A thorny issue that arises early in many divorce proceedings is the question of who may live in the marital residence during the separation period. Generally speaking, the courts will not evict either spouse from the marital residence during separation if they are living together peacefully and have not voluntarily moved away. This principle leads some devious spouses to seek questionable or even fraudulent protection from abuse (PFA) orders. Spouses who have quick tempers must avoid confrontations that can provide legitimate grounds for a PFA order, which are granted when a victim can prove “a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm.” Some judges will grant PFA orders even where the only grounds are a verbal threat or demonstrative act (such as smashing or throwing an object in the presence of a spouse).

In theory, the courts are authorized by statute to award exclusive possession of a marital residence on an interim basis pending equitable distribution. 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(c); Laczkowski v. Laczkowski, 496 A.2d 56 (Pa.Super.1985). In practice, exclusive possession is most often awarded to the spouse who remained in the home while the other spouse willingly vacated. If the residence is nonmarital property or titled in the name of one spouse, the titled spouse may have an advantage. The level of conflict between the parties, the ability of a spouse to afford alternate housing, and the effect upon custody arrangements are other likely considerations. An exclusive possession order does not preclude the court from awarding the residence to the excluded spouse in equitable distribution. See, e.g., Kokolis v. Kokolis, 82 Pa.D. &C.4^th 214 (Allegheny Co.2006), affirmed, 927 A.2d 663 (Pa.Super.2007). Yet, practically speaking, it can be very difficult for a spouse who is evicted from the marital residence to return. This is one of the first issues that a spouse should discuss with a lawyer at the beginning of any divorce proceeding.

Divorcing spouses often ask me about credit card debts and loans. While a divorce court may assign responsibility for paying credit card debts and loans that were incurred during the marriage, the court generally lacks jurisdiction over the creditors. In other words, the divorce court cannot force the credit card issuer to collect from one particular spouse if both spouses were cardholders.

If both spouses’ names are on the credit card accounts or loans, then creditors may choose to collect from one spouse or the other or both, at their discretion. Surely, the divorce court can hold a spouse in contempt if he or she failed to meet his or her court-ordered responsibility to pay the debts, but that is cold comfort when the other spouse’s credit rating has been ruined and debt collectors are calling on the phone.

My thoughts? (1) Use marital funds to pay off marital debts. The divorce courts may give full credit, partial credit or no credit at all if one spouse uses his or her post-separation earnings to pay marital debt, but the courts will grant full credit if marital assets are used to pay marital debt. (Just be cautious about impairing cash flow for current expenses.) (2) The spouse who has greater income may have a greater ability to pay debts. (3) If the debts are excessive and income is minimal, consider bankruptcy.

This article contains some good information about credit cards and divorce.

While doing research on corporate control issues recently, I came across the following article, published by The Wilmington Trust, a venerable private wealth management firm:

Imagine attending the next board meeting of your venerable family firm, only to be seated across from your former spouse’s new partner, who is 15 years your junior. With the divorce rate high, the liklihood of these situations occurring is increasing. But when it comes to protecting your family business from such potentially disagreeable divorce fallout, it’s important to take some precautionary steps:

• Develop a corporate culture that separates ownership from authority and control.
• Employ legal tactics and structures to prevent a divorce from deadlocking the business.
• Establish mechanisms (including participation in family business associations) to keep the channels of communication open and prevent small conflicts from becoming big.

Corporate Culture
Too many families confuse a stake in the business with authority and control. Here is one textbook example from Paul Karofsky, director of the Northeastern University Center for Family Business: “A century-old company, in which ownership was diluted among 18 grandchildren, gave everyone an identical salary, private office and luxury car regardless of their job with the now-defunct company. It would have been much more appropriate to provide salaries and benefits commensurate with their job descriptions and to distribute dividends based on their ownership and profits.”

The model for separating ownership from control in a mature family company, such as the one with 18 owners, is akin to a public company. At Staples®, where just about everyone owns stock — from truck drivers to senior management — no one has grounds to complain when a truck driver, who bought Staples stock 20 years ago, owns a bigger stake in the company and has a higher net worth than his newly hired, better-paid branch manager.

Legal Tactics
When children marry and their spouses enter the family with a presumption of status in the company, the stresses can severely impede business success. Add divorce, and the business could be doomed. As the founder, or senior family member, you have a responsibility to protect the company from being deadlocked by an irate ex-spouse following a child’s divorce. When the children are young and unmarried, it is relatively easy to insist on prenuptial agreements to prohibit spouses from owning stock. To encourage acceptance among the adult children and their betrothed, make it clear that the lack of stock ownership bears no relationship to a financial settlement in the event of divorce.

Obviously, prenuptial agreements cannot be required if marriages have already taken place or in situations where spouses feel justified in owning part of the business. For example, two sisters started a small, mail-order company to sell gardening tools. One sister’s husband offered to set up and run the website, which became hugely profitable. Meanwhile, the other sister’s husband helped out with the books and eventually joined the burgeoning company as CFO. The small business grew into a sophisticated corporation, with no one addressing any of the tough issues such as divorce, death, succession, and so forth.

In an emerging business, such as the gardening tool company, the owners and their spouses must recognize that their obligation to the business far outweighs their individual need for control. Since the spouses are already active in the company, one solution is to create a trust which will own and control all of the stock. In addition to family members, the trust should have one or more outside trustees, preferably a corporate trustee, to break any deadlock. Without a trust in place, shareholders can seek, and will likely receive, a remedy from the courts if a deadlock threatens the business. Unfortunately, having the courts make business decisions is costly and cumbersome, and everyone can wind up with bruised feelings. Trust documents should be re-examined and revised periodically to make sure they continue to serve business and family interests.

Family Business Associations
Family Business Associations can assist in facilitating communication, resolving conflict, and providing management, legal, and other insights. In addition, these organizations offer family business owners, including spouses and children, an opportunity to share their problems and solutions in a non-threatening, peer-to-peer forum.

In a Nutshell

• The divorce rate is high, but the probability of divorce increases when the number of family members involved in the business grows.
• Disputes over power, money, and control at home will be played out in the business.
• Be alert to status issues, both within the company and community.
• Clearly distinguish between ownership and jobs, but do not go overboard by being unduly tough on an heir apparent.
• Communicate and revise the trust and other agreements to cope with advancing age, marital status, involvement, health, and the like.
• Establish an exit strategy, such as a Texas Shootout, which allows one partner to set the price for his or her half of the business and the other partner to either buy or sell at that price.
• Employing spouses offers substantial benefits, including participation in business travel, the company pension plan, health plan, and Social Security. But roles and compensation for spouses must be well defined, recognizing that other family members and employees will notice every scintilla of preferential treatment.
• Assess your strengths as the business grows; if running the business day-to-day is not your forte, consider hiring an outside CEO or general manager.

Developing an ongoing relationship with your financial institution and a family business forum is well worth the effort. No corporate job can compare to a well-run family business when it comes to flexibility, financial reward, and an opportunity to work with people whom you know, love, and trust.

Source: The Wilmington Trust

The South Carolina Family Law Blog contains a great list of frequently-overlooked or hidden assets in divorce. Some of the more interesting items are:

1.Frequent flyer mileage
2.Security deposits (e.g., utilities, car lease)
****
8.Unused vacation, sick leave
****
10.Income tax refunds
11.Income tax capital loss carry-forwards
****
24.Burial plots
****
30.Cash
****
34.Options to purchase property
35.Unpaid commissions on deals set to close
****
39.Taxes prepaid

In our area, don’t forget about subsurface mineral rights, another overlooked asset.

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).

A recently-issued IRS ruling (Rev.Rul.2008-41) addressed the issue of whether a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT) or charitable remander unitrust (CRUT) can be divided into two equal trusts upon divorce. A charitable remainder annuity trust is a trust in which the grantor receives income in the form of an annuity payment until his or her death, after which the trust principal is donated to charity. The annuity may not be less than 5% nor more than 50% of the trust principal. A CRUT is the same thing, except that the income payments are a fixed percentage of the principal.

Rev.Rul. 2008-41 established that it is possible to divide a CRAT or CRUT into two equal trusts whose terms are identical to the original trust, except that each spouse is the income beneficiary of one of the two resulting trusts. The resulting trusts are qualified as CRATs or CRUTs under IRS regulations, and no excise tax is triggered by the division of the trusts.

A more detailed article on this subject is available from our friends at Strategic Valuation Group in Warren, Ohio.

This post is not intended as tax advice and should not be used to avoid tax penalties by our readers, who should seek tax advice that is specific to their individual circumstances.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota has been asked to decide whether breast implants should be identified as marital property and valued for divorce purposes. Clearly, the owner’s husband is the advocate of this novel argument. His lawyer argued that the expense should be included in instances when a medical expense is “clearly cosmetic, elective, (and) non-necessary.” Insurance companies often make those judgments in deciding what to cover, she said.

The trial judge reported to news sources that he considered the argument to be frivolous. “I can’t imagine people would actually waste time thinking that breast implants are marital assets. It just defies common sense,” the judge stated. “I don’t know how you would expect me to award breast implants, if you want me to have them cut out and given to Mr. Isaacson. It is absolutely nonsense.”

The implant owner’s husband valued the implants at $5,500. No word on whether they might depreciate over time.

Here is an interesting issue, not yet resolved by the Pennsylvania courts: whether the proceeds of a life insurance death benefit may be counted as a marital asset. Here’s the story:

Let’s say that husband and wife are separated, and one of them dies. If the grounds for divorce existed prior to the death (i.e., both spouses filed their affidavits of consent, or they were separated two years prior to the death), the divorce action does not abate. The deceased spouse’s estate becomes a party to the divorce action, which must go on to its conclusion. If the deceased spouse was insured under a life insurance policy (let’s say a whole life or universal policy, which has cash value), then someone is going to receive a death benefit.

Perhaps the surviving spouse was named as the death beneficiary before the spouses were separated. The divorce court might have even entered an order compelling the now-deceased spouse to name the surviving spouse as the beneficiary under the life insurance policy. (We will discuss the other possibility – that the deceased spouse named someone other than the surviving spouse as beneficiary – another time.) 

The death benefit of a life insurance policy is usually greater than its cash value. (For a whole life or universal life policy, the cash value is equal to the excess premiums that were paid over the cost of term insurance; the excess premiums accumulate, and the insurance company invests them for the benefit of the policy owner.)  In a divorce case where whole or universal life insurance is a marital asset, the asset value is generally equal to the cash value less any policy loans. But now that a spouse is dead, there is no cash value. There is only the proceeds of the life insurance death benefit, which likely exceed the cash value. Is the death benefit a marital asset?

It might depend on what our law means by the word “acquired.” You see, property acquired prior to separation is marital property unless it falls into one of the statutory exclusions. The policy itself was acquired during the marriage, but the death benefit was not acquired until after separation (which would make it separate property). In the case of a personal injury settlement or verdict, our law says that the property is “acquired” when the settlement agreement is signed or the judge enters the verdict, even if the injury occurred prior to separation. The post-separation settlement or verdict does not “relate back” to the pre-separation injury under our law, so it is not marital property.

But there is a problem. If we treat life insurance proceeds like personal injury settlements, then a marital asset (the cash value) has disappeared and there is no marital asset to replace it.

Property which is received in exchange for marital property is, generally, marital property. For instance, if a divorcing couple owns a bank account, and after separation, someone withdraws money to buy a TV, the TV is marital property. So a life insurance policy could be viewed as a lottery ticket that was purchased prior to separation, and its proceeds would be deemed to be property received in exchange for marital property, which is still marital property.

What if the deceased spouse named someone other than the surviving spouse as a beneficiary? The analysis becomes even more troublesome, because now we have to balance the interests of the surviving spouse against the interests of a third party. If we decide that the life insurance proceeds are entirely non-marital, then the marital estate may be diminished. But if we decide the proceeds are marital, a third party’s property rights are impaired. As I mentioned, the courts have not yet resolved this matter.