Why Do It Yourself Divorces Are a Bad Idea

April 21, 2014 By

father's rights lawyersThere are a number of companies advertising on the internet do it yourself divorces. These companies are usually run by paralegals or individuals with computer experience. Generally the individuals involved with these companies are not lawyers. The companies provide forms which they claim were developed by attorneys. They claim that these forms are all you need to handle your own divorce.

Do It Yourself Divorce Forms Not Appropriate in All Cases

The forms by the do it yourself divorce companies may be accepted by some courts. However, these forms do not provide a divorce specifically designed for the circumstances of you and your family. These do it yourself divorce companies do not provide legal representation or legal advice. Sometimes by utilizing these forms you can do more harm than good to your family situation. Numerous individuals who have used these pre-prepared forms have made significant mistakes that cost them money, lost custody of their children, and resulted in their being forced out of their home.

Amicable Divorce

The large number of couples using these divorce forms are generally on good terms. They use these forms with the hope of saving money. However, very simple, uncontested divorces are those which are the least expensive to hire an attorney to handle.

Protecting your assets, receiving custody and/or visitation with your children, keeping your home, are among the more serious issues that you should utilize an attorney to protect your interests regarding. There are numerous assets subject to equitable distribution in divorce cases. These assets include homes, individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans, pension plans, 403(b) plans, businesses, professional licenses, stocks, bonds and all types of other assets. Using pre-prepared divorce forms won’t help you protect your rights to a portion of these assets.

Medical Insurance

Medical insurance can be expensive. There are specific rules in New York with regard to each spouse having availability of medical insurance in the event of a divorce. Medical insurance is also important for your children. Divorce kits won’t help you concerning this issue.

Hidden Assets

Has your spouse provided you with information with regard to all of his or her assets? You are entitled to this information. You are entitled to receive a net worth statement from your spouse disclosing all of his or her assets.

Debts are another issue in a divorce. Who is going to pay the credit card bills, the personal loans, and the car loans? The divorce laws in New York deal with the allocation of these debts. An attorney who handles divorces would be in a position to see to it that your rights are protected concerning issues involving the payment of debts.

Child Support, Spousal Maintenance, Visitation and Custody

If you have children it is extremely important to protect your children’s rights to live up to the standard of living they experienced during the course of the marriage. Custody issues and visitation issues are very complex. If your spouse gets custody of your children will she be able to move to California, New Zealand or Puerto Rico? A properly drafted settlement in divorce will see to it that your spouse cannot move the children so far away that would interfere with your visitation.

There are numerous other issues such as Social Security benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, college expenses for children, child care expenses, day camp expenses, uncovered medical, dental, orthodontia, and so on.

Elliot S. SchlisselConclusion

I hope this article has opened your eyes as to why attorneys are important in representing clients in divorces.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Husband Unsuccessful in Setting Aside Child Support Provisions in Divorce Agreement

April 17, 2014 By

father's rights attorneysA husband brought an application to rescind and declare null and void the portions of a parties’ settlement agreement which dealt with child support. He claimed the amount of child support in the settlement agreement was unsustainable and overreaching. The wife in this case brought a cross application to declare that the agreement was enforceable.

Judge Lawrence Ecker sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in Westchester County stated in his decision the agreement was negotiated over a period of years. There was a mediation concerning issues involving custody, child support, equitable distribution, and spousal maintenance.

Capping Child Support Payments

The husband presented arguments that he was not properly advised that a court could cap child support payments. The attorneys for the wife claimed the husband did not properly assert allegations of fraud or duress in his motion to set aside the settlement agreement and therefore he was actually arguing that he was misled by the mediator and his attorney.

Husband Participated in Negotiations

The court took into consideration the husband was a smart businessman and a financial expert. Judge Ecker found the husband participated in the negotiation of the settlement agreement. The husband’s emails were presented in support of these allegations.

Judge Ecker also noted in his decision there was no obligation for a judge to cap the combined parental income at $136,000 or any other specific amount. The court in its decision found the husband had obtained competent counsel. His attorney had actively participated in negotiations with regard to the settlement agreement. The husband had voluntarily entered into the agreement and the agreement was valid and enforceable. The court rejected the husband’s claim in its entirety. The court held the wife had established she was entitled to a judgment of divorce, the stipulation of settlement was valid and enforceable and therefore granted her summary judgment motion for a divorce.

father's rights advocateConclusion

The husband made a good try at setting aside the agreement but unfortunately his argument was weak and not substantiated by statutes or caselaw.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Father Named Son’s Guardian

April 15, 2014 By

father's rights attorneySurrogate John Czygier Jr. sitting in Suffolk County recently had a case before him involving a developmentally disabled child. A father had brought a proceeding to be appointed the guardian of his son, Nicholas. The child’s mother took the position Nicholas didn’t need a guardian because he wasn’t developmentally disabled.

A Hearing Was Held

Surrogate Czygier held a hearing to determine whether Nicholas was a developmentally disabled individual who required a guardian be appointed. When it was established that Nicholas needed a guardian, the mother then took the position she should be named her son’s guardian. The mother made it clear, to the court, she intended to move to Florida whether or not she was appointed as Nicholas’s guardian. She also made it clear she was moving to Florida with or without her son.

Guardian Ad Litem for Child Favors Father

A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent Nicholas (a guardian ad litem is an attorney who is appointed to protect a child or incompetent). The guardian ad litem made a recommendation that the father was the more appropriate parent to be appointed by the court as the guardian for Nicholas.

The Judge’s Decision

Judge Czygier, in his decision, took into consideration the father had worked to enhance Nicholas’ life. The father also understood and maintained realistic concepts concerning his son’s disability. The court also took into consideration the fact that if Nicholas was relocated to Florida with the mother it would interfere with the father’s current relationship with his son. Judge Czygier stated in his decision although the mother had been the primary caretaker of Nicholas up until that point in time, he doubted her fitness to be Nicholas’ guardian. The court therefore determined the father was the more fit parent to be the child’s guardian. The judge’s decision stated the father was more likely to see to it that Nicholas was able to maintain a relationship with his mother. The father’s petition for guardianship was therefore granted by the court.

helping fathersElliot Schlissel has been protecting father’s rights concerning guardianship, custody, and child support issues for fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 45 years.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

What You Need To Know About Prenuptial Agreements

April 10, 2014 By

Prenuptial agreements, which are sometimes referred to as antenuptial agreements, are designed to set forth in a written contract what will happen concerning the division of property and spousal support payments in the event of divorce. Prenuptial agreements also deal with the rights each spouse has to the other spouse’s estate in the event of death.

One thing that is certain concerning prenuptial agreements is they have nothing to do with the romance that leads up to marriage. Sometimes bringing up a discussion of a prenuptial agreement can have the impact of stopping the marriage from moving forward dead in its tracks.

Prenuptial Agreements and Divorce

Prenuptial agreements can help the individuals who enter into a marriage avoid, in the event of a breakdown of the marital relationship, a nasty, difficult, expensive divorce. Prenuptial agreements should be drafted a significant period of time before the date of marriage. A common problem clients face when they call a lawyer a week or so before they plan on getting married is that it usually takes weeks to work out the details, negotiations, and terminology in a prenuptial agreement. Parties who seek to have a prenuptial agreement drafted by attorneys should consider doing it three to six months in advance of their getting married.

Prenuptial Agreements and Disclosure

One of the first steps necessary before entering into a prenuptial agreement is the disclosure as to what each party’s assets are and what each party’s incomes are. Individuals entering into a prenuptial agreement must make a knowing, intelligent decision to enter into these agreements. An individual cannot make a reasonable, intelligent decision if they don’t know what the other party’s assets and income are at the time of the execution of the agreement.

Prenuptial agreements should not be thought of as a document prepared in the anticipation of a divorce. Prenuptial agreements simply lay out each party’s rights and obligations in the event of a divorce or death of one of the spouses. Unfortunately, the divorce rates throughout the United States are very high. In many areas, the divorce rate runs close to 50%. Therefore, putting each of the party’s cards on the table before they enter into the marriage and having an agreement showing what their cards will be when they leave the marriage involves planning for the possibility of a problem while the parties hope the problem never occurs.

Prenuptial Agreements and Obligations to Support Children

Prenuptial agreements generally do not deal with the financial obligations each of the parties has to support children who are born after the execution of the agreement. It is generally against public policy for prenuptial agreements to interfere with each of the party’s financial obligations to children born during the course of the marriage.

There are a variety of pros and cons concerning prenuptial agreements. Individuals going into their first marriage often have a hesitancy to be involved in this type of planning. However, individuals who have been married and divorced, usually want to have prenuptial agreements in their second or third marriages.

Elliot Schlissel is a divorce lawyer with more than 45 years of experience representing individuals in divorce actions. He has extensive experience in protecting father’s rights and helping fathers obtain custody and/or visitation with their children. The office offers free consultations and its phones are monitored seven days a week to deal with emergency situations.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , ,

Husband Awarded 50% Equitable Distribution of Family’s Assets

April 8, 2014 By

In a recent case in Queens County, a wife had brought a divorce case against her husband. She was successful in the divorce proceeding and the husband appealed. The Appellate Division Second Department (an appeals court) reversed a decision of the Judicial Hearing Officer. The case was sent back for a retrial on the issue of husband’s contributions to the marital estate related to his request for equitable distribution of the marital assets.

Appeals Court Decision

The Appellate Division in its decision had said the Judicial Hearing Officer’s decision was “patently unfair” to the husband. The wife’s position in the second trial was basically the same as in the first. She presented legal argument her husband should not receive equitable distribution of the marital assets. She claimed he was “lazy and did odd jobs.”

The court, after a hearing, found the wife was the moneyed spouse. She was working as a micro-biologist and received a substantial income. During the course of the marriage, the husband took care of the parties’ marital home. He also raised the parties’ son. In addition, he found parcels of real estate that needed to be fixed up as investments.

Decision After Rehearing

Judge Pam Jackman Brown sitting in Kings County held the husband had made significant non-economic contributions to the marital estate. As a result of the husband’s non-economic contributions, the parties were enabled to live a “lavish lifestyle.” She also found the husband’s actions helped promote the wife’s career. Judge Jackman Brown went on to find in her decision the parties’ wealth and lifestyle related to the husband’s insight with regard to the acquisition of lucrative buildings that resulted in significant profits. She concluded the evidence supported the husband’s request for a 50% share of equitable distribution of all of the marital assets. This is based on his non-economic contributions to the home and raising the parties’ child.

Conclusion

assistance for fathersStay at home dads can play important rolls in their marriages entitling them to significant equitable distribution of the parties assets in a divorce.

Elliot Schlissel and his staff of father’s rights lawyers have been protecting father’s rights for more than 45 years.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , ,

Wife’s Request for Attorney’s Fees Substantially Reduced

April 3, 2014 By

dads' rights attorneyIn a divorce action before Justice Stacy Bennett in the Supreme Court Matrimonial Part in Nassau County, Justice Bennett was presented with a case involving an application for substantial attorney’s fees. The wife and the husband in this divorce case had resolved all issues concerning joint custody of the parties’ children and they had agreed to a value of the husband’s interest in his medical practice. There was a trial and husband was granted a judgment of divorce. However, there were outstanding financial issues that still needed to be resolved. One of these issues was the wife’s application for legal fees.

Wife Minimally Contributed to the Marriage

Justice Bennett in her decision discussed the wife’s contributions during the parties’ sixteen year marriage. She found that the wife had actually had very minimal contributions. Justice Bennett in her decision stated the wife didn’t clean or cook at the marital residence. The wife had the benefit of nannies who took care of the children. Justice Bennett found the wife’s direct contributions to the husband’s business were extremely limited. She found all the wife did was host an annual holiday party or a picnic. As a result of the wife’s minimal contributions to the husband’s business, she awarded the wife a 15% interest in the husband’s medical practice.

Wife’s Request for Attorney’s Fees

Wife submitted a request for attorney’s fees of approximately $573,000. Attorneys for the husband argued these attorneys fees were excessive and unreasonable. They argued the case was relatively simple and attorneys fees of this nature were completely unjustified. Justice Bennett upon reviewing the facts of the case held the amount of attorneys fees was indeed unreasonable. She awarded the wife $150,000 of attorneys fees to be paid by the husband to her attorneys.

advocate for dadsElliot Schlissel, Esq., is a father’s rights lawyer with more than 45 years of experience representing fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , ,

Family Court Cannot Amend Criminal Order of Protection That Didn’t Deal with Custody or Visitation

April 1, 2014 By

father's rights lawyerAn issue was presented as to whether a Family Court judge could modify a Criminal Court Order of Protection. The reasons for modifying the Order of Protection did not relate to custody or visitation issues. Upon review, the Family Court stated they did not have the authority to modify this Order of Protection.

The Order of Protection

An Order of Protection had been issued by a Family Court Judge in Westchester County. The husband was required to stay away from the wife and the marital residence. However, the Family Court Order had a provision which authorized the husband to live in a basement apartment located at the marital residence. There was a claim the husband violated the Order of Protection. A Town Justice had issued a new Criminal Court Order of Protection. This Order of Protection prevented him from having any contact whatsoever with his wife. Within the confines of this Criminal Order of Protection there was terminology which required that he stay away from her home. Unfortunately for the husband, the Criminal Court Order of Protection did not state he had a right to continue residing in the basement apartment located at the marital residence.

Family Court Refuses to Intercede Regarding Criminal Court Order of Protection

The husband brought an Order to Show Cause to the Family Court. He asked the Family Court to intervene and allow him to move back into the basement apartment at the marital residence. The Family Court issued an order saying it did not have authority to modify the Criminal Court Order. The Family Court took the position they could only modify Orders of Protection that dealt with custody and visitation issues concerning children of the parties.

helping fathersElliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. For more than 45 years, Elliot and his aggressive, dedicated attorneys have been representing fathers regarding orders of protection, child support, child custody and visitation issues throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , ,

Court Rejects Business Expenses Allegedly Incurred by Husband

March 27, 2014 By

father's rights attorneysJustice Duffy sitting in a Supreme Court Part in Westchester County recently ruled a man had to pay his ex-wife more than $282,000 in back child support and spousal maintenance payments. Judge Duffy determined the man had improperly taken personal expenditures including, but not limited to, a mountain climbing trip to Mount Everest as a business expense. Judge Duffy ruled the man had been artificially reducing his income from the years 2007 to 2012 to avoid paying the appropriate amount of child support and spousal maintenance to his ex-wife.

The expenses written off by the man included a 2010 three week trip to train to climb Mount Everest. The man had claimed this was related to his work concerning marketing mountain climbing gear. The judge found the husband’s explanation for the trip to be “not plausible.” She took into consideration, with regard to his writing off this trip, he was the only shareholder, only board member, and only officer of the company, which he created in 2007, that wrote off the expenses. Judge Duffy also found the husband had written off expenses related to a trip to Israel in 2007. This trip coincided with his son’s Bar Mitzvah in Israel. The man claimed during the trip to Israel he had met with representatives of an Israeli clothing company.

Corporate Funds Used to Pay Husband’s Lawyers’ Fees

The man had admitted to the use of corporate funds to pay his lawyer’s fees to litigate this post divorce legal action. The husband testified the entire amount of his lawyer’s fees in the case, which was $20,000, was paid for by corporate funds.

Husband Must Pay Child Support and Spousal Maintenance

Judge Duffy held the ex-wife was correct in alleging her former husband must pay child support and spousal maintenance payments pursuant to the divorce formula in her 2005 divorce agreement which included the expenses the husband wrote off.

The man tried to receive a credit of $7,000 he paid from corporate funds in 2010 to his sons who were aged, at that time, 19, 15, and 10. He claimed those funds were related to business related positions maintained by his children. With regard to this issue, Judge Duffy held “a non-custodial parent is not entitled to offset any voluntary payments made for the benefit of the children against the support he is required to pay to the custodial parent.”

Conclusion

protecting fathersBusiness expenses should be real business expenses and not be created to hide income thereby reducing a party’s support obligations.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Father Receives Custody of Biological Child and Non-Biological Child

March 25, 2014 By

fathers rights lawyerThe Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court, recently upheld a decision of a Family Court Judge granting a father custody of his biological child and a child he was not biologically related to.

The father and the mother were married. They lived together with two children. The father was the biological father of the younger child and not biologically related to the older child. The parties entered into a separation agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties agreed to have joint legal custody of the children with physical custody of the children to the mother. The father had parenting time with the children.

The mother thereafter consented to a finding of neglect regarding both children. The court at that point ordered joint physical custody of the older, non-biological child be maintained between the parties. Each party was to have custody on alternate weekends. The mother still kept the physical custody of the younger child. The father only had visitation with the younger child.

Father Seeks to Modify Court Orders

The father brought proceedings seeking to modify the visitation arrangements with regard to both of the children. In these modification petitions to the Family Court, he asked for sole custody of both of the children. The Family Court initially entered an order granting him physical custody of both children and granting parenting time to the mother. Thereafter a petition was filed by the father alleging the mother had violated the temporary visitation order of the Family Court. Thereafter the Family Court granted residential custody of both children to the father and gave the mother liberal parenting time.

The mother had appealed the last order. The appeals court held there was a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court awarding custody of the children to the father. They took this position because the father was providing a more stable home and he had shown that he was capable of taking care of both of the children’s needs.

Conclusion

help fathers fight for custody It is possible for fathers to gain custody of both children they are biologically related to and children they are not biologically related to!

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Husband Ordered to Pay Wife’s Attorneys Fees for 12 Day Trial

March 20, 2014 By

Josh Tope had brought a divorce action in November 2011 against his wife. He had worked as an engineering consultant earning $46,000 per year. He had previously worked as an engineer earning $90,000 per year. He gave up his job to manage real estate. He presumed this would be more lucrative. It turned out to not be lucrative at all.

The Trial

There was a trial before Judge Patrick Leis, sitting in a Supreme Court Part in Suffolk County. Judge Leis ruled Mr. Tope had “engaged in obstructionist conduct”. This conduct caused the trial to last twelve days. As a result of his obstructionist, inappropriate conduct, Judge Leis ordered he pay his wife’s attorneys fees.

Judge Leis stated in his opinion, “this case highlights the difficulties that arise when one party uses their self represented status as both a sword and a shield in an attempt to gain undue advantage and behaves in a manner that the court would never tolerate from an attorney.” Judge Leis’ position was the divorce trial should have lasted no longer than four days. Judge Leis went on to state, “simple justice dictates that the defendant who chooses to function from a position of anger and resentment not be allowed to purposely drive up the plaintiff’s counsel fees and act in such an inappropriate manner, without being made responsible for all of the trial fees.”

Trial Issues

The issues at trial solely dealt with outstanding debts such as mortgages, credit cards and legal fees. Prior to the trial moving forward, Tope requested Judge Leis recuse himself from handling the trial. Tope threatened to complain to the Commission on Judicial Conduct if Judge Leis did not step down from handling the case. Judge Leis did not step down finding Tope’s request to be frivolous.

Inappropriate Action at Trial

Judge Leis found Tope acted in an aggressive, inappropriate manner during the course of the trial. He ignored the Judge’s rulings, and he failed to follow the judge’s instructions. He shouted at the plaintiff’s attorney in an aggressive, hostile manner. Judge Leis took the position Tope took this action to punish his wife and run up her attorney’s fees.

Judge Leis ruled despite the fact Tope was not earning more than his wife at the time of the trial, he had the potential to earn $90,000 per year. The judge therefore imputed $90,000 a year as imputed income to Tope and found he was in a superior position based on his imputed income to pay for the wife’s attorney’s fees.

Conclusion

It is not a good idea to misbehave in a courtroom and anger the judge.

protecting dads and kidsElliot Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers on divorces and Family Court cases throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »