New York Divorce Lawyers Explain Family and Matrimonial Law

New York Divorce Law Pre-Nuptial Basics, Part II

This post will bring together a number of concepts visited in other posts, particularly the ones on maintenance and equitable distribution. New York divorce law and the law of property distribution can be a little hairy and not all the pieces of the Domestic Relations law play well with each other. It really is important to try and understand how the pieces of New York divorce and family law work or do not work together. This area on pre-nuptial agreements is a perfect example.

In the equitable distribution posts I have discussed the issue of separate property versus martial property. The purpose of the pre-nup is to ensure that the lines between the two properties do no cross.

As a general rule, property acquired before marriage is separate property and property acquired afterwards is marital property. But, this simple rule rarely remains simple.

For example, a house is acquired before marriage, and the couple lives there for ten years. During the course of the marriage, the house increases in value from $125,000 to $500,000. The increased value could be considered marital property. Or, wife has a stock account before marriage in the amount of $100,000. During the marriage she uses the money to buy a house, and the couple lives there for the next 20 years. An argument can be made that the entire house is marital. Or, wife gets a personal injury settlement, which is separate property. She puts the money into a joint account with the husband. He claims that since she “co-mingled” the money, he is entitled to half of the personal injury settlement. Finally, husband buys a house before the marriage, ten years into the marriage, he sells the house and uses the proceeds to buy another house. The wife now claims the entire house is martial property.

The way to avoid these problems is to get a pre-nuptial agreement. A will drafted pre-nuptial will reduce if not eliminate headaches and legal expenses. A poorly drafted pre-nuptial could put your lawyer’s daughter through college.

The first step to getting a good pre-nuptial agreement is not to do it yourself. Good legal documents do not come from the internet or by the people who make software packages. Also avoid those places which claim that although they are not attorneys, they can help you with drafting your legal documents.

The next step is to be complete on your assets. I like to get a full list of all the current assets. Then I draft clauses ensuring that not only is the property currently held separate but it will remain separate in the future. I specifically address the issues of increased value, co-mingling and transformation. If these issues are not addressed up front, then you will be opening yourself up for a fight at the divorce.

Finally, consider maintenance. A provision waiving or requiring maintenance can be put into the agreement. But be careful to address not only the current needs of the parties but the future ones as well. An agreement to pay $1,000 a week in 2008 may sound generous, but may be completely inadequate in 2038. The ability to actually pay maintenance must be gauged against future events. I’m sure that many executives at Enron thought their futures were secure.

There are a number of other factors that also need to be considered, but they will vary based upon your particular case. No “one size fits all” pre-nuptial agreement will work. That’s why it needs to be crafted to your particular circumstance. Maybe you don’t have a house, but hold a number of copyrights or patents. May you have an inheritance coming, or have a trust which will mature in a few years. Mature marriages have children from the first marriage to consider. Clauses can be placed in an agreement limited what property can be devised under a will.

For these and other reasons, consider a pre-nuptial agreement, but don’t pull one down from the internet.

National Guardsman Loses Child Custody Due to Deployment

Note: This post pre-dated Albany’s uncharacteristic quick action. After this decision was rendered, there was such a firestorm, that Albany put in a quick fix. It is not perfect, but the fix prevents judges from making permanent changes in custody based during a military deployment. More work needs to be done. But this is a start.

Note Two: The change in the law doesn’t lessen by feelings about the below decision.

Regular readers know I that don’t slam or criticize judges, I merely explain the law. Well that changes with this posting. I am furious at a decision by a panel of appellate judges in Albany who rubber stamped an ill-advised decision to penalize a mother for the crime of being a patriotic American. The case, Diffin v. Diffin involves a mother who got custody of her son as part of a divorce settlement in 2000. On April 2004, the mother got mobilized and went to Iraq.

The father moved for a change in custody, and the mother plead the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Family Court stayed the action, but granted temporary custody to the father until the mother returned from Iraq.

When the mother returned, the Family Court awarded custody to the father. The appellate division, third department affirmed the decision. The reason was that because her military service, she has a less settled life. Therefore, it was in the best interests of the child to change custody to the father.

The Court tried to claim that the military service had no impact on the decision, but then they go on to find that her military service was the primary factor. To put a fig leaf on the decision, they talk about how in the past year the child is in a stable environment and that it would be disruptive to uproot him. But, in the end of the decision the anti-military bias shows through: “although the disruption caused by her deployment was not her fault, this record does not demonstrate that Darrell’s best interests would be enhanced by a order a change (i.e. a return to his mother) in his present physical custody.”

Justices, Cardona, Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, should be ashamed of themselves for this blatantly anti-servicemember decision. Justices Cardona and Spain bear particular responsibility as they are prior military.

There are a large number of single parents in the military and particularly in the Guard and Reserves. The reason we have the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and the Servicemembers Employment Re-employment Rights Act (USERA) is to fulfil a public policy of maintaining the Guard and Reserves. Patriotic Americans who go the extra step and serve our country should not be punished by small minded people who are shielded by sacrifices that our military members are making every day.

Here, we have a Guardsman who did not shirk from her duty. She did not make excuses. When the call came, she raised her hand and went into a war zone. The thanks that a grateful nation bestowed upon her was to take her son away from her.

To add insult to injury the knife was wielded by Presiding Justice Cardona, a Viet Nam veteran.

New York Equitable Distribution, The Former Spouses Protection Act and the National Guard

I just settled a strange little divorce in front Judge Kent, in Suffolk County. On it’s face, it was nothing too strange. A forty year marriage, where the only property was a pension and a house. As I explained in other posts, under New York divorce law, a pension is martial property and is divided according the number of years of marriage by number of years in the pension.

The husband in this case had retired as an AGR New York Guardsman. In 1998 when he retired from the National Guard, he took off for Puerto Rico. Eight years later, the wife decided to get a divorce. Under New York divorce law, the military retired pay is marital property, but under Puerto Rican law, it is not. The question facing Judge Kent was: which law to apply.

Under the Former Spouses Protection Act Congress specifically stated that military retired pay is subject to laws of the state where the divorce is ordered. There is one kicker, the military member must either be a resident of the state or consent to the state’s jurisdiction. If he is a resident of Georgia, and the spouse tries to divorce him in Nevada, the court cannot divide his military pay. It can only be divided in Georgia, or if he consents to the Nevada court.

My case was different. The husband was a Guardsman for 20 years. He never left the state of New York and his boss was the TAG. Upon retirement he moved to Puerto Rico. So, does the Former Spouses Protection Act govern? Is it meant to cover a Guardsman who spent his entire military career in New York working for the TAG, and then moves out of state upon retirement? The answer is: I don’t know. At this time, there is no decision by any judge in the United States that I have been able find on this issue. My argument was that the act should not apply. He worked for 20 years for the Governor, not the President. I argued that the Former Spouses Protection Act was not designed to cover a career Guardsman being sued for divorce in the state where served and retired from. Naturally, my opponent argued the other side. Judge Kent was caught in the middle. Fortunately, the judge,who is a gentleman, and famous for cutting to the heart of an issue, managed to get the parties to settle. So, this question is still unanswered.

The lesson here is to be careful. If you are the spouse of guardsman who is retiring and he intends to leave the state, start the divorce now before he establishes residence in another state. If you are the guardsman, after you leave the state, establish residence and then commence the divorce. Here, because the parties let the matter sit for several years, multiple problems occurred. If we had not settled, the husband was facing 10 years of arrears payments to the wife, if we won. If we lost, the wife was potentially facing not getting any money from the pension.