The lap top computer, found in the trunk of the family car, contained “hundreds and hundreds of pages of really salacious conversations” between the husband and his girlfriend.

The court found that since the lap top did not have any passwords and the files were not encrypted, it was similar to an open file cabinet. Therefore, the husband had no claim to privacy in his computer files.

The lesson is clear for both parties in a divorce. First, don’t hide information on a computer. Second, if you really want to leave damning information on your computer, such as emails, instant messages, your internet browsing history or financial information, use a password to access the computer, and encrypt your files.

Hip hop star 50 Cent recently was the victim of a judicial drive-by shooting. 50 Cent has been engaged in a high profile family court action in Suffolk County, New York with his former live-in girlfriend and mother of his child.

He began a proceeding to evict her from their Dix Hills home. She then started an action in New York Supreme Court to stop the eviction. Her claim, removing all the legalese, was that they had a common law marriage.

Her attorney is a clever fellow and never actually uses the word “common law marriage” and neither did the judge, but the reality of what the judge did is clear. And if I were a betting man, I would be betting that the appellate court is going to reverse her.

Starting from the beginning, New York has abolished common law marriage. If you are not legally married, you cannot receive the protections afforded to a spouse. If a husband buys a house, the wife is automatically a co-owner regardless of whose name is on the deed. However, if a boyfriend buys a house, unless the girlfriend’s name is on the deed, she has no right to the property.

Turning to 50 Cent’s case, he bought the house in Dix Hills. The girlfriend’s name is not on the deed and she did not contribute money toward the purchase. She should have been out of luck.

But her lawyer devised a clever legal argument and swayed the court with a story of her dutiful sacrifices for 50 Cent. So, the judge accepted the attorney’s novel theories and ordered that the girlfriend can remain in the house.

The girlfriend, Shaniqua Tompkins, argued that she had a contract with 50 Cent, wherein he agreed to take care of her and to share equally in his successes. In return, Tompkins agreed to keep his home and perform other home making services for him.

The court noted that, under New York law, an oral contract that cannot be completed in a year is void. For example, an oral contract to employ someone for six months is valid. On the other hand, an oral contract to employ a particular person as long as he is alive cannot be completed in a year and is void.

After noting this law, the court then ignores it.

The court next notes the law that ”cohabitation without marriage does not give to the property and financial rights which normally attend marital relations…”

The court then noted that an agreement which is not for ”marital” type services is enforceable. However, the rule envisioned a boyfriend having the girlfriend work in his business. Turning the rule on its head, the court found that Tompkins’ housekeeping was not a ‘marital’ function but unconnected to the romantic relationship. Therefore, the judge found a contract between 50 Cent and Tompkins.

What the court did was implicitly find a common law marriage. A promise to provide support in exchange for keeping house cannot be viewed by any stretch of the imagination as anything but a ‘marital relationship.’

Next the court went on to establish a constructive trust. A constructive trust is used when someone in a legal position of trust, known as a fiduciary, causes a person to improperly transfer property. For example, X owns a piece of
property. Y, his attorney, convinces X to transfer the property to him at no cost, but on a promise that the transfer will benefit X. Once Y gets the title, he turns X out of the property. Here the court admitted that Tompkins never owned the property and never paid any money toward it. Instead, the court found that she had transferred her effort in housekeeping and therefore the court found that a constructive trust could exist for the Dix Hills house.

Again, this type of reasoning violates the law against common law marriages. If a paramour can claim an ownership interest in a house by living it in, the common law marriage can be recognized.

Whether 50 Cent will appeal it or not is up to him. I believe that this decision, by seeking a back door to resurrect common law marriages, should be reversed.

For example, military disability pay is not subject to equitable distribution.

The Post Office pensions also presents unique challenges and issues. Since the pension comes from the federal government is it needlessly complicated, as least for the divorce lawyer.

One important issue was recently addressed by Nassau County Divorce Judge, Anthony Falanga. Justice Falanga is one of the brighter and more pragmatic judges deciding divorce cases in New York. He spent over 30 years as a divorce lawyer himself, and understands the issues and concerns of the litigants.

In the case of Grimmer v. Grimmer , published in the New York Law Journal on March 21, 2008, on page 31, Justice Falanga addressed the issue of whether all or just part of a Post Office pension is subject to equitable distribution under New York divorce law. He found that as an employee of the Post Office, the husband, was not eligible to contribute to or receive social security. Instead, a part of his Post Office pension would be a replacement for social security. Social Security is not subject to equitable distribution.

Citing the case of Wallach v. Wallach 37 AD3d 707, Justice Falanga observed that under the Federal Civil Service Retirement System (FERS) a court was directed to “deduct from the value of the retirement benefit the portion thereof that substitutes for social security.”

Based upon the Wallach decision, Justice Falanga found that the entire Post Office pension is not subject to equitable distribution. The portion of the pension that substitutes for social security must be removed. Assume the husband is getting $1500 a month in the pension. He worked 30 years, and was married for the entire 30 years. The court orders that the pension be divided in half. Further assume that the social security substitution is 30 percent. So, only $1000 of the $1500 is pension, while the remaining is counted as social security. The wife would get $500 a month (one half of $1000) not $750 a month (one half of $1500).

An important caveat for the holder of the pension is to make sure that your lawyer knows and understands this fact. Typically, in divorce actions, we divorce lawyers hire a pension appraisal service to provide the value of the pension. Make sure that the pension appraisal takes into account the social security replacement.

In the care of Beth R . v. Donna M., Justice Drager has extended the decisions from other New York courts regarding same sex marriages obtained in Ontario, Canada. In my some of my prior posts, I have referred to cases where a same sex couple gets married in Canada, and then applied for employment marital benefits in New York. The Fourth Department ruled that the denial of such benefits was discrimination.

Justice Drager has taken that reasoning one step further. If the marriage is valid for benefits, it is valid for application of New York divorce law.

Basically, Beth R. and Donna M. got married in Ontario, Canada. After a few years the marriage fell apart, and the couple parted. Beth R. commenced an action for divorce, and for visitation of the two children born via artificial insemination to Donna M.

Justice Drager found that the couple had a wedding, sent out birth announcements and generally held themselves out to the children and the world as the parents of the children. Therefore, Beth R. did have “parental” rights.

In order to arrive at this decision, Justice Drager had to apply several legal precedents. First, using the same rationale as the Fourth Department in Martinez v. Monroe Community College , she found that the marriage in Canada was afforded recognition. Since the marriage was legal, she reasoned, then the Domestic Relations governing divorces also applied.

It appears that Justice Drager is the first judge to apply the divorce law, including equitable distribution, to same sex marriages contracted outside of New York state.

However, Justice Drager went further and also applied the rules of equitable estoppel. In other posts, I have discussed the issue of equitable estoppel. Basically, if a man raises a child as his own, he cannot later contest paternity, even if he is not the biological father. The rationale is that the child, who believes this man is his father, would be damaged if he suddenly discovered the truth.

Here, Justice Drager applied the same principal of law to same sex marriages. The couple held themselves out as the parents of the children. “The parties taught J.R. to call Plaintiff ‘mom’ and Defendant as ‘mommy’. J.R. calls Plaintiff’s mother ‘nana’ and refers to Plaintiff’s siblings as ‘aunt’ and ‘uncle.’” The parties made joint decisions about pre-school and camp. They jointly made decisions about the pediatrician and the nanny. In all matter the couple acted as parents.

Using the principle of equitable estoppel, Justice Drager found that although, generally, a biological stranger has no interests in a child, in this case, Plaintiff made a showing of entitlement. Further, the court found that an additional factor was the marriage. “Moreover, although people enter into marriages for many reasons, creating familial bonds is one of the most significant reasons, particularly for the benefit of their children. The parties were clearly committed to becoming married, having traveled twice to Canada and having obtained two marriage licenses. It is noteworthy that the Defendant voluntarily entered into the marriage after her first child was born. Furthermore, as Plaintiff argues, the artificial insemination during the marriage resulting in the birth of [the second child] S.R. may require a finding that she is the legitimate child of both parents.”

The ramifications of this decision are murky. First, Justice Drager is a lower court judge. The Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles 7 NY3rd 338 (2006) has clearly stated that New York cannot create a same sex marriage. Therefore, it is not clear what the appellate division, of the First Department will do here. The Court of Appeals will ultimately have to weigh in. Second, Justice Drager’s decision regarding the visitation is also problematic as it is novel. It is one thing to say that a child should not be confused as to who his father is, it is another to extend that reasoning to a same sex relationship.

Until the Court of Appeals or the legislature weighs in, Justice Drager’s decision merely makes a murky situation more confused. I still advise same sex couples to invest in a partnership agreement as a hedge against the current uncertainties of the law. Basing important life decisions on the confused state of the law could be a disaster.

The Court of Appeals of the State of New York stated in Hernandez v. Robles that same-sex marriages performed in New York are invalid. Basically, the court held that under the New York Constitution and statutes, there is no positive right for a same sex couple to get married under New York law. The court did not address whether a same-sex marriage obtained in another state would be valid in New York.

The Appellate Division for the 4th Department, which covers Western New York, issued a decision, published in the Law Journal for February 7, 2008, finding that a same sex marriage performed in Ontario, Canada, must be recognized as a valid marriage in New York.

The court observed that such marriages are legal in Ontario, Canada and there is no law in New York prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages. Therefore, the court concluded, “the plaintiff’s marriage to Golden, valid in the Province of Ontario, Canada, is entitled to recognition in New York in the absence of express legislation to the contrary.”

The court, finding that the marriage of legal, stated that the failure of the county of Monroe to recognize the marriage constituted discrimination under the New York Executive law.

The decision joins a growing number of decisions recognizing same-sex marriages when performed in a jurisdiction where they are legal.

One interesting note: the court found that failure by the county of Monroe to accord the Plaintiff with all the marital benefits was discrimination. Therefore, the court recognize a right to enforce recognition of the marriage.

Quite frankly, I don’t know where these cases will finally end up. Either the Court of Appeals is going to weigh in the topic or the legislature. If the Court of Appeals upholds this decision, then absent action by the legislature, same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions will be valid in New York.

My advise for any same-sex couple seeking to get married in another jurisdiction, hedge your bets and get some type of partnership agreement signed. In the event either the Court of Appeals or Legislature comes down against same-sex marriages, many separating couples could face significant property issues. It’s best to lock down the rules for dividing up the property before you buy that house. In that case, the name of the person on the deed is the owner and the person not on the deed has no property interests.

That sentiment is doubly true for custody cases. Let me state up front: custody cases are expensive and there is absolutely no guarantee of success. In fact, I’m going to be adding that language to my retainers because no matter how many times and different ways I say it, someone will hear what they want to hear.

Let’s talk expense. The first thing a New York divorce or family court judge does when she hears the words “custody battle” is to appoint a law guardian. The law guardian is an attorney hired by the court to represent the interests of the child in the battle. Guess who pays for the LG? Not the court, the parties. The court could divide it 50/50, 60/40, or 100 percent to one party. It is based upon the financial resources of the parties, and the discretion of the court. I never predict how that will turn out. But, generally speaking the person making the most money will pay the most money.

In the average custody case, the LG can end up billing at least $15,000 and many times will bill more than that.

Next, the court will appoint a forensic psychologist to interview the parties, the child, and whoever is living with the parties. The average price tag for the report is $10,000. If the psychologist needs to testify at trial, expect another $7,000 to be added to the bill.

Before you even pay your lawyer, you can be out of pocket $25,000.

You must also pay your lawyer. I was involved in a particularly nasty custody battle that lasted three years, had numerous courts appearances, several appeals and ended in a three week trial. The legal cost to my client was in excess of $120,000.

So, what do you get for all the money you shell out? This is not a game, the person with the most money is not guaranteed to win. There are many factors that must be weighed and considered by the court. Ultimately, the decision is in the discretion of the court. Any lawyer who claims to be able to predict the result of a custody battle is a fool or liar.

And as tough as a custody battle is, motion to change custody is even tougher. The courts require that there be a strong showing that the custodial parent is unfit, and it is in the best interests of the child to change custody.

In future posts, I addresses some the factors that the courts consider. But, be advised, custody is expense, emotionally draining, and unpredictable. Before you walk this path, consider your options very carefully. Think it through, discuss it with your family and lawyer. Then chose wisely. In the end, it is your decision whether to take this path.

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.

I encourage you to contact your congressman to get an amendment to the SCRA. We need a provision that prevents courts from considering military service to change child custody.

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.

The one I see most frequently is failing to follow a court order of child support. At first blush, that may seem odd. How can some violate a support order and not realize it? Well, unfortunately, all to easily because a lot of people do not understand the nature of a court order.

Here’s how it normally plays out: Father is ordered by a court to pay $1000 a month in support. He does so for a while, then, he loses his job, get sicks or something else happens which makes it tough if not impossible for him to make his support payments. He goes to the mother and explains the situation and she agrees to take less, say $500 a month. They shake on the deal, and he now pays $500 a month, thinking all is good. A while later he gets served with papers for violating the court order. Not only must he pay the full $1000 a month, but he owes arrears on the time he was only paying $500. He’s shocked by the injustice: she agreed to the deal. The judge doesn’t see it that way, and the order for arrears is entered.

The problem that he didn’t understand is that a court order is just that: an order of the court. The mother has no authority to reduce the support. She cannot legally agree to lowering the support. Even if she put it in writing, he would still have to pay the full amount. In New York family and divorce law, once a court order is in place the only person who can modify the order is the judge (or family court support magistrate.) So, even if the parties have an agreement, the custodial parent can walk into divorce or family court and demand payment of the arrears and the court will grant it.

The only way to reduce the support payments is to go back to court and request it. In order to get a reduction, the non-custodial parent must demonstrate that there has been a unforeseeable change in circumstances. The court is very wary of guys claiming reduced income or to have lost their jobs. The court frequently sees guys voluntarily reducing or even hiding income to defeat the court order. However, I’ll get into reductions in another post. For now, the lesson is simple: once the court order is in place, obey it until you get another court order.

I don’t blame the judge. The simple fact is that the family courts are overwhelmed. For example, the Nassau Family court is housed in a building that was obsolete 20 years ago. There is no room for the volume of cases or to house new judges. Come to the Nassau Family Court on any day, and you’ll have to navigate packed hallways. There is no room in the courtrooms; there is no room in the waiting rooms and precious little room in the hallways.

It really is a tribute to the professionalism of the judges and court staff that anything resembling justice is accomplished. Most of the judges try very hard but the conditions of both the courthouse atmosphere and the heavy caseload can be very daunting.

For the client, it can be very frustrating to know that he is paying the lawyer by the hour and all the lawyer is doing is reading newspapers while waiting for the case to be called. I try to soften the blow by explaining the process at the beginning. When someone comes to me for a consultation or to hire me, I also show them my bag: it’s filled with magazines and newspapers.

The obvious question is “why don’t the courts use telephone conferences, so people don’t have to wait around?” In theory, it sounds great. Everyone could be taking care of business until the court is ready for the telephone conference. Telephone conferences are used in commercial cases and in federal court. Why then are the parties required to come to family and divorce courts?

There is no ”official” answer. But, it seems to me that people are less likely to settle a family law case if they are not physically present in the court. Not only have I noticed it, but so have several of my colleagues. Parties who cannot agree on anything will reach a settlement in the court’s hallways.

Well, got to run, the court officer is calling my name.