Arizona Divorce & Family Law Blog

Divorce and Taxes: Five Things You Need to Know

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:36:56 -0700

Time Magazine just posted article on Divorce and Taxes that has some basic information on whether to file "married", "single" or "head of household", etc. Deals with tax treatment concerning alimony (spousal support), child custody and dependent status, child support, an tax treatment for sale of marital residence.

Debts in Divorce- Division of Marital Debt in Arizona

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:56:30 -0700

The following guest post is from Marc Brown:

Divorce and debt problems often go hand in hand and have adverse impacts on each other especially in terms of finance and possessions. Sometimes, fighting on financial issues drain the joy out of a marital life and compel the couple to split up. Under Arizona law, all the assets and the debts incurred during a marital life are regarded as community property and therefore after divorce needs to be divided equally between husband and wife. Division of debt is not an easy task because your better or worse half might have accumulated outstanding debt, but you also remain liable to pay it off. Both Debt division as well as asset division is contentious as both you and your spouse fight over each and every tiny issue in order to evade any sort of loss. Only a knowledgeable attorney is capable of helping you to divide your marital debt equitably.

Documents Required to Aid in Debt Division

Courts demand substantial proofs and documentation to determine marital assets and debts. It is not always possible for couples to provide all exact and accurate information to court and therefore verification of facts are required. Credit bureaus are able to shed light on this matter and can present exact figures and estimation of debt. Before planning a divorce you need to keep a record of following items like tax returns, mortgage papers, investment portfolios, bank account records, credit card statements, business records, titles or deeds of ownership. In case there is no financial documentation of the above mentioned items, you can request assistance from forensic accountants and certified public accountants. They can investigate your finances and get an exact account of debts and assets. It is essential to depict a clear picture of the community properties, separate properties and debts so that the court can make a perfect ruling on the property division.

Agreements of Debt Division

If you are in the planning stage of divorce you can better start paying off your debts, so you don’t have to handle them any more in the divorce settlement. However if you have overwhelming debts during divorce an Arizona family lawyer can help you to come to terms on some debt division agreements. In the agreement you need to follow the contracts given below:

• You need to give consent that you take responsibility for the debts in exchange for receiving more assets from the marital property division. For example suppose, you get the possession of the house, the cars and the lake house and agree to take care of all the credit card bills.

• You can also agree to let your spouse take responsibility for some of the debts and in turn he or she can receive more assets from the division of property. For example you can allow your spouse to take the boat, the house with the mortgage payment and all of the student loan debt as well.

• You can agree to share equal responsibility for the debts as well. Here both you and your partner will be legally responsible and if your ex-spouse does not pay off the debt, you will be left with the entire debt burden. You can appeal to court, but creditors will still hold you legally responsible and if you do not pay back the debt it will adversely affect your credit history in future.

To make the best of a bad bargain and settle your marital debts you better keep all the above mentioned points in mind. There are some legal consequences that can affect you for a long time even after your divorce gets finalized. Settle your debt in dispute with the help of a proficient attorney. Make sure that your legal agreements put you in a fair position and you do not start your new life after divorce with a dent in your wallet.

About the Author: Marc Brown is a financial writer. He has been writing on financial topics over the years with special focus on the US economy. Marc also takes interest in debt related issues and contributes articles on debt settlement to acclaimed personal finance blogs.

Arizona Spousal Maintenance Award Downward Modification -- Remanded

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:13:05 -0700

In Orinski v. Orinzki before Division 2 of the Arizona Court of Appeals, wife appealled the trial court's approval of husband's request that his spousal maintenance award be reduced. Husband claimed he was entitled to a modification in spousal maintenance since the family's marital home had been sold as contemplated in their divorce.

The trial court agreed modifying spousal support, finding that, based on the language of the parties' settlement agreement entered into at the time of divorce, "review [was] mandated and no further showing of a change in circumstances beyond the sale of the residence [was] necessary for a modification".

Wife argued on appeal that althought the settlement agreement mandated review when the marital residence was sold, there had to be "a showing of changed circumstances" before the trial court could modify the award. The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with wife indicating that the while the sale of the marital residence is a factor that might justify a reduction, but only if, husband could show that the sale amounted to a substantial and continuing change of circumststances.

Needless to say, there are many instances where reductions of spousal maintenance may be permitted, given the downturn in the economy.

Multiple Torts Causes of Actions - Spouse v. Spouse

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:29:07 -0700

Arizona Court rules on multiple tort claims alleging wrongdoing by married parties.

In Berk, Wife made claims against Husband for "Consipracy to Commit False Imprisonment", "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Stress", "Libel", "Slander", "Invasion of Privacy", and "Loss of Consortium".

Apparently the underlying situation involved Husband's attempt to conduct an intervention for Wife' benefit,which subsequentlyeding up in his having the Wife committed to a mental health facility for observation, and his alleged discussions with various individuals in the Phoenix Arizona "Jewish Community" about Wife.

The court, in ruling on competing summary judgment motions, found that Husband's attempts to lure Wife into an intervention was not actionable as a consipracy to commit false imprisonment because she was never physically restrained by contact, and that "words, actions and body language" alone was not enouph to make a claim. Neither was the intervention and subsequent action by Husband to take Wife to a psychiatric facilitiy actionalbe as an intentional infliction of emotional distress because it was not "outrageous" or "intended to cause emotional distress".

Similarly, the Husband's filing of an Application for Involuntary Evaluation and Application for Emergency Admission was found not defamatory and libelous because, in part, documents containing reference to Wife were filed in litigation proceedings are entitled were thus entitled to "absolute privilege". And, eventhough it was alleged that Husband talked to "about 30 people about Munchausen's Proxy (MBP), without publication, no slander action could be brought. And again, because of lack of proof of any publication, allegations that "falsely represented [Wife's] mental state to friends, colleagues and the Jewish community" was not actionable as an invasion of privacy.

Finally, no loss of consortium claim existed even though Wife was found to be separated from the parties' children during her stay at the psychiatric care facility.

There were more claims from Husband against Wife as well as claims against a third-party, which are set out in the full text of the opinion, Berk v. Berk.

Orders of Protection

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:45:42 -0700

Here is a topic that is often considered the absolute worst, orders of protection in Arizona family law cases where kids are involved.

First, a disclaimer: Some Orders of Protection have validity, and some actually work. There are people who seriously need to be protected from abusive or threatening individuals, and are at imminent risk of harm. Obtaining an Order of Protection does work if the person that you are attempting to restrain has some remnant of respect for the law, or fear of repercussion -- like arrest or imprisonment -- if he or she violates the order. And of course, an Order of Protection can assist responding police offcers in assessing and then directing what should be done temporarily while at the scene.

But improperly obtained Orders of Protection are a whole different story, and unfortunately are just as frequently the norm, and they hurt everyone.

In meritorious cases, family court judges can become so focused on the underlying motives for the requests for Orders of Protection that at-risk people may be denied the protection they need, sometimes with horrific consequences. It happens.

On the other hand, there are many instances when bogus Orders of Protections are obtained for use in manipulating other issues within a divorce or family law dispute. For instance, a respondent is cut off from the kids, suddenly and indefinitely -- with little or no physical, telephone, written or even electronic contact -- while the case gets adjourned ad nauseum, based on allegations he or she never even had a chance to contest in court prior to the issuance of the Order of Protection.

As for the kids in these cases -- usually they are confused by the abrupt disappearance of one parent. If they are lucky, they won't get poisoned too much by the petitioner or his/her friends and relatives. However, there is a good chance they will. To make matters worse, therapists often get involved and join the gang of total strangers (judges, law guardians, child protective services, forensic evaluators, etc. etc.) now intruding on the family without much investigation or information being obtained first.

Also, the petitioner, who thinks he or she has just scored big-time in the impending custody battle, may be completely oblivious to a bunch of problems that can result. For instance, he or she may not have noticed the damage just caused his/her family - which no custody award in his/her favor will ever erase. And he or she runs the risk that a very patient respondent -- one who's prepared to ride the waves of mostly negative rulings for a while, and who's hired a good lawyer - will eventually expose the phony claims. If the respondent has a fair amount of facts in his/her favor, s/he may even prove it's the petitioner who's really harming the family. Boom. Custody unexpectedly awarded to the respondent.

Court Issues Order on Attorney Standards for Arizona Child Representation

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:48:11 -0700

The Arizona Supreme Court has adopted Administrative Order No. 2011-16, dealing with Duties and Responsibilities of Appointed Counsel and Guardians Ad Litem. The Order became effective February 1, 2011, and is applicable to all appointed counsel and guardians ad litem on and after the effective date.

The Court further ordered:

that any attorney currently appointed to represent a child in any dependency matter in the State is exempt from the introductory six (6) hours of court approved training. All attorneys handling dependency matters, including those currently assigned cases, shall comply with the continuing training requirements outlined in the Duties and Responsibilities of Appointed Counsel and Guardians Ad Litem.

Arizona Child Support & On-Base Military Housing

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:55:00 -0700

Arizona Court of Appeals hold that the trial court should not have excluded the value of Father’s on-base housing from his gross income without determining whether its value was significant and reduced Father’s personal living expenses. See Patterson v. Patterson, 02-10-11.

The Court of Appeals went on to state:

Thus, based on the plain language of the Guidelines and consistent with our case law and authorities from other jurisdictions, we hold the family court should have determined the value of Father’s on-base housing and considered, in the exercise of its discretion, whether that value was “significant and reduce[d] [his] personal living expenses,” instead of automatically excluding it from income simply because “the employer [was] the military.” As discussed above, the value of Father’s on-base housing could constitute an “in-kind or other non-cash benefit[]” received during employment if it is significant and reduces his personal living expenses.

Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC Sponsors MCBA Race Judicata

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:06:54 -0700

All of us at NGS wish Rachel R. James, Esq., a divorce and family law lawyer with Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC, well in her serving as the Chair of the Race Judicata Event sponsored by Maricopa County Bar Association (MCBA) this coming Sunday, October 3, 2010.

More on Valento v Valento

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:05:09 -0700

As mentioned yesterday in this blog, The Arizona Court of Appeals recently rendered a decision addressing a very common problem that many Arizonans are facing - a severe downturn in the real estate market. The case, Valento v Valento, and the facts concerning the matter follow.

Facts

During the marriage, Husband and Wife (both realtors) acquired multiple properties, including the marital residence. During the marriage, Husband signed a disclaimer deed recognizing that the marital residence was Wife's sole and separate property.

After trial, it was determined that an equitable lien of $200,000 attached to the marital residence.

Husband appealed because he did not agree with the trial court's determination as to the value of the lien imposed upon the marital residence, Wife cross-appealed arguing that no equitable lien should have existed.

Disclaimer Deed; Sole and Separate Property?

Wife's position was that she purchased the marital residence in 2005 for $1.2M, and that she made a down-payment of $560K from her separate funds and mortgaged the remaining $650K. She testified that during the marriage, both parties paid down the principle balance with approximately $200K of community funds. According to Wife, the outstanding mortgage balance at trial was approximately $400K.

Husband however claimed that the lot upon which the marital residence was located was purchased for $384K, which was subject to the disclaimer deed, but that community funds were used to build the home and improve the property. Husband's position was that the property increased in value during the marriage, and stressed that the disclaimer deed he signed only dealt with any "past and present" interest, but not any future interest in the property.

Neither party submitted documentary evidence to support their positions. (The Court of Appeals was not pleased with this, pointing out that it was particularly unusual since both parties were experienced realtors.) As a result, the trial court refused to treat the land purchase and construction as separate transactions, and adopted Wife's position that the marital residence and its property was her sole and separate property. The Court of Appeals agreed finding that the language contained in the disclaimer deed "defined the character of the interest in the entire property, including the house".

Valuation of Marital Residence.

At trial, Husband submitted a year-old appraisal that valued the property at $1.65M. However, he admitted that since the time of the appraisal the real estate market had declined approximately 30%. Husband suggested that the value should be fixed at the appraisal amount, plus the value of subsequent improvements less 30%. According to his theory, the improvements were worth $100K and fair market value of the property was $1.225M -- approximately $15K more than the combined value of the mortgage and down payment.

Wife claimed the property was worth $800K based on comps, and as such, at trial market forces reduced the value by approximately $320K. (Remember, we did say the Arizona real estate market was "severly" depressed!

With that said, the trial court made no determination as to the value of the property after trial. It did however, conclude that there was a community lien based solely upon the reduction of principle from the contribution of community funds. On appeal, Husband contended that the trial court undervalued the community lien; Wife contended that no lien could exist because the property did not appreciate during the marriage.

Finding

The Court of Appeals did not agree with Wife that there should be no equitable lien because the property decreased in value during the marriage. The Court of Appeals also found that it was improper for the trial court not to have determined the value of the property at trial so that the value of the community lien could not be made.

The Court then reaffirmed the use of the Barnett formula when separate property depreciates but positive equity remains because "community contributions toward principle have increased equity dollar-for-dollar, and the presence of positive equity means that the owner-spouse can actually realize the benefit conferred by the community". Further, the Court explained "[i]f the community contributions were not recognized in the form of a lien, the owner-spouse would receive a windfall from the community". As a result, the Court rejected Wife's position that a decline in the market value automatically eliminates the community's interest in sole and separate property.

The Court also saw "no reason to deprive the community of the entire value of its contributions when separate property depreciates to the point that the owner-spouse has negative equity -- to the extent that the owner-spouse has received existing value from the community, the community's contributions must be recognized. And, the Court indicated it would be illogical to hold that the community should receive the full benefit of its contributions to principal when a portion of the equity it created can no longer be realized." As a result, the Court held that when equity is negative, the community lien can be valued as follows C - [C/B x D]; where D equals the depreciation in value of the property during marriage; B equals the value of the property on the date of marriage; and C equals community contributions to principal or market value.

To be continued . . .

Ruling re: Equitable Lien & Downturn in Real Estate Market

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:58:59 -0700

Arizona Appellate Court issues new ruling -- case of first impression, i.e., to what extent can a marital community claim an equitable lien against a spouse’s sole and separate property when community funds have contributed to the equity in the property and declining market conditions have nonetheless reduced the property’s overall value?

The Court of Appeals held that community contributions to sole and separate property create equitable lien rights even in a declining market, and define below the method by which the value of the lien should be calculated.

Click here for the Opinion. Further analysis to follow in subsequent blog entry.

Divorce Insurance: Get Unhitched, Get a Payout

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:33:59 -0700

WedLock is a new type of casualty insurance that gives the unhappily married policyholder a payout after he or she is unhitched. It costs about $16 a month for every $1,250 of coverage. But to discourage people from signing up just prior to their divorce, policyholders must ante up for four years before the policy will pay out. It adds a premium of $250 per unit for every year the marriage survives beyond four. So if a policyholder who bought 10 units got divorced after 10 years, he or she would have handed over $19,188 and would receive a payout of $27,500. It's probably not worth getting divorced for, but the lump sum might salve some wounds, whether through lawyers, vacations or subscriptions to the Rhapsody Book Club.

The idea bubbled up, as so many do, from the bottom of a financial pit. After John Logan watched his wealth follow his marriage down the drain, the Kernersville, N.C., entrepreneur figured there must be a market for those who want to hedge their marital bets. He won't reveal how many policies he's sold since the Aug. 5 launch of WedLockDivorceInsurance.com. But he's surprised at how much insurance his customers are buying: some of the premiums are more than $1,000 a month.
(Comment on this story.)

Not everybody thinks divorce insurance is prudent. "The best insurance against a painful, financially devastating divorce is to find a way to be happy in your marriage," says relationship coach Mimi Daniel. "Divorce insurance implies from the beginning that divorce is already an option."

On the other hand, unless you're Elin Nordegren, few things are as impoverishing as ending a marriage. Logan, who is recently engaged and, yes, is buying policies for himself and his betrothed, expects WedLock will become part of prenuptial agreements or be purchased for a bride or groom by relatives concerned about their loved one's choice of loved one. "Mom or Dad could buy this for their son or daughter without them knowing about it," he suggests. But the bride or groom has to be the beneficiary. Sorry, scheming mother-in-law, no windfall for you.

This article originally appeared in the Sept. 13, 2010, issue of TIME magazine.

Divorcing Spouses Quit Facebook

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:10:31 -0700

Divorce is becoming the newest frontier in the social media privacy battle as an increasing number of couples craft informal non-disclosure agreements for Facebook and Twitter -- prescribing how much can be shared with friends and strangers alike and dictating the rules of non-engagement for couples who conduct most of their lives in public.

To read more, check out Kathryn Blaze Carlson's article in the National Post · Friday, Sept. 17, 2010.

New Arizona Family Court Administrative Order

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:48:57 -0700

Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 43(d)(6) now authorizes the Court, upon filing of a Family Court petition, to limit access to all court documents, records and evidence related to the petition for forty-five (45) days.

As a result, a new Administrative Order, No. 2010-092 has been issued which states: "all court documents, records and evidence in any Family Court action commenced with a Family Court case number not in existence before July 1, 2010 will be unavailable to the general public and will be accessible only by judicial officers, court and clerk’s office personnel, case parties and their associated attorneys of record, and law enforcement in the exercise of their official duties until forty-five (45) days have passed since filing the petition."

For further information on Arizona divorce and family law matters, contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC.

Tiger Woods Divorce Finally Done.

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:15:53 -0700

Tiger Woods is now officially divorced. The Decree of Divorce has been published. No particulars yet about specific divorce settlement terms.

For information on Arizona divorce, contact one of our lawyers at NGS.

Veterans Disability Protection Act of 2010 (VDPA)

Rachel R. James — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:03:02 -0700

The Veterans Disability Protection Act of 2010 (VDPA) seeks to protect disabled veterans in the courtroom. Disabled veterans who were injured in combat or in the line of duty receive disability compensation from the government. See article.

This compensation is supposed to be protected by federal laws, but civil court judges tend to attach the compensation to divorce lawsuits anyway. For example, sometimes when a disabled veteran gets divorced, the judge considers the disability compensation as “income” and, therefore, it becomes a divisible marital asset. They wrongfully calculate the disability compensation into a divorce settlement.

The author of the article states that this action has led some veterans to become homeless or to commit suicide. The VDPA seeks to prevent the court from being able to take the disability compensation away from the veteran – as this would be unfair and cruel. This Act declares that all of the disability compensation will go to the disabled veteran and no one else. The court would not be able to attach the compensation to any other kind of “income” in these cases. The passage of the VDPA would “affect every man or woman injured in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. military, past, present, and future, and guarantee the total protection of their earned benefits – with no strings attached.”

Judge Orders Couple to Split Custody of Dog

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:42:19 -0700

Call it the The Maryland Canine Custody Case.

As they headed toward divorce, Gayle and Craig Myers had only one bone of contention: Who would have the right to keep Lucky, their 16-pound gray-black Lhasa apso.

Under Maryland law, family pets — unlike, say, children — are treated as jointly owned marital property and sold if the divorcing couple cannot agree on who gets to keep them. The parties then split the proceeds of the sale. The same principle applies in Arizona.

However, the standard resolution did not result in this Maryland case. The judge, presiding over the limited-divorce proceeding by special assignment, decided on his own last month that Gayle and Craig, who have no children, would split custody of Lucky. The dog will alternate spending six months with each party.

The Maryland ruling indicated that "it was very clear that both of them love this dog equally," and that "the only fair thing to do was to give each one an equal chance to share in the love of the dog."

Could this be the start of a trend toward pet-custody rulings? Not likely, however more and more bar organizations are creating sections for "pet law". The State Bar of Arizona has one.

Had either side objected to his unusual resolution, the Judge said, he would have applied the law and might have ordered the dog put in the care of a trustee, sold and the proceeds divided.

Animal-law activists have praised the ruling saying the Judge recognized that dogs and other pets are "family members" and not mere property. Attorneys for Gayle hailed what they characterized as McKee's humane compromise in not requiring the divorcing couple to part with their beloved pet.

Financial Support in Military Cases

Rachel R. James — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:46:26 -0700

Michael S. Archer and CPT Tricia L. Birdsell provide a detailed analysis regarding the pitfalls civilian attorneys can encounter in cases involving military support issues.

Military support issues arise frequently in Arizona due to the presence of Luke Airforce Base, as well as other military installations in the Southwest. If you or your spouse are in the military, each branch of service requires certain support obligations upon separation for both dependents and spouses. This article details the steps one must take in each branch of the military to obtain support, how to calculate the support obligation, as well as how a waiver of the obligation can be obtained by the military spouse.

The correct action to take in making a Nonsupport Complaint depends entirely upon which branch of service the military spouse, or dependent’s father/mother, are in, as well as the type of income earned by the military spouse. If the correct action is taken by a spouse seeking financial support, the non-military spouse may be able to obtain support through the military that they otherwise may not be entitled to receive in an Arizona Superior Court case. Further, depending upon the branch of the military you are in, the military spouse should discuss with an attorney whether temporary support orders should be sought in an Arizona Superior Court case if the military support obligation is higher than the potential non-military support obligation.

In Arizona, if you are a military spouse, you should discuss with an attorney the pros and cons of providing the other party with spousal maintenance as if you do so, there may be a way you can still earn a Basic Housing Allowance once you are no longer married depending upon your branch of service and other factors.

In addition, the article provides a detailed explanation of the calculation of income for a military spouse, including review of an LES Earning Statements, Base Pay, Basic Allowance for Housing, Basic Allowance for Subsistence and Special Duty and Incentive Pays. The analysis of a LES Earning Statement may yield a much higher income than that detailed on a tax return for a military spouse. Calculating the correct monthly income for a military spouse could mean the difference between a high support obligation and minimal or no support.

Remember, if you or your spouse are in the military, your case is likely to be more complicated so make sure to speak to an attorney with experience in this area. You can contact me at www.ngslaw.com

Sandra Bullock and Jesse James Finalize Divorce

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:21:14 -0700

The pair filed divorce papers under seal last week in Texas to finalize their divorce after their nearly five-year marriage crumbled amid reports of cheating by James, PEOPLE confirms.

The Oscar-winning actress, 45, initiated the divorce case in April in Texas, where she has a home. The papers cited "discord or conflict of personalities" as the reason for the split.

Bullock's rep confirmed Monday that the divorce is now final.

Though it's unclear if the two had a prenuptial agreement, James won't be entitled to spousal support since in Texas a spouse must be married for at least 10 years to qualify for support. In Arizona, there is no similar time requirement for a spouse to be entitled to spousal support, or as it is sometimes referred to as spousal maintenance and/or alimony.

Medical Pot Can Cost Parents in Custody Disputes

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:37:22 -0700

Gene Johnson of the AP, discusses the family court's handling in various states of a parent's use of medical pot and their custody cases. This isse is becoming more and more newsworthy lately.

NGS Wishes Attorney Brian D. Carroll, Esq. "All The Best"

Alexander D. Nirenstein — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:44:21 -0700

It is with great sadness and also joy that Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC (NGS) announces the departure of Brian D. Carroll, Esq., an associate attorney with the firm, whose practice primarly focused on divorce and family court matters. Mr. Carroll began his legal career with NGS in its summer law clerk internship program and continued as an attorney after his admission to the State Bar of Arizona.

Mr. Carroll and his wife are relocating to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania so that Mrs. Carroll may begin her two-year residence program in pediatric dentistry. Mr. Carroll will be sitting for the Pennsylvania Bar Examination this summer and expects to be practicing law in Pennsylvania by the end of 2010.

All of us at NGS wish Brian and his wife all the best in their future endeavors, and provide our heartfelt thanks and respect to Mr. Carroll for all the tireless effort and work that he has put forth on behalf of the Firm's clients in which representation he was involved. He will be missed.