

• The Court will not allow an award of alimony that would divert twice as much income to the alimony recipient as the payor, which would allow her to enjoy a better standard of living than she had enjoyed during the marriage Ressler v. Ressler, 644 A.2d 753 (Pa.Super.1994).

Marital misconduct is just one of the seventeen factors in awarding alimony, and it has remained one of the least influential since the enactment of the Divorce Code. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3701(b)(14); Nuttal v. Nuttal, 562 A.2d 841 (Pa.Super.1989).

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania will be publishing my successful result in Mackay v. Mackay (2009), a case in which a parent attempted to enforce a casual conversation about college plans for their young children as a “verbal agreement” to pay college expenses. The Superior Court held that their conversation was merely an expression of plans or intentions, rather than an enforceable verbal contract.

The incident from which the dispute arose was a dinner conversation held between the parents when their children were pre-teens. The mother declared that she would like to retire after 30 years of service to her employer, and the father admonished her that both parents would have to continue working to pay for college expenses. Many years later, the parties divorced. In the divorce action, the mother testified about the dinner conversation but did not attempt to assert a contract claim in connection with the divorce. When the eldest child graduated from high school, the father pursued a reduction of his child support obligation, and the mother counter-claimed for enforcement of the alleged oral agreement.

The Superior Court examined the record exhaustively and concluded that a discussion of future plans for college did not constitute a verbal contract between the parents. The Court accepted my argument that the parents did not have an intention when they conversed to enter into a legally-binding agreement. This decision recognized and honored the difference between verbal contracts versus plans made by harmonious married couples, which are not understood or intended to have legal consequences after divorce.

192 WDA 2009

Each year I am one of the broadcast presenters for Family Law Update, one of the most-watched legal education courses for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. We make live presentations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, followed by a satellite broadcast to nearly two dozen counties around Pennsylvania. Traditionally, I have presented the most recent cases involving child support, spousal support and alimony pendente lite.

The Pittsburgh live presentation will be given tomorrow (October 23, 2009), with the satellite broadcast to be given on November 18, 2009. The book is available on PBI’s website, and I publish my Powerpoint slides here.

Update: I have added a page to this site with my Powerpoint slides.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted reargument en banc to the litigants in Silver v. Pinskey (2009), to consider whether Pennsylvania’s child support law might be pre-empted by the federal Social Security Act, precluding the trial court from ordering the parents to share the children’s derivative benefits. In this case, the mother initially had primary custody of two teenaged children following the parents’ separation. The mother was initially designated as the representative payee of the children’s Social Security benefits derived from their father’s retirement. Later, father won equally shared custody and was designated as the representative payee. The trial court ordered father to share half of the children’s Social Security derivative benefits with mother, noting that the Pennsylvania guidelines do not address the situation where an obligor is receiving such benefits. The Superior Court initially vacated the trial court’s order, prompting Father to request reargument, which was granted.

On reargument, Father argued that the Pennsylvania courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order him to share the Social Security derivative benefits with mother. He also argued that the trial court misapplied the criteria for granting a deviation from the support guidelines due to “other household income.” The Superior Court en banc held that it was not deprived of jurisdiction, as it had not altered the designation of the benefit payee. The Court also held that the Social Security benefit could be properly considered as grounds for a deviation from the child support guidelines. Yet, the Court held that the trial court had erred by ordering father to share the Social Security benefit while setting child support at $0. The Superior Court regarded this result, however well-intentioned, as “bordering” on violation of federal law. Consequently, the Court remanded to reconsider the child support guidelines.

Several other issues raised by Father were dismissed by the Superior Court. Specifically, Father argued that the trial court had no authority to order him to pay his proportionate share of medical insurance provided by the mother’s spouse or extracurricular activities including gymastics, softball, baseball, basketball, summer camp, and piano lessons. The Superior Court saw no merit in these arguments.

The California Court of Appeal’s decision in Marriage of Blazer (2009) dealt not only with double dipping, but also with the exclusion of a company’s retained earnings when determining the owner’s income subject to an alimony obligation. After a 20 year marriage, Husband and Wife divorced, the husband retaining ownership of a berry distribution business. At trial, the husband’s expert testified that the berry company was thinly capitalized for its gross revenue. Wife’s expert agreed (if not grudgingly) that some earnings must be retained for capital reserves. The trial court excluded these retained earnings from the husband’s income for alimony purposes.

The husband’s expert also testified that retailers were seeking to eliminate middlemen, forcing the business to integrate vertically. The capital expenditures to purchase a growing farm and expand distribution were not added back to the company’s income, despite wife’s argument that husband “chose” to incur those expenses and would benefit from the enhancement in the company’s value. Again, the trial court adopted the position of the husband’s expert, over the opposition of wife’s expert.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision under an “abuse of discretion” standard. The Court noted that there is no statutory definition of “income” for alimony cases in California, and it was unclear whether retained earnings could be properly categorized as “income” for alimony purposes. Case law held that the child support definition of “income” did not apply to alimony cases.