Minnesota Divorce & Family Law Blog

Cost-Effective Methods for Dividing Items of Personal Property

Jason C. Brown — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:58:41 -0600

In most dissolution cases, a host of assets and liabilities must be accounted for and divided. Homes, cars, boats, snowmobiles, retirement plans, business interests and other "big ticket" items are usually placed on a balance sheet and allocated among the parties, with the spouse receiving more value paying the other a cash equalizer. But what about "the stuff" in your home?

Truth be told, the Court wants nothing to do with dividing items of personal property of nominal value. If parties can't agree on how to divide "the stuff" the judge will simply order everything auctioned and divide the sale proceeds. As you might expect, at auction you'll receive perhaps ten cents on the dollar. We're talking garage sale prices. Then, you, and your spouse, will have to turn right around and purchase another iron, toaster, DVD player and living room set. Makes little sense.

The good news is that there are tried and true processes that we have utilized in assisting couples through the division of "stuff." Here's what has worked for our clients:

Two Lists: One of you makes two lists of items, of roughly equal value. The lists are presented to the other. The person who didn't draft the lists gets to pick which list they want. There is an incentive for the person drafting to fairly and equitably divide things or they'll get burned during the selection process.
Silent Auction: This is my favorite. A master list of all of your personal property is created. Each party blindly puts a dollar value next to each item. The high bid takes the item at the value listed. Once all items are bid on, the totals for each party are added up. The party receiving the higher dollar value pays the other a cash equalizer to make up the other's shortfall. Parties are free to place a high value on items they really want, but won't list a ridiculous bid out of fear of paying a large offset.
Arbitration: An arbitrator is basically a private judge. You pay this person, usually a lawyer, to listen to your side of things in an informal conference setting. Then, your spouse does the same. The arbitrator is given the authority to divide the entire list of items as they deem fair and equitable. Costs are saved because the parties attend the arbitration without counsel and divide the arbitrator's fee. Most couples submit to binding arbitration so that the decision of the arbitrator is final.
Rotating Lists: Make a master list and take turns going back and fourth until all of the personal property is divided. Flip a coin to see who goes first.

The bottom line is that usually the personal property of the parties isn't worth the money that will be spent fighting over it. It's true...we've been caught in the middle of disputes over Christmas ornaments, but not by choice. By the time all was said and done, both parties could have purchased a collection of new decor with the legal fees they would have saved by putting down the swords and agreeing to a process that would fairly, and cost-effectively, get the issue of personal property division resolved.

Staying Ahead of the Curve: 12 Proactive Steps To Take If You Are Contemplating Divorce

Jason C. Brown — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:59:46 -0600

Once you break the news of your desire to dissolve your marriage, interesting things may start happening at your house. Critical records and valuable items of personal property may suddenly vanish. It pays to be proactive to ensure that you have all the information you will need to move forward as efficiently as possible.

The wasted time and cost associated with hunting down missing documentation can be staggering. We've handled cases where everything from an expensive diamond ring to boxes of business records have taken a bit a "vacation." We almost always find them, but not without substantial effort. In cases where they are not found, the Court will impose substantial sanctions and assume the missing evidence is favorable to you.

To help avoid the mess, we've assembled a list of 12 things you should gather to ensure that you have all of critical information in hand before your spouse has a chance to conceal, transfer or sell items. These include obtaining:

Copies of financial statements;
Copies of tax returns;
Copies of computer hard drives;
Copies of insurance policies;
Copies of wills and/or trusts;
Inventory of safety deposit boxes, with a witness;
Copies of deeds and/or titles to real property;
Copies of small business ledgers, financial journals, payroll, sales tax returns and expense account records;
Copies of appraisals for art, antiques, jewelry and collectibles;
Record the contents of each room in your home through video;
Copies of retirement account statements; and
Copies of your spouse's pay stubs for the last few months.

Investing some time in gathering these items will ensure that your spouse cannot take advantage of you during the divorce process. The denial of the existence of an asset is a fraud upon the Court. Once your spouse knows that we have all of the key information in hand, they are far less likely to engage in bad faith conduct and be honest in their disclosures throughout the process.

Divorce Lawyers Encouraged to Gather Evidence from Social Networking Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace

Jason C. Brown — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:15:19 -0600

Minnesota Lawyer recently featured an article by Sylvia Hseih entitled Divorce Attorneys are Missing Evidence on Social Media Sites. She reports that sites such as Facebook and Twitter contain a "treasure trove" of legal evidence - especially in divorce cases. She writes, however, that most lawyers are missing the boat.

Hseih points out that damaging messages and compelling photos can quickly lead a case to settlement if discovered and presented early.

Citing the "adultery discovery," Hseih suggests that a suspicious spouse may be armed with damaging information to bring in to court. Keep in mind, however, that Minnesota is a no-fault divorce state. Whether you or your spouse are faithful to one another isn't relevant under our divorce statutes (Hseih's article first appeared in a national publication).

There are other highly relevant uses for this information, however. Here are a few examples referenced by Hseih:

Confessions involving an individuals social life;
Photos with children in places they ought not be;
Photos of parties to the case consuming liquor or using drugs;
Income and employment information; or
Inappropriate sexual content

Hseih recommends looking both ways, urging lawyers to speak with their clients about the types of social networks they post on, limiting the information they provide and increasing access security to prevent their spouse from tapping in.

I encourage anyone going through a divorce to modify all of their passwords to prevent a spouse from creating a false profile or modifying information on the social sites in an attempt to cast you in a negative light. It wasn't that long ago that a client pulled up her MySpace page to find that she was already "single" and a "swinger." Of course, her husband denied making those changes and tried to hold it against her in court. Wasn't successful, but I guess he deserves an "A" for creativity - not to mention fabricating evidence.

Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act: Order for Protection Summary

Jason C. Brown — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:11:06 -0600

Acts of domestic abuse that occur during a marriage can have a substantial impact on custody proceedings. A finding of domestic abuse can prohibit parties from sharing joint physical custody of their children.

Minnesota's Domestic Abuse Act is contained within Minnesota Statutes Section 518B. It defines domestic abuse as "physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of imminent physical harm between family or household members" or "criminal sexual conduct committed against the family or household member by an adult family or household member." The physical acts described above are relatively straightforward. Difficulties arise, however, when threats of physical harm are not followed with an act resulting in physical harm. The question for the Court involves whether a threat results in fear of harm and whether that fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

A litigant bringing an act of domestic abuse to the attention of the court is ultimately seeking an Order for Protection. Such an Order prohibits contact by the offending party upon the victim, and often denies the perpetrator access to the victim's residence and place of employment.

In order to secure an Order for Protection, the victim will first petition the court without notice to the perpetrator. The court must accept as true the allegations contained within the petition. If these allegations rise to the level of domestic abuse as defined by law, the court will enter a temporary order. Then, the perpetrator is served with notice of the entry of the order. At that point, the perpetrator may contest the issuance of the order by participating in an evidentiary hearing (a mini trial) on the issues.

If an Order for Protection is entered, criminal penalties are attached to a violation of the order. As an additional consequence, if the situation involves acts of domestic abuse among a husband and wife who are dissolving their marriage, it is rather unlikely the court will consider an award of joint physical custody of the children of the parties.

Minnesota Divorce: Asset & Debt Division

Jason C. Brown — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:35:19 -0600

Minnesota law categorizes property as marital or non-marital.

Marital property is usually divided equally while non-marital property is allocated entirely to the party who maintains the non-marital interest. Non-marital property involves the interest a party has in property accumulated prior to a marriage or property received as a gift or inheritence by one spouse, individually, during a marriage. Marital property involves any property that the parties accumulate during their marriage, including home equity, retirement assets, business interests, bank accounts, investments, motor vehicles and other property of value.

In order to ascertain the value of property, experts are typically retained. These include real estate appraisers, actuaries, business valuators and other individuals with specialized knowledge in determining the market value of various assets. These experts can be retained by one or both of the parties.

Once all property interests are valued, a balance sheet is put together to reflect the allocation each party will receive. Naturally, one party will receive more property than the other as items are divided. When this occurs, a cash payment (equalization) is typically made from the spouse receiving more property to the spouse receiving less property in order to equalize the cumulative value of the assets they receive as a result of the dissolution of marriage.

Debts are typically treated the same way as assets. Quite often, the court will allocate all debts incurred during the marriage equally. Debts that remain from a time preceding the marriage are typically allocated to the party incurring the debt. The same is true for debts incurred post-separation. The value of a particular debt is usually verified through a recent statement. Typically, if the party is allocated an asset they will take any debt that accompanies it. A prime example involves an automobile. If one spouse takes a car, they will likely have to accept responsibility for the debt associated with it.

How Does The Court Determine An Appropriate Amount of Alimony?

Jason C. Brown — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:42:38 -0600

Spousal maintenance, formerly known as alimony, is one of the more difficult issues to tackle during the dissolution process. With the exception of child custody, no other issue is as personal or emotionally charged to divorce litigants.

It is quite difficult to predict exactly how much spousal maintenance the court will award a particular party. The court will examine a host of factors, and each play a part in the decision-making process. For that reason, alimony is decided on a case-by-case basis.

The court will examine the standard of living established during the marriage. Based upon that standard, it will take into account the anticipated ongoing monthly expenses of each spouse. The question for the court involves whether these alleged expenses are reasonable under the circumstances. The court will compare the expenses against the income of each litigant. If a litigant faces a monthly shortfall, the party will have a need for spousal support. If a litigant faces a monthly windfall, they will have the ability to pay spousal maintenance. These elements are measured against the length of the parties' marriage, the age of the parties, the educational background of the parties and the mental and physical health of the parties.

Once all of the elements are considered, the court will determine whether an award is appropriate, how much the monthly award should be and the length of time paying party will be obligated to support their former spouse. The longer the marriage, the more likely a permanent award of spousal maintenance will be granted. With shorter marriages, the court may consider an award of temporary spousal maintenance so that other party has an opportunity to reeducate themselves, reestablish their career path and become self-supporting.

Minnesota Child Support in a Nutshell

Jason C. Brown — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:52:23 -0600

In January of 2007 the Minnesota child support guidelines underwent significant changes. Prior to the enactment of the present legislation found in Minnesota Statutes Section 518A, child support was based soley on the income of the obligor (the paying parent). Today, child support is based upon the relative income of both the obligor and obligee (the receiving parent), taking into account the nature of the physical custody of the minor children of the parties. The intent of the legislature was to enact guidelines that strike a balance in the income of each parent, the time each parent spends with the children and expenses non-custodial parents incur during their parenting time.

Child support involves three types of financial contribution: (1) basic support; (2) medical expenses; and (3) child care costs. Basic support is a monthly cash payment made from one parent to another for the support of the children. Medical support involves the payment of insurance premiums and uninsured expenses. Child care costs involve all work or education-related child care expenses incurred by the parents of a child.

The PICS (percentage of income for child support) of each parent is critical to determining how much support will change hands. The guidelines call for the Court to combine the gross (pre-tax) income of each parent and assign a relative percentage of the combined income to each. Once determined, this percentage (or PICS) is multiplied against the total support figure listed in the guidelines to determine how much basic support must change hands. A non-custodial parent receives a credit against the amount of support to be paid based upon the amount of parenting time they exercise. That same PICS is applied to the actual cost of health premiums, uninsured expenses and daycare to appropriately allocate the obligations of each parent.

Child Custody Standards In Minnesota

Jason C. Brown — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:15:56 -0600

There are two types of custody in Minnesota: physical and legal. A parent may receive sole or joint custody. A non-custodial parent will likely receive an award of parenting time. The "best interests of the child" governs these issues.

In examining the best interests of a child, the Court will examine 13 criteria, including:

The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody;
The reasonable preference of the child as to custody, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference;
The child's primary caretaker;
The intimacy of the relationship between each parent and the child;
The interaction and interrelationship of the child with a parent or parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
The child's adjustment to home, school, and community;
The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home;
The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; except that a disability of a proposed custodian or the child shall not be determinative of the custody of the child, unless the proposed custody arrangement is not in the best interest of the child;
The capacity and disposition of the parties to give the child love, affection, and guidance, and to continue educating and raising the child in the child's culture and religion or creed, if any;
The child's cultural background;
The effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if related to domestic abuse that has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual, whether or not the individual alleged to have committed domestic abuse is or ever was a family or household member of the parent; and
The disposition of each parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the other parent with the child.

Legal custody grants a parent the right to have a role in the educational, medical and religious decisions made on behalf of a child. There is a presumption in Minnesota that parents should be granted joint legal custody. This presumption may be overcome, however, by demonstrating that such an award does not serve the best interests of a child (if, for example, a parent experiences significant mental illness or has played no role in the life of a child).

Physical custody refers to the day to day physical location of children. The presumption in Minnesota is that one parent should have sole physical custody and the other should be awarded an appropriate amount of parenting time with the children. This presumption may be overcome, however, by demonstrating that such an award does not serve the best interests of a child - usually by showing that the parents have each played a significant role in a child's upbringing, get along relatively well, communicate respectfully with one another, have no history of domestic abuse and intend to remain living in close proximity (within the same school district) of one another. Some judges are much more open to an award of joint physical custody than others.

If one parent is awarded sole physical custody of a child, the other will typically receive an award of parenting time. Very often, such an award involves spending time with the children every-other weekend, one or two evenings per week, half of all holidays and non-school days during the academic year, and a number of weeks of uninterrupted vacation time during the summer months.

Fraud Upon the Court and the Valuation of "Marital" Property: Minnesota Court of Appeals Says You Must Be "Married" to Gain an Interest

Jason C. Brown — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:34:55 -0600

In a published decision entitled Alam v. Chowdhury, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has found that marital property involves acquisitions or increases in value during the marriage itself (not beyond) - even if one party commits fraud upon the court. Judge Hudson wrote for the majority.

The parties were married in 1979. Husband filed a Petition for divorce in 2001, serving Wife and showing her a proposed Marital Termination Agreement. She failed to provide an Answer and Husband moved for default judgment. The district court granted default judgment and signed a Judgment and Decree that was consistent with Husband's proposed Marital Termination Agreement.

In January of 2006, Wife moved to re-open, based upon allegations that Husband misrepresented the value of assets, claimed pre-marital assets that he could not trace and referenced an inheritance that Wife "was to" receive in the relevant Agreement. The district court found that husband committed a fraud upon the court and valued his retirement plan as of January of 2006 - five years after the dissolution of the marriage. Husband appealed.

While the court of appeals found that the court did properly re-open, it also found that the district court improperly applied Minnesota's valuation statute, which reads:

[t]he court shall value marital assets for purposes of division between the parties as of the day of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, unless a different date is agreed upon by the parties, or unless the court makes specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable. If there is a substantial change in value of an asset between the date of valuation and the final distribution, the court may adjust the valuation of that asset as necessary to effect an equitable distribution.

Judge Hudson wrote:

Here, it is undisputed that the parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2001. Thus, during their post-dissolution cohabitation, they were not living in a marital or purportedly marital relationship; accordingly, property acquired during that cohabitation was not marital. Because the district court’s application of the presumption of marital property ignores the part of the statute requiring a marital or purportedly marital relationship, the district court’s application of the presumption runs afoul of the requirement that “[e]very law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”

The court of appeals reversed, and ordered the district court to value and divide the account appropriately.

In his dissent, Judge Worke opined that "[b]ecause disregard of legal process and lack of due diligence in objecting to the dissolution weigh heavily against reopening the judgment and decree after so much time has passed, I part from the majority, and determine that the district court abused its discretion by vacating the judgment and decree."

Troubling to many clients is the fact that the court will often value assets as of the date of the first pre-trial conference. This hearing is the final hearing to take place before trial and often occurs more than a year following the service of the Summons and Petition. It seems to me that the standard would be just if the date of service of the initial pleadings served as the valuation date. That way, litigants wouldn't be deterred from purchasing property, placing money into retirement accounts or saving money for the difficult future they face.

Termination of Parental Rights Based on Death of Former Child by Blunt Force Trauma to Head Reversed by the Court of Appeals

Jason C. Brown — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:25:20 -0600

In an unpublished decision entitled In re the Matter and Welfare of the Child of BTN and AVD, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a district court order terminating the parental rights of the child's parents. Judge Bjorkman wrote without dissent.

BTN and AVD are the parents of DD, who was born on February 6, 2007. One week later, Stearns County Human Services filed a petition alleging that DD was a child in need of protection or services because the parent's first child, AD, experienced egregious harm while in their care, resulting in his death. After an emergency protective-care hearing, DD was placed in foster care. The county subsequently determined that AD had experienced egregious harm while in the care of BTN. and AVD. On that basis, the county petitioned to terminate the parental rights of DD's mother and father.

AD was nine months old when he was taken to the emergency room. BTN and AVD told the responders that AD had been standing in front of the couch and had suddenly arched his back and fallen backward onto the carpeted floor. AD was nonresponsive, and the emergency room doctor who examined him concluded that he had suffered severe head trauma. The doctor ordered a CT scan of AD’s head, which revealed a subdural hematoma. AD died during brain surgery. An autopsy was performed, and the medical examiner concluded that AD’s death was a homicide, caused by blunt trauma to the head, which resulted in a skull fracture and a subdural hematoma.

In orders dated November 29, 2007, the district court terminated the parental rights of BTN and AVD based on its determination that a child (not DD, but AD) had experienced egregious harm in their care and that it was in DD’s best interests for both parents’ parental rights to be terminated.

Parent rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons. The court must exercise great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result. A district court may terminate parental rights based on a determination:

that a child has experienced egregious harm in the parent’s care which is of a nature, duration, or chronicity that indicates a lack of regard for the child’s well-being, such that a reasonable person would believe it contrary to the best interest of the child or of any child to be in the parent’s care.

Egregious harm means the infliction of bodily harm to a child or neglect of a child which demonstrates a grossly inadequate ability to provide minimally adequate parental care. To terminate the rights of a parent who has not personally inflicted egregious harm on a child, a court must find that the parent either knew or should have known that the child had experienced egregious harm.

On appeal, the parents contended that contend that the district court’s findings were insufficient to meet the "knowledge" standard - and the court of appeals agreed:

The district court found that AD’s fatal injuries were non-accidental and constitute egregious harm. The district court further found that because BTN and AVD were AD’s only caretakers, at least one of them must have caused the egregious harm and that a non-perpetrating parent would have reasonably known of the harm because of AD’s 'noticeable symptoms.' But the finding that a non-perpetrating parent would have observed symptoms is, at most, a finding that the parent knew or should have known that AD was injured. It is not a finding that a non-perpetrating parent would have been reasonably aware that AD had sustained egregious harm. The district court did not determine which parent caused the harm, identify the 'noticeable symptoms,' or find that the symptoms would have reasonably led a non-perpetrating parent to know that AD’s injury was the result of 'some conduct' satisfying the ‘egregious harm’ definition.

Judge Bjorkman concluded:

Because Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6), requires a finding that the non-perpetrating parent not only knew of an injury but also knew or should have known that the injury was sustained 'as a result of some conduct satisfying the ‘egregious harm’ definition,' the district court’s findings with respect to a non-perpetrating parent’s knowledge are insufficient.

The court was essentially saying that a non-perpetrating parent cannot be held responsible for egregious harm to a child unless the parent, because of actual or reasonable knowledge, had the opportunity to respond to or protect against the harm. While the district court found that each party gained knowledge of the actions of the other after the suit was initiated by the county, knowledge acquired after the fact does not meet the relevant standard to terminate parental rights.

As noted above, parent rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons under Minnesota law. This case is a prime example of just how far some judges are willing to go to allow a parent to continue to care for their child. Like you, I am shaking my head in disgust. These two parents have seemingly gotten away with the murder of a child based on the "I know nothing" defense, pointing at each other. Bad enough that they are allowed to even conceive another victim...I mean, child. Now, they get to keep it?

Court of Appeals Affirms Reduction, Not Elimination, of Spousal Maintenance Obligation Following Good Faith Retirement

Jason C. Brown — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:26:43 -0600

In an opinion filed March 3, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a Dakota County District Court's reduction, not elimination, of husband's spousal maintenance obligation following retirement. Judge Halbrooks wrote, without dissent, in Wisness v. Wisness.

The Wisness' 30-year marriage was dissolved by a stipulated judgment and decree on September 17, 1993. The stipulated judgment and decree resolved the vast majority of the issues in their case, including alimony. As a result of the parties' agreement, husband was ordered to pay respondent $1,450 per month in permanent spousal maintenance.

Three years later, at age 56, husband had an opportunity to take early retirement from his employer. He moved the district court to terminate or reduce his spousal maintenance obligation. The retirement package that he was offered provided for a 50% reduction in income until he turned 62. The district court denied husband's motion, stating that while appellant could take advantage of the retirement opportunity, he could not avoid his obligation to pay support by voluntarily reducing his income. Despite that decision, husband opted for early retirement.

In 2007, then 67, husband moved the district court to eliminate his spousal maintenance obligation. He had remarried and was then working part-time as a school-bus driver, earning annual wages of $3,271 and $1,481 per month in social-security and Medicare payments. Despite a finding that husband retired in good faith, the district court declined to fully eliminate his alimony obligation:

It is fair and equitable to reduce [appellant’s] spousal maintenance obligation by approximately 50%, in light of both parties[’] present ability to meet their ongoing living expenses. Both parties will have to curtail their expenses or dip into their marital property to make up for the shortfall they each will sustain as a result of this modification of spousal maintenance.

Husband appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, opining that findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance must be upheld unless they are "clearly erroneous." The court found that the district court considered the statutory factors of wife's financial resources relative to her ongoing expenses. Relying heavily on the "standard of living" element of Minnesota's maintenance statute, Judge Halbrooks determined that wife's projected rent, medication expenses and health insurance expenses were reasonable.

Husband argued that he should not have to pay spousal maintenance because his ongoing monthly expenses were $183 less than his monthly gross (pre-tax) income. However, the court affirmed that, despite the shortfall, a mere reduction (as opposed to elimination) was appropriate and that the district court gave weight to the fact that both parties will have to curtail expenses or dip into their marital property in order to satisfy their monthly expenses.

At the end of the day, Wisness makes it clear that a maintenance obligor who retires in good faith may still be obligated to pay spousal maintenance to their ex. The safe bet for an obligor who has agreed to pay permanent spousal maintenance? Establish a specific timetable for termination of the obligation, if possible.

Online Parenting Time Exchange Tool: "Meet Me in the Middle"

Jason C. Brown — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:51:29 -0600

From Alaska to Georgia to California (and now Minnesota) family law bloggers across the country have endorsed a useful new online tool to answer that age-old question: Where should we meet for our parenting time exchange?

A lot of fanfare, but stick with me.

The parties have divorced. Mom lives in Minneapolis while dad has relocated to Anoka. They agree to share transportation, but neither wants to drive more than the other. The answer rests at Meetways.com.

Meetways was established in August 2008 to help people easily find a halfway point between two locations. According to their website, they wanted to find a way that friends, colleagues, and business associates could quickly and conveniently find a place to meet between their locations. Divorce lawyers have found a great use for it too.

Free of charge and way too easy to use (just type in the respective addresses and it gives you a midpoint), check out Meetways.com if you must know precisely where to "meet in the middle."

Sources for this post: Alaska Divorce Blog, Georgia Family Law Blog and the California Divorce Blawg.

Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Alimony Award of $13,000 Per Month Against Surgeon

Jason C. Brown — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:06:38 -0600

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed a substantial spousal maintenance award.

In McCarney v. Hartleben, Ms. McCarney was stay-at-home mother who had taken some courses in an effort to obtain a degree in psychology. Dr. Hartleben worked as a surgeon, earning a net monthly income of approximately $30,000 on gross income of $600,000 per year.

Judge Stauber, in an unpublished decision, opined that the trial court did not err in granting McCarney monthly spousal maintenance payments of $13,000 conditioned on a reduction to $8,000 per month when she obtained the certification necessary to work as a licensed psychologist. Judge Stauber noted:

Findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. In order to successfully challenge a district court’s findings of fact, the party challenging the findings must show that despite viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings . . . the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.

The court did reverse and remand an award of $800 per month to Ms. McCarney to pay her life insurance premiums.

As referenced in other posts on our blog, alimony awards are based upon several factors, including the length of marriage, the financial need of the spouse seeking maintenance (comparing their anticipated income against their reasonable monthly expenses) and the ability of the spouse being asked to pay alimony to make payments to their spouse. The reasonableness of the parties' budgets is based upon the standard of living the enjoyed during the marriage.

In this case, the court indicated that the parties lived a "lavish lifestyle" and had no difficulty accepting the wife's projected budget of $13,000 per month. Given the husband's substantial earnings and the length of the parties' marriage, the court required him to pay a rather significant figure each month.

The good news for husband? Alimony payments are tax deductible. Given his tax bracket, he'll probably only suffer an out-of-pocket loss of approximately fifty-percent of the payment made to his ex wife.

The Use of Private Investigators in Minnesota Divorce Cases

Jason C. Brown — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:09:26 -0600

Do the right thing...even when no one is looking. Great advice from Greg Cook, one of the top private investigators in the country (and, thankfully, stationed right here in the Twin Cities). Greg and I had lunch the other day and engaged in a long discussion about the uses of a private investigator in family law cases despite the fact that Minnesota is a no-fault divorce state.

In terms of property issues, some spouses falsely assume that they can hide assets from the other. Divorce fraud is perpetrated when one party fails to inform the other party of all assets one owns. All searches conducted by Greg and his staff abide by laws and regulations set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, The Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Despite these hoops, they are able to locate bank accounts, cars, homes, boats, business interests, securities and any other tangible property interests held by your spouse.

Individuals asked to pay alimony often under report their income - in an attempt to persuade the court to believe that they don't make enough money to afford to pay. Similarly, a spouse seeking alimony may also under report their income - in an attempt to persuade the court to believe that they don't make enough money to meet their monthly expenses. Investigative methods can prove whether a subject has a place of employment not being reported or there is co-habitation involved (which could decrease alimony and monetary support decisions made by a court based on reduced financial need in your spouse).

Infidelity may be proven through surveillance. Keep in mind, the act of cheating is not a basis to seek a disproportionate award of marital property or custody of your kids. However, much can be learned about a person by knowing the company they keep. Does your spouse's lover have a criminal record? Are your children being neglected while your spouse is out with someone else? If the children form a relationship with this person, what sort of home environment will they be subjected to? Answers to these questions are relevant to the court in determining what is in the best interest of your kids.

In addition to information relating to your spouse, investigators can help with trial preparation in the form of locating and interviewing witnesses, conducting public record searches, service of process, paternity testing and other background investigations concerning individuals associated with a case.

Our firm has retained Greg in numerous cases and the results are always amazing. He consistently provides us with reliable information that might otherwise have taken months to uncover - if we were ever able to recover it at all.

Divorce Rates Surge in Recession: Couples Left to Divide Red Ink

Jason C. Brown — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:32:26 -0600

Time Magazine's Belinda Luscombe recently published a piece entitled "Will the Market Kill Your Marriage?" So much of her article rings true in these tough economic times. I highly recommend reading it in it's entirely. She does a nice job laying things on the line.

Here are of a few excerpts:

Recession and divorce, it is said, go together like carriage and horse. Those who labor in Splitsville have several explanations for why that might be. There's the lawyer theory, that money provides the soft fatty tissue that insulates the marital skeleton; once it's cut back and people get a good look at the guts of their relationship, they want out. And there's the marriage-counselor theory, that couples who were never quite on the same page in the checkbook finally get pushed off the ledger by endless bickering over their dwindling resources. And the therapist theory, that financial worries cause stress, stress can cause depression, and depression is a total connubial buzz kill.

The two assets that typically need to be divided are 401(k)s and the family residence. But suddenly 401(k)s aren't worth as much, and that home whose mortgage was the mother of all argument starters is not an asset at all. It can't be sold - or at least not for a price that provides money to start over. Instead of working out who owns what, lawyers and mediators are trying to figure out the fiendishly trickier conundrum of who owes what. "We're negotiating debts - not assets," says Henry Gornbein, a family-law attorney in Oakland County, Mich. "Two, three years ago, I'd be telling you that houses had equity, and you'd either be doing a buying out or selling the house and splitting whatever the proceeds were. Now it's the reverse. You go into court; the judges just don't know what to do."

Therein lies the dilemma.

Not long ago, people had lots stuff (equity in homes and retirement accounts) to divide. No more. The vast majority of homes involved in a divorce are mortgaged for more than market price (perhaps 80% of our present clients find themselves in this situation) and retirement assets are worth one-half of what they worth a year ago. Tax what's left (oh, and penalize another ten percent for early withdrawal), and then begin to discuss the $20,000 marital credit card debt outstanding. Not a pretty picture.

The good news for families (children in particular) is that we are seeing a sharp increase in a more respectful, uncontested approach to divorce. I don't know if that's because there's nothing to divide, or because people don't have the resources to litigate.

Couples seem to be in the mood to work together. Some agree to keep one spouse in the home, but both continue to split the mortgage payments and ride out the market. They might be able to sell and break even (or even yield a profit) in a few years. Others remain business partners, in a sense, renting out their home when they vacate with a plan to sell when the market picks up. Others are agreeing to let the home go into foreclosure and banking money along the way. Still others are working with the lender to arrange for a short sale.

Elsewhere in our Blog, you will find information concerning property division, home foreclosure, bankruptcy and uncontested divorce. Always best to learn as much as you can about your options going forward.

Minnesota Court of Appeals' Judge Halbrooks Offers a Trio of Unpublished Divorce Opinions

Jason C. Brown — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:28:01 -0600

Judge Halbrooks has been busy at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She recently issued three dissolution decisions, none of which were published. Two cases involved property allocation issues, one involved a joint physical custody award and two involved child support calculations:

Popel v. Popel: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody to the parties but remanded for a recalculation of child support and reallocation of non-marital interests.
Blaeser v. Fiscus: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks opined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to modify child support following the emancipation of appellant's oldest child.
Murphy v. Murphy: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished) Judge Halbrooks found no error in the district court's unequal allocation of marital property.

Parental Alienation Syndrome in Minnesota Divorce and Custody Disputes

Jason C. Brown — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:38:58 -0600

The Ohio Divorce Attorneys with Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues author the popular Ohio Divorce & Family Law Blog. They recently posted a useful article entitled "What is Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome?"

Attorney Robert Mues notes that there are a number of different factors and circumstances that have an effect on the determination of custody. As in Ohio, Minnesota judges must consider a number of relevant factors when determining the best interest of a child. One of those factors includes whether either parent has continuously and willfully denied the other parent’s right to parenting time or visitation as ordered by a court.

While visitation denials may be relatively easy to prove in court, that alone doesn’t amount to parental alienation. It is not uncommon for some amount of alienation to occur when parents first separate. Usually, the alienation subsides after the parents’ transition through the separation and move on with their lives. In some cases it doesn’t, and instead it continues and escalates to what has become referred to as “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”

This disorder was first identified by Richard A. Gardner, a forensic psychiatrist in the mid-1980s, who defines it as:

A disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming or brainwashing of a child by one parent to denigrate the other parent and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.

Mues accurately points out that there are three stages of parental alienation syndrome. These stages include mild, moderate and severe. In a mild case there are naive alienators and the perpetrator can be educated and changed. However, in a severe case the perpetrator is often delusional and their entire being is focused on destroying the other parent’s relationship with the child. Experts must be brought in to prove the alienation and, more importantly, to assist the child in gaining an accurate perspective on things.

Having handled many custody disputes involving parental alienation syndrome, I can honestly say that they are, by far, the most difficult and raw of all family cases. At the end of the day, the parent who engages in parental alienation behaviors is committing an act of abuse upon a child. The caselaw in Minnesota on this issue is rather undeveloped. But, like so many psychological theories and concepts, the public, and the courts, are becoming much more familiar with the syndrome and consequence of parental alienation.

There are some experts and jurists who have criticized the concept of parental alienation syndrome, calling it "inadmissible junk science." This author, however, questions how many times they've actually experienced and dealt with the conduct described by Gardner. Parental alienation syndrome is very real (no matter what you call it) and is an example of a parenting at its lowest and most neglectful level.

Child Custody, Child Support and Property Division on the Mind of the Minnesota Court of Appeals

Jason C. Brown — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:34:31 -0600

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently rendered three family law decisions, none of which warranted publication. One case involved child support issues, another custody and child support and the third property valuation and division:

Donovan v. Donovan: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Shumaker held that a child support bonus provision was unambiguous and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable to child support cases.
Adler v. Espinosa: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Lansing opined that the district court appropriately determined physical custody and child support obligation.
McCormick v. McCormick: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished) Judge Halbrooks found no error in district court's valuation of real estate and denial of fee award, but reversed district court's award of 100% of the marital equity in the homestead to wife.

Divorce Court: A Few Simple Rules to Follow

Jason C. Brown — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:03:36 -0600

Thanks to Mark Pfenning, a divorce lawyer and author who has published many articles geared toward helping parties through the divorce process. His recent article, Divorce Courtroom Tips, provides some helpful strategies and a useful summary of the basic rules of decorum in family court. Here's what Mark has to say:

Settle Some Things. This means the judge won't be in control of everything.
Expect Unfavorable Decisions. There are three directions the judge can go when making a decision: Your way, your spouse's way, or the Judge's way. As you can see, two out three are not in your favor.
Let Your Divorce Attorney Do the Talking. Do not speak unless asked to do so by the Judge.
Respect is an Absolute. When addressing the Judge with respect by addressing him/her as "Your Honor."
Don't Address Your Spouse. Never speak to or make comments to your spouse when you are before the Judge.
Check Your Emotions at the Door. Do not make faces or gestures when the judge or your spouse's attorney is speaking. Judges see this and do not appreciate it.
Dress for the Occasion. Your attorney will have a certain strategy on how he/she wants you to be portrayed. Therefore, consult your attorney on how he/she wants you to dress.
Write. Don't leave anything to chance. Your attorney will be very busy during the process and cannot remember or write everything down.
Come Prepared. Bring as much information, documentation and any pertinent documents that you possibly can with you. It is better to have too much ammunition than not enough.
Be Ready to Wait. You will sometimes wait for hours before your case is called.

Good suggestions. I would also suggest leaving all digital devices in the car. I recall a lawyer whose cell phone rang in the middle of his intense cross examination of my client in a recent trial. The more memorable impression was the expression on the judge's face.

Minnesota Supreme Court Orders Evidentiary Hearing in Open Adoption Contract Dispute

Jason C. Brown — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:30:19 -0600

Three family law appellate decisions for review this week: one adoption opinion from the Minnesota Supreme Court, one published interstate child support opinion from the Court of Appeals and one unpublished divorce opinion from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

C.O. v. Doe: Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Page held that due process required an evidentiary hearing to take place before termination of adoption contract.
In re the Welfare of S.R.S.: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Published). Judge Klaphake opined that Minnesota courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify father's child support obligation.
Baumgartner v. Baumgartner: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Chief Judge Toussaint found no abuse of discretion in disproportionate award of marital property and no error in valuation of marital property.