Showing posts with label assets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assets. Show all posts

Thursday, January 4, 2018

New Year, New Resolution (Methods): Collaborative Divorce




I find the beginning of a new year is a good time to remind people of the some of the new alternative to divorce and custody litigation, as well as other, more traditional means of dispute resolution.
When someone realizes that they are facing a divorce or custody dispute, they often face a moment of terror. Not just because there are now major questions looming as to how they will divide their assets or see their children, but because of the images it conjures up. Many immediately think of the tall, dark, imposing wooden panels of the courtroom walls; the stern, gavel-banging judge deciding their fate; the watchful eye of the gallery staring down the parties as their lawyers shout objections and witnesses burst into tears.
Fortunately, most of these images come more from a poorly written episodes of “Law & Order” than from reality. Even if a divorce or child custody disputes do proceeds towards litigation, typically the family court does not involve any of these sensationalized components. It’s more likely to involve modern facilities, a lack of gallery, limited objections and, frankly, I’ve never seen a judge bang a gavel once. There are, however, plenty of tears.
Nonetheless, the idea of something as personal as a separation from your spouse, or the custody of your children, proceeding in court can (and to some extent probably should) be a little terrifying.
In essence, in the traditional litigation process, a party appears in court, where they will sit quietly while someone they barely know (their lawyer) argues the facts and circumstances of their life to a person who essentially does not know them at all (the judge), who ultimately decides how they live the rest of their life—both financially and with regard to their children.
Many of the decisions in family court will be made without the parties even being present, and when they are, much like traditionally good children, they are preferred to be seen and not heard. All of this isolation from the decision making process can be quite terrifying for parties. In some ways it is even more terrifying than the specter of the dark wood panels and booming echoes of the stern Judge’s words off of the walls. It is for this reason, over the years, many parties have sought to find an alternative means of dispute resolution to assist them with their divorce and child custody matters.
One of the newer movements in alternative resolution in family law is the use of Collaborative Law techniques.
Collaborative divorce has been cited in several studies as offering parties an alternative to traditional litigation which is more confidential, faster, and potentially less expensive than the traditional path. More important to the parties themselves, I believe, is the fact that they are active participants in the collaborative divorce process.
By design, the collaborative divorce process focuses on the parties’ goals and interests, and their ability to work with one another, not just to finalize an initial agreement but also in the long term. Often the parties will have many years of co-parenting ahead of them, and a collaborative divorce can help them to communicate better, allowing them to address minor issues which may arise over the years without the need to lawyer up and run to court.
So What is Collaborative Divorce? Visit my website or keep an eye out for my next post to learn more.
For more information about collaborative law, or other means of dispute resolution, please feel free to contact me at 412-261-9900 to schedule a consultation. You may also contact me through my website at www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com.

Please note that commenting on this blog or otherwise electronically corresponding with Attorney Myers does not create an attorney/client relationship.

Friday, May 13, 2016

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

Friday, April 15, 2016

DIVORCE Should I Stay or Should I Go Now: A Legislative Update



Some of you may have read my prior blog posts regarding establishing separation and how that can affect your rights to support, custody, equitable distribution, and ultimately, a Decree in Divorce.

As I mentioned in those posts, in Pennsylvania we have what we call a two-year waiting period. What this ends up meaning is if one spouse wants to have a divorce and the other does not, the parties must be living separate and apart for a period of at least two years before the court has the right to issue a Decree in Divorce. For example, here in Allegheny County you cannot even have a meeting with the judge and start talking about the distribution of your assets until that two-year mark has been reached. (Obviously, this is not true in cases where you want to work together to try to reach a resolution, mediate, collaborate, etc. You are free to discuss these issues at any time. This is one of the advantages of pursuing resolution of your matters outside of the court context).

For a very long time, there have been concerns that this two-year waiting period is not necessary, and that it needlessly prolongs the divorce process and otherwise makes things longer, more costly and more difficult for the parties. It should be noted that the separation period used to actually be three years and was moved down to two sometime ago. There has, intermittently over the last several years, been a push to try to reduce the two-year waiting period to a one-year waiting period. A one-year waiting period would be more consistent with many of our neighboring states, some of which require only six months between separation and when the court has the right to enter a Divorce Decree. House Bill 380 was introduced to reduce two-year waiting period down to one.

This legislation was proposed in the House and was approved by the House after which time it moved into the Senate. As of last week, the Bill was approved by the Senate’s judiciary committee, with only one of the fourteen votes being against it.

It is anticipated that the Senate is going to have a full vote on the fate of HB 380 in the near future. Under the terms of the Bill, it would be effective sixty days after its passing. So, the waiting period could be changing soon. The potential of changes to this waiting period may be something you wish to consider, when determining whether or not it is in your best interest to separate at this time.

I will keep you posted as to when this goes to a full vote and may be signed into law. For now, the two-year waiting period remains, but this may not be the case for much longer.

If you found this helpful, please like my page and share this post with others.
Thank you.