WHICH HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS?

With Thanksgiving arriving next week, and Christmas, Hanukkah and a host of other holidays just around the corner, I wanted to recirculate last year’s holiday post, updated slightly.  Though another year may have passed, it rings just as true.

On the Simpsons, Helen Lovejoy is often quoted as saying, “Will someone please think of the children?” I think this is a particularly appropriate sentiment during the holiday season. For families who have not been “intact” for some time or others who are going through transition, often the stress of the holiday season, coupled with the additional stress of new living circumstances, makes the holidays particularly trying.

I find clients who are transitioning to their new lives find the first holiday season to be particularly difficult. Everyone faces stresses associated with the holidays in the form of decorating, baking, buying presents, making merry and balancing budgets. Those facing the new world of contemplating whose Christmas festivities the kids will attend and what holiday traditions can survive the transition have it particularly hard.

To those of you who have already worked through these issues, and who know exactly what you will be doing this holiday season, where the kids will be over their break, etc., I commend you on the efforts that had to go in to finalizing these arrangements and making peace with the new schedule.

To those of you who are just facing these challenges for the first time, I wanted to share some thoughts.

1) Helen Lovejoy was right. We should be thinking of the children. The holiday season, Thanksgiving and Christmas break…these are magical moments for them and getting bogged down in the stress or fights over exactly how they will be spent detracts from that magic. Even if you are not so foolish as to try and discuss these issues with your children (which is hopelessly inappropriate), your stress still shows and they’ll still pick up on it. First off, never, ever, ever talk to your children about difficulties that you’re having making holiday arrangements, or tell them you’re sad that they won’t be there with you Christmas morning or anything of the like. They’re your children, let them stay that way. The world is going to do enough to disavow them of their innocence and hope; don’t speed up the process.

2) Do talk to somebody. Separation and divorce are incredibly stressful and emotionally painful experiences. Going through them alone and maintaining some degree of self and sanity is nearly impossible. Talk to your friends. Talk to your family. Talk to your priest. Talk to your therapist. Talk to somebody. Anybody—(except your children). You can talk to your lawyer, too, but it’s best that you rely upon them for some education on your legal rights and responsibilities and not the emotional issues. We bill at a higher hourly rate than therapists and we’re never covered by insurance.

3) You should talk to your co-parent. Now that you’ve talked out some of the emotional pain that goes with trying to navigate these new issues, it’s time to talk to somebody else, and that’s the other person, the person with whom you’re sharing custody of your children, not just for this holiday season, but for the rest of your lives. The sooner you can work out a schedule for how holiday custody will work and where the children will be over their break, the sooner you can close this chapter and move forward with actually enjoying the holiday season.

Not everyone can talk through their issues in a reasonable, productive manner. They may have to turn to lawyers or to the Courts for help. Let me assure you of two things:

1) There is emergency Motions Court on December 22^nd which will be filled with almost nothing but last minute motions trying to resolve Christmas custody disputes; and

2) You do not want to be there.

Please make the effort at resolution. If you can’t talk it through between yourselves, perhaps you can try mediating, or having your attorneys negotiate, but I assure you, you do not want to be litigating where your child eats dinner or opens a gift.

Divorce or separation from the parent of your children will be hard. Nobody can make it easy. Talking to the right people, learning the right information, and addressing your outstanding disputes in a timely manner will make it easier.

There is no cure for the hurt, but there are many proactive things you can do to try to minimize how that impacts you and your children and how you navigate the co-parenting relationship moving forward.

In all likelihood, you will share custody of your children. It’s almost a guarantee that you will share custody on the holidays. It will be necessary to make new traditions and work on moving forward. The better you do that, the more positive lessons you teach your children about how to work with others, to manage your emotions and hurt, and to move forward in a responsible manner. As I said above, life will do plenty to eat away at your children’s innocence and hope. Don’t help it. What you’re doing now is teaching them the skills to deal with those upsets that will happen in their own lives.

Teach them well and enjoy the holiday season.

Congratulations Erika!

       Congrats to Erika Wahl for officially joining Gentile, Horoho & Avalli as an attorney!!   you have been an absolutely wonderful law clerk for the last 3 and a half years and I can't wait to watch you kick but as a real, grown-up Lawyer   

DIVORCE LAW CHANGES

Its Official. On Tuesday, October 4th, Governor Wolf signed what was HB 380, which is now PA law regarding the waiting period for a contested divorce. The law becomes effective 60 after it's signing (December 3). Under the new law, parties who separate after December 3, 2016 will only need to live separate and apart for a period of one year to move forward with a divorce action without the other parties' consent.

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO NOW? - Another legislative update

It’s happening again. There has been another push to pass House Bill 380, which would shorten the waiting period for a no fault, contested divorce from the current two (2) years to only one (1) year. It looks like it is going to happen. Of great importance, the Bill, in its current form, is not retroactive. As set forth in its current version:

"The amendment of 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 3301(d) and 3323(g)(3) shall apply to periods of living separate and apart that commence after the effective date of this section."

All signs are pointing to the Bill being signed into law in the next few days, but will not go into effect for a period of sixty (60) days. As such, parties who are currently thinking about separating have some very big decisions to make, and very soon, to determine whether they will fall under the new law or old.

If you are thinking about a separation, you absolutely, positively should have a thorough consultation with an attorney to assess how this change could affect your rights to support, assets, and other claims.

The full Bill is below.

Please like and share if you found this interesting or helpful.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2015&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0380&pn=2474

GRANDPARENT CUSTODY - Grandparents Rights: Wrong?

Switching gears in what had been a few decades of continually expanding rights for grandparents in the state of Pennsylvania, on September 9, 2016, in the case of D.P. & B.P., his wife, v. J.P. & A.P., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion which would now serve to limit the times at which grandparents can seek partial custody of their grandchildren in Pennsylvania.

In D.P., the Court framed the question before them as being whether or not “the parents’ fundamental rights are violated by the conferral of standing based solely on a parental separation lasting at least six (6) months.” Take the legalese out of that, it used to be that any grandparent could sue for partial custody of their grandchild if mom and dad had been separated for six (6) months or more (or never together). There was no need to prove that it was in the best interest of the children for the grandparents to assert their rights--they got to do it anyhow and the resulting custody schedule would then be based on what was in the best interest of the children.

In D.P., the parents of the children had been separated for a few years, but never filed anything with the Court. The parents continued to co-parent and agreed between the two of them that the grandparents should not get to see the children. Approximately two years after the parties separated, the grandparents filed a Complaint for Custody asking for time with the children over the parents’ objections. The grandparents did not tell the Court anything to suggest that mom and dad were unfit or that the children were in any danger with mom and dad.

Under the existing statute, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 5325, this was an acceptable basis for grandparents to sue for custody. Attached is a link to the full text of the statute. After the grandparents sued, the parents indicated that the statute violated their 14th Amendment Rights to Due Process and Equal Protection. The Trial Court in Westmoreland County agreed with the parents, finding that the parents had a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children as they see fit. The trial court determined that the language in the Custody Act was not narrowly tailored enough to survive a strict scrutiny analysis as a matter of constitutional law. They found that the parents had jointly decided the children would have no contact with the grandparents and suggesting they were unfit to make this determination simply because they were separated would be an error. The trial court held that there was not an adequate basis to disturb the ordinary presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interest.

The Supreme Court summarized the lower court’s opinion as follows: “in as much as the law presumes that married parents living together are able to co-parent their children without judicial interference, there is no constitutionally sound basis to support a classification whereby married parents who are separated should be treated differently.” In this regard, the Court indicated that, “The statute reflects an inappropriate ‘implicit presumption of unfitness’ attached to separated parents solely on account of their separated status.”

The PA Supreme Court’s opinion, linked here, (link) contains an interesting review of the history of grandparents’ rights cases in Pennsylvania, factually distinguishing them from D.P. as involving various cases of either parental unfitness, divorce, or death of a parent.
Counsel for parents further went on to differentiate D.P. as being a case where Court intervention was never sought by the parents, where they were never subject to an Order of Court prior to grandparents filing a Complaint, and where the parents did not disagree with regards to matters of custody or visitation.

The parents went on to suggest that, “Many couples who live together lead dysfunctional homes and make poor parenting decisions, all of which evidences the arbitrariness of §5325’s implicit assumption that separated parents are less fit as parents than those who live under the same roof. Consequently, parents proposed that the legislative classification which rests on that assumption does little to advance the state’s interest in protecting children or promoting their welfare.”
In its analysis, the Supreme Court recognized that grandparent visitation and custody statutes inherently authorize state action and are subject to constitutional limitations. It further went on to state that it is clearly undisputed that §5325 “burdens the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children; that such right is a fundamental one.”

After an analysis of the arguments set forth by the parents and grandparents, the Court acknowledged that, very broadly speaking, the state does have the power to safe-guard children from various kinds of physical and emotional harm as well as promoting their well-being, but that right alone would not, in this case, extend to allow the Court to intervene in a family who never sought the Court’s involvement, stating, “As this case shows, when parents separate they do not always initiate divorce proceedings or otherwise request court involvement in their family affairs.” “Although separation may involve a disruption of the nuclear family unit, the children are often shielded from having to participate in court proceedings and are, likewise, free from having to assimilate the knowledge that the government is now involved in their family life.”

The Court also noted that the grandparents failed to present to the Court empirical data which would suggest the separation has the same deleterious effects on children as divorce. As this type of information was presented in prior grandparent cases, the court did not change the part of the statute that allows grandparents to seek custody when the parents are divorced or deceased.

The Court did note that parents who were involved in divorce proceedings or who were divorced could potentially agree to limit their children’s contact with third parties but declined to address that issue in its opinion, as the only issue before it was whether or not the parents could do so when merely separated. The Court noted that they found court-mandated association with third parties more intrusive to parents’ constitutional rights when they had not themselves sought the Court’s oversight relative to custody or marital dissolution.

After its analysis, the Court found that the language of §5325 relative to grandparents’ standing in the event of a six (6) month separation was “not narrowly tailored in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” (meaning it was not structured with precision and that the legislature could have chosen a less drastic means of effectuating objectives).

The Court finally noted that in confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, they are to provide a limited solution affecting only those unconstitutional portions of same. As such, the Court only removed the second portion of Paragraph 2 with regard to six (6) months separation to be invalidated.

However, it appears from the language of the Court’s main opinion, as well as the dissenting opinions entered by Justices Baer and Wecht, there are still concerns regarding the constitutionality of the remaining provisions of 23 Pa. C.S.A. 5325.

Does this affect your rights with regards to custody? If you think it might, you should speak with an attorney.

If you found this interesting or helpful, please like and share!

www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm…

http://law.justia.com/…/supreme-cou…/2016/25-wap-2015-0.html

CHILD CUSTODY - What the Heck is Generations - Part 2

So, if the parties end up in Court, and aren't able to work out a custody schedule/parenting plan in their mediation session, there is still a long (and expensive ) road ahead of them:

A Generation’s Conciliation where the parties come with their attorneys and meet with a generation’s conciliator:

A judicial conciliation where the parties come with their attorneys and meet with the judge. There may be more than one of these if perhaps the judge wants the parties to go to the Impact program (drug and alcohol testing), psychological evaluations, or other treatment or testing. Typically, the judges will have a second conciliation to review the results of any testing;

And, if the parents are still unable to resolve matters, they proceed to trial.

I will be doing a separate post about some of these later steps, along with want to expect and how to prepare over the next few months.

I want to emphasize for anyone reading this that the custody system is not set up for you to get your day in court. It is directly set up to remind you that your day in court may well be something you don’t want, that is bad for you, that is bad for children, and will cost a whole lot of money and headache. The system is designed to give you enough information that you should understand settlement and reason are preferable over litigation and naked emotion. It is very easy to be angry in a situation where you are deciding custody of your children. Often this can come on the heels of very difficult and tumultuous time in your life while you and your significant other have decided to no longer reside together as a couple. The pain and anguish the parties feel going through this process as well as the custody process creates a lot of very strong emotions, many of them focused towards anger, hurt, and heartache.

The entire Generations process and similar processes in other counties are designed to try to help you get past those basic emotions and move forward to a more enlightened position--focusing on co-parenting and working together rather than driving each other further apart.

In addition to the court system that will provide you with some background as well as bring you to a mediation session, the parties are free to and should regularly consult with their attorneys to get a perspective as to how the law would be applicable in their individual case. Custody is remarkably fact specific; we have over a dozen factors that the court can look at to determine what is in the best interest of your child and no two cases are exactly alike. Receiving input from an attorney will help you address how to best move forward through the system to reach a resolution that addresses the best interests of the children.

At all times throughout the process, the parties are free to engage in discussions directly with one another or through their attorneys to try and reach a resolution. You are not required to go to court if you can work out an arrangement that the two of you find to be acceptable under the circumstances. Seeing as how this is the goal of the court, it should be your goal as well. Anyone who is facing potential custody litigation, or has already found themselves in same, should consult with an attorney to get more information about the specifics of their case. Also, please speak with a counselor who can help you address the often difficult feelings that come as part of the custody process.

If you found this post to be helpful or if you have any questions, please feel free to comment, post, share, like, etc. and visit www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com or call me at 412-261-9900 to schedule a consultation.

CHILD CUSTODY - What the Heck is Generations - Or, How a Custody Action gets started

As I have mentioned before, one of the very common issues that comes up as part of the uncoupling process is how to address custodial arrangements for any children born of the parties’ relationship.  To be honest, that statement doesn’t actually cover all of the possible custody actions in Pennsylvania.  Obviously, children don’t necessarily have to arise out of relationships that would come with other uncoupling issues.  Further, there can be custody actions brought by “non-parents” like step-parents, grandparents and anyone who stands “in loco parentis” (which basically means that they discharge the duties of a parent regardless of their actual biological relationship to the child). 

In any case, to the extent the parties are able to do so, it is considered preferable to be able to work out a custody schedule between themselves.  While they will need an attorney or the court system to confirm the schedule by way of a written Agreement or Order that gets filed with the court, working through it together not only saves on time, expense and frustration, but also helps to start a healthy co-parenting relationship from the very beginning. 

However, not everyone is so fortunate, and they must proceed through what in Allegheny County is called the “Generations” process.

In Allegheny County and across the state, the entire custody system is set up with the fundamental goal of being able to reach settlement of the parties’ outstanding issues without the need for a trial.  Your custody action may go on for a very long time before you are entitled to a final hearing.  This is by intentional design in hopes that providing the parties with some education and compelling them to attempt to work through their issues, there will not be a need for a formal hearing. 

Here in Allegheny County, the process in place is called the Generations Program.  In Westmoreland County it is the CHILD Program.  Different counties have different names, but for the most part they all boil down to two components.

Once you file a Complaint for Custody you will receive, from your respective court, a “Scheduling Order.”  This Scheduling Order directs that each of the parties (and, in some cases, the children) must participate in the court’s custody process. This process typically includes an education session as the first step.   It has always been my strong belief that a little information can go a long way in forming the parties’ expectations and their ability to work through issues together. It seems that the court system shares in this belief.

This court-ordered education session lasts for several hours.  In Allegheny County, it includes the parents as well as children between the ages of 5 and 15.  The requirement for children to be involved varies from county to county.  You should always consult your local rules before making assumptions as to whether or not the children will be involved in this process.  However, across the board, the idea is that the education session provides the parties with information regarding how physical and legal custody work, the types of decisions that they need to make together, and that they must share input and information  with regards to their child. In general, it reinforces the idea that while you may no longer be an intact family, you must still function as an intact parenting unit and work with each other for the betterment of your children. 

It is generally understood that it is in the best interest of children that their parents be able to cooperate with one another and to share custody, both physically and legally. 

In addition to being scheduled for the education session where they get some of this co-parenting background, the parties will also be scheduled to appear for a mediation session.  In some counties, the first session includes the attorneys, but here in Allegheny County, it is only the parties that appear for the mediation session.  They come unrepresented and meet with a mediator who assists in trying to engage in dialogue to help them resolve their outstanding custody issues.  They will have the opportunity to present what schedule they would like to see, why they are opposed to the other side’s schedule, what issues can be worked through to try to resolve these differences, etc. 

If the parties are able to reach an agreement through mediation, this agreement can be memorialized and executed by both of the parties as a final agreement as to custody.  If they don’t reach an agreement, they will continue to move through the custody process which I will discuss in my next post.

If you found this post to be helpful or if you have any questions, please feel free to comment, post, share, like, etc. and visit www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com

DIVORCE - Hidden Assets in DIvorce

Please check out the latest article from Gentile, Horoho & Avalli regarding dirty dealings in divorce:

http://www.gha-lawfirm.com/Articles/What-You-Don-t-Know-Can-Hurt-You-How-you-can-spot-a-spouse-hiding-assets-or-income.shtml

CHILD CUSTODY - Vacation (custody) All I ever Wanted

I am sure that if you haven’t already, at some point this summer just about all of you have had a conversation with a friend or relative about their plans for their big summer vacation this year: where they are taking the kids, what they are doing, how much those ride-all-day passes cost at the amusement park, etc.

What they probably didn’t share with you is whether or not their attorney had to go to court to make that happen. Seems kind of crazy, doesn’t it? That somewhere between airfare, hotel rooms, and tickets to Wally World, your friend or relative may have also been paying someone $300 per hour to go to Motion’s Court to ask for permission for a relatively mundane thing like a vacation with their children.

Unfortunately, I can assure you that this is an issue that arises in family cases and which has me spending a couple of days every summer standing in Motion’s Court along with numerous other attorneys (also billing their clients) to fight about the right of someone to take their children to the beach.

Maybe some of you reading this had to do exactly that.

Maybe some of you reading this are the reason someone else had to do exactly that.

In either case, it seems like a timely topic and a good opportunity to provide some advice:

1. You aren’t stopping a vacation request.

Are you co-parenting with Charles Manson?

If the answer to that question is no, then the answer to their vacation request is yes.

Even people who have minimal custody time throughout the year are going to have some entitlement to summer vacation. Yes, there are exceptions.

Family court is ruled by exceptions, not governed by rules.

Certainly, if there has been a history of abuse, substance abuse, etc., this may raise more questions about vacation time than your average case, but even in these situations, chances are the other side is getting a vacation with their kids. They may have to take a supervisor. That supervisor might be a parent, sibling, or some other relative/agreed upon third party. People on Megan’s List have taken their children on vacation. I am aware of more than one.

Saying that the court recognizes a very strong right to be able to take your children out of town for a week would be a gross understatement. While there may be whistles and bells and stipulations, chances are the vacation is happening. As always, the particular facts and circumstances will dictate whether or not there should be strings attached, and if so, what strings, but chances are you are losing your anti-vacation argument, or at least compromising your position considerably.

2. No, there is not an absolute right to throw your child in the car and drive towards the sunset. Much like any other issue that involves co-parenting, there has to be a sharing of information. Both parties are entitled to know where their kids are, on vacation or otherwise. This is true whether they are in town or out of town. It is particularly true when crossing state lines, international boundaries, etc.

At a bare minimum, the other side should know where you are going, how you are getting there, and how you can be reached once you have arrived. Depending upon how much the parties trust each other, there could be more or less information that needs to be exchanged, like how often you will communicate with the children via phone, if there is to be Skyping, exactly what family members will be there, whether or not alcohol can be consumed, etc. Itineraries for flights should be exchanged, hotel address and phone number should be provided, and agreeing to send a text to confirm you arrived safely isn’t going to kill anyone.

3. Vacations are generally also a “good for the goose, good for the gander” situation. You would like to take a week’s vacation to the beach and you want to tell the other side that they can’t? Again, unless you are sharing custody with Charles Manson, they are getting the same vacation rights you are.

You will probably get the same vacation rights every year so long as you are sharing custody of your children. Some people need these to be memorialized and go into painstaking details in a formal agreement as to who gets to select their vacation dates first in odd years versus even years, how many days’ notice you must provide, how detailed your itinerary has to be, etc. But, again, you are going on vacation.

Quite frankly, in more than a decade of practice, I don’t know that I have ever seen a vacation request denied. Certainly not in a situation where someone has provided reasonable notice, has a reasonable plan and is willing to reasonably accommodate the concerns of the other side.

Noticing a theme about reasonableness here? It is the golden rule in custody arrangements between parties. Make reasonable requests, grant a reasonable permission, don’t pay $300 per hour to go have a judge decide whether or not your kid should get to go to Disney World. They probably already think that they do.

If you found this helpful, please like and share.

DIVORCE - Will You Have to Pay Alimony to Your Ex-Husband?

This is becoming more an more of an issue.   alimony is still "alive and well in Pennsylvania" and it is gender blind. While no one likes to hear that they will be obligated to pay alimony, the fact that more and more women are the ones obligated to pay is a sign of our changing times.   Read more blow about  these changes.







Will You Have to Pay Alimony to Your Ex-Husband?: Ladies, we have been making some serious progress when it comes to income over the last few decades, but with great paychecks come great responsibilities...

We're Rockin the Suburbs! Proud to officially announce the opening of our Cranberry Office!

Same Sex Divorce - What we know So Far

Two years ago today, on May 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled in the case of in Whitewood, et al., and determined that same sex marriage would now be recognized in the courts of Pennsylvania.  As of that date, despite the fact that it was not yet nationally recognized, the state of Pennsylvania determined that they would extend the right of marriage to same sex couples throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

The opinion issued by the court, which is linked below, (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/13-1861.pdf) went on to state that Pennsylvania, in addition to recognizing same sex marriages performed within our state, would also recognize same sex marriages from other states.  This would mean that any same sex couples would have all of the rights, and also the responsibilities, that came with traditional marriage, including, though not specifically enumerated in the opinion, the right to divorce.

It would be more than a year later, specifically on June 26, 2015, until the Federal Courts, by way of the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, would determine in that these rights should be extended nationwide. It seemed that this very emotional, complicated issue of same sex marriage had been rather succinctly resolved by the courts. 

However, neither the Supreme Court’s opinion nor the State of Pennsylvania’s opinion spoke much about same sex divorce.  The fact of the matter is that most people do not generally enjoy discussing divorce.   Thus, it is probably not a great surprise that when issuing this ground changing legal precedent, that the issue of what happens when a same sex marriage ends never made its way into the courts’ opinions.  Same sex divorce, however, has made its way into our courts, and with it comes a host of novel issues which have yet to be resolved through either legislation or through court precedent. 

In the case of a same sex marriage, one of the most difficult questions to determine is what is the actual date of marriage?  The actual date that the same sex couple became a legally recognized couple has been subject to a fair amount of argument in this burgeoning area of law.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation:

Let’s say we have same sex couple who met in Pennsylvania in the early 1990’s, dated for a period of time, and began living together in 1994.  Then, in 2005, the couple traveled out of state to New Jersey to obtain a civil union and then returned to Pennsylvania.   

On exactly May 25, 2014, just a few days after the Pennsylvania court’s May 20, 2014 decision, the couple decided to become legally married in Pennsylvania. And on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court said they were married in all 50 states now.

 Then, in May of 2016, the couple separated.

So When Did They Get Married??

The federal government has only recognized same sex marriage for a period of eleven months, but Pennsylvania’s May 20, 2014 ruling allowed this couple’s marriage vows to take place in Pennsylvania on May 25, 2014, and be legally recognized and recorded like any other marriage. 

However, the hypothetical couple’s civil union in New Jersey began ten years prior to their legal marriage in Pennsylvania.

 Further, the date they began to reside together as a couple, in 1994, predates their legal marriage by another decade. 

There is no real answer to this question yet; because there is no prevailing case law, the question remains to be answered.

Did the couple marry on June 26, 2015, when the Supreme Court recognized same sex marriage?  Probably not. 

The states have the right to afford greater protections and rights to their population than those afforded by the federal government.  Basically, the federal government’s rules and rights, etc., are your baseline.  The states have a fair amount of latitude to expand upon those federal laws, and considerably less latitude to infringe upon them.  As such, June 26, 2015 would not be the couple’s date of marriage, given that Pennsylvania’s right to issue an earlier ruling on same sex marriage occurred on May 20, 2014. 

Did the couple marry on May 25, 2014, after the Pennsylvania Courts ruled in the case of Whitewood?

This date was when the Pennsylvania Court recognized same sex marriage and permitted the issuing and recording of same sex marriage licenses.  However, in the case of our hypothetical couple, they were together for more than twenty years prior to the state’s ruling.  Does that count for anything?  The case of Whitewood also gave full faith and credit to marriages occurring in other states stating “and already married same sex couples shall be treated as such.”  

So did this couple’s marriage begin in 2005, since they obtained a civil union in New Jersey? 

This date may not be right either because in Whitewood, it states that there will be full faith and credit to “already married” same sex couples.  It does not say civil unions, and it does not say domestic partnerships.  If one looks to the laws of New Jersey, they have, at various points in time, recognized domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same sex marriages.  Each of these is a separate legal animal, and none of them automatically converts to the other. 

So…can Pennsylvania give full faith and credit to a New Jersey civil union, and treat that as the date of marriage?  Maybe.  Some courts have done this, though I think a technical reading of Whitewood does not extend that far, which leaves this issue unresolved.

Finally, did the hypothetical couple potentially marry back in 1995, when they began living together?  Again, this is a maybe. 

Historically, Pennsylvania recognized common law marriage, i.e. people are married if they held themselves out to the world as “husband and wife.”  Obviously in this case we are talking about “husband and husband,” or “wife and wife,” so is it possible that it should still hold true?

While the divorce code amendments of 2005 directed that common law marriage would no longer be recognized going forward, there was no prohibition on looking back on common law marriages that came into effect prior to the 2005 amendments.  

Is this perhaps what should be happening with same sex marriages?  Maybe.  But again, the fundamental issue is this: Is it even possible for two people to hold themselves out in a husband and wife like manner, when the right to be husband and husband, or wife and wife, did not exist for them?  Heterosexual couples who decided to act as husband and wife, but not solemnize their marriage, had this other option.  With same sex couples, this option did not exist.  Again, this would only be applicable in a situation where the parties’ relationship predated the 2005 divorce code amendments, and the relationship existed for a duration of more than ten years.

What happens with relationships that existed for less than ten years?  This is an excellent question, because nobody knows for sure at this point.  Many arguments have been made that the courts (in their efforts to effectuate economic justice), should look to the period of time that the parties were in a relationship, but not yet in a legally recognized marriage.  Of course, this opens the can of worms for heterosexual couples who had resided together for long periods of time prior to actually getting legally married to argue the same thing.  However, there is a factual and a legal argument to be made that the two are not analogous, since the heterosexual couples would have had the right to get legally married had they so chosen.

So when did they get married? 

Over the years, I am sure this area of law will continue to develop and ebb and flow, but for now, there are a lot of unanswered questions.  We will keep you posted as new case law begins to develop, which hopefully will not take very much longer.

If you have found this post to be interesting, please feel free to share it, and to like my page.  I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Thank you.

www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com

DIVORCE - Making Ours Mine - Division of Assets in Pennsylvania

One of the issues that comes up in all most every divorce and in many separations is how to divide property that parties acquired during their relationship.  Unfortunately, if this relationship was not a marriage, it can be very difficult to figure out how to distribute jointly titled vehicles, homes, and other assets and it may involve numerous separate actions to address these items. 

If the parties who are uncoupling were married, the Divorce Code sets forth well-established rules and guidelines for how to divide those assets that they acquired during the marriage through a process that we call “equitable distribution.”   Many clients I meet with are surprised to learn that, in Pennsylvania, assets are not divided equally.  While they may be, it is not an edict that everything is distributed 50/50.  The court engages in an analysis of numerous different factors to determine what division would be equitable under the circumstances and tries to “effectuate economic justice between the parties.”

What does that mean?

I recently came across a very good quote out of Miller v. Miller, 783 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super 2001) which describes it as follows:

“The methods by which divorcing parties effectuate economic justice are familiar and well settled.  The process of equitable distribution is an exercise in martialing, valuing and dividing the marital pot in a fair manner.  Not every piece of property can or should be split in half.  Sometimes one spouse is entitled to more property than is the other.  In some instances, the sale of property must occur so that each spouse can receive his/her rightful amount.  In other instances, a spouse may be allocated a specific item of property and the other spouse will receive cash or credit for his/her share in that same item.

In all of these scenarios, whether the property division is done by an agreement of the parties or a Court Order, the goal is the same: to take the assets of the marriage and divide them in such a way as to effectuate economic justice between the parties.” 

So, what have we learned from the above quote? 

Frankly, we learn a lot from this little quote. First off, there are a lot of ways to “skin the cat.”  Not only will no two people’s cases play out exactly the same (so just because it happened in your buddy’s divorce doesn’t mean it is going to happen in yours), but it may also be that no two assets in the marital estate are divided the same. 

The courts do not go through the list of marital assets and divide every single one 50/50. 

One asset may be offset against another, i.e. “you are keeping the house, so I am keeping the checking account.”

Or some assets may warrant being skewed more in favor of one party than the other.  So, your overall division of the marital estate might be 50/50 but somebody might get 70% of the fair market value of the property that they inherited two years before separation but retitled in joint names (see my prior post with regards to the “Transmutation of Assets”).  Since the other side didn’t really do anything to generate this asset, this skew in favor of the inheriting party may seem more “just” to the Court.

As stated in the above Miller quote, a big part of the equitable distribution process is to identify the assets and liabilities that are in the marital estate and determine their values.  If you don’t know all of the assets or their values, you may need to engage in discovery, which is a topic I am sure I will get around to discussing at some point.  Thereafter, the Court would move forward with dividing these assets in a manner that seeks to effectuate economic justice. 

It is also important to note that it is well within the authority of the Court to order you to sell off your belongings.  While they are generally not looking to have you fire sale every item you have acquired in the course of your marriage, it may be necessary for a piece of the marital estate to be sold.   Simply because one party may desire to retain an asset, if it is not economically feasible, it may be ordered to be sold by the Court, even over your objection.  

All of the above issues will depend upon the Court’s analysis of what we call the “equitable distribution factors” set forth in the Divorce Code. There are twelve different factors that the Court can take a look at to decide the fairest way to divide assets between the parties.  They may look at the length of marriage, the incomes of the parties, one party’s contributions to the marital estate as a homemaker, what separate assets either party might have beyond the marital estate, etc. 

The Court’s analysis of these factors as applied to the specific facts of each individual case dictate how the Court fashions its award for equitable distribution, which, as stated, may be an equal 50/50 division, but may not.  Again, like with all matters that fall into the Family Court, the determinations that are rendered are usually very fact specific and the change of one of the characteristics about a party or their marriage may have a significant impact on how the marital estate is most equitably divided.

Again, if you are contemplating divorce, for more particular guidance with regards to how your marital estate may be divided, you should consult with an attorney who can review the history of your marriage and the assets that comprise the marital estate to provide you with more specific advice unique to your situation.

If you found this article to be helpful, I ask that you please share it and “like” my page.  As always, if anyone has any questions or suggestions for follow up topics, please comment below. 

www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com