Tag Archive for: Divorce

Lifetime alimony lost due to Facebook flub

In the past, we have written about the use of Facebook evidence in divorce cases. The use of Facebook evidence to resolve disputed claims in a divorce is becoming increasingly common. A recent divorce case illustrates how impactful Facebook evidence can be.

A family court judge recently sided with an ex-husband on the issue of alimony after seeing evidence from a social networking site that the man’s former spouse was not disabled as she had claimed, but was actively working as a belly dancer. The ex-wife had claimed to be disabled in a car accident and was requesting $850 per month in alimony from him for the rest of her life.

Despite her claims of being disabled, she apparently spent several hours a day performing as a belly dancer. She also spent many hours each day posting about her belly dancing on the Internet. The posts made their way into court as evidence on the issue of her need for alimony.

The belly-dancing woman told the judge that the reason she belly danced was for physical therapy reasons, as a way to recover from injuries she had received in a disabling car accident in the mid-1990s.

The court did not find the woman’s testimony credible compared to the evidence the ex-husband presented clearly showing the effervescent blogs of his ex-wife’s belly dancing activities. The judge took a dim view of the woman’s claim and ordered that her requested $850 monthly spousal support for a lifetime be reduced to $400 each month for limited time of two years.

In addition to cutting the amount and the time limit on the spousal maintenance owed to the ex-wife, the judge in the case also decided that the ex-husband should receive 60 percent of the proceeds of the sale of the couple’s home and that the woman should pay thousands of dollars for her ex-husband’s legal fees.

Source: New York Post, “‘Disabled’ woman seeking alimony revealed to be belly dancer,” Dareh Gregorian, 4/16/2011

Alimony changes with the times

The traditional view of alimony in Wisconsin is that of an ex-husband paying an ex-wife. However, incomes between spouses have begun to even out over the years. In many cases, women’s salaries exceed men’s, clearing the path for divorcing husbands to receive spousal support.

Alimony has never been just a one-way legal street for females, although most courts today grant more women post-marital support than men. Marriages have evolved from the days of single income households, when men were the only wage earners and women contributed to marriage by forfeiting paychecks to stay at home and raise children.

Women have moved into the workforce and increased their personal earning power. Research on gender job income among married couples in 2002 revealed that in as many as one in three marriages, wives made more money than their husbands did.

The research found that when both spouses worked, nearly one-fourth of women earned more. Another 6 percent of married women were breadwinners by default because their husbands were unemployed.

Family law judges began to notice the financial impact of married women’s incomes in the 1970s and began to take that into account during divorce settlements. Income is not the only criteria courts consider. The ages of both spouses, educational backgrounds, current occupations and health conditions factor in to a judge’s alimony decision.

Alimony is designed to help divorcing spouses continue the financial lifestyle each had during marriage. Laws pertaining to alimony have long been gender neutral and based on an income disparity between spouses. For high-income women in unhappy marriages with low-income spouses, it is more likely today than it has ever been that a husband’s request for alimony will be considered.

Source: Huffington Post, “Women Increasingly Pay Alimony,” Lili A. Vasileff, 6/9/2011

Frank McCourt files for lower alimony payments

Any divorce has the potential to become a complex divorce. When there is a large amount of assets involved, the chances that the divorce will become complex increase. The divorce between Frank and Jamie McCourt is a good example of how this can happen.

In the latest round in the prolonged divorce contest between McCourts, Frank McCourt is disputing the amount of spousal support, or alimony, that he is required to pay. Frank McCourt argues that his wife is living extravagantly and that he cannot afford to continue funding her lifestyle while the divorce is finalized. Jamie McCourt contends that he is mismanaging his funds, and could sell his half of the Dodgers to cover costs of the divorce.

A previous court order mandated that Frank McCourt was to pay his ex-wife more than $600,000 per month, including $400,000 in payments on seven homes that are in her name. He would like these payments to be reduced.

The seven properties, which are all titled in Jamie McCourt’s name, are currently a major part of the divorce dispute. Jamie McCourt refuses to either sell or rent the properties, and Frank McCourt continues to have to pay the mortgages.

Because the Dodgers are also now in bankruptcy, Frank McCourt’s annual income has fallen to $5 million. His income does not cover the court-ordered payments to his ex-wife, and he has declared in filings that he has spent $8 million on support for Jamie McCourt in the last year, compared to about $600,000 on his own expenses.

Jamie McCourt questions Frank’s personal financial situation, contending that he is exaggerating any financial difficulties he may be having. She also questions Frank McCourt’s ability to run the Dodgers, whose value has significantly decreased in the last two years.

Frank McCourt’s motion to lower his payments to Jamie McCourt will be heard next month.

Source: ESPN, “Frank McCourt seeks reduced payments,” Josh Fisher, 15 July 2011

Wisconsin Supreme Court tells ex-wife to wait for alimony

In a recent opinion upholding, the Wisconsin Supreme Court distinguished between pension benefits paid by a pension plan and disability benefits paid pursuant to the same plan.

In Topolski v. Topolski, the husband and wife both waived maintenance, sometimes referred to as alimony, when they got divorced. Mr. Topolski agreed to pay Mrs. Topolski $912 per month beginning “if and when” he started to receive pension and retirement benefits.

Mr. Topolski, an electrician, later became disabled when he was 53 years old. Accordingly, he began receiving monthly disability benefits from his pension plan. His ex-wife filed a motion for judgment for her monthly payments, with interest, in arrears from the date of his disability.

Mrs. Topolski received a judgment for $83,072 plus interest from the divorce court, and the judge held Mr. Topolski in contempt of court for not making the monthly payments to his ex-wife. Mr. Topolski appealed that order on the basis that the court’s order amounted to maintenance.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court, and Mrs. Topolski appealed. Siding with her ex-husband, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the plain and ordinary meaning of the language in the parties’ agreement, “pension and retirement benefits,” did not include the disability benefits that Mr. Topolski had received from the pension plan. Instead, Mr. Topolski must begin paying Mrs. Topolski when he turns 62, the age when he becomes eligible for pension benefits.

A dissenting opinion pointed out that the Circuit Court merely divided the disability benefits, an asset that the marital settlement agreement did not dispose of in the divorce. The parties agreed to divide “all” pensions, said the dissent, and the disability payments were, in effect, a pension plan.

Source: WisLawJournal.com, “Be careful what you bargain for, you might just get it,” Gregg Herman, July 14, 2011

Topolski v. Topolski, 2009AP2433-FT, (Wis. 2011)

States are changing the way they view alimony

Just as the definition of marriage is changing today, with a growing number of states recognizing civil unions between same sex couples, the traditional view of divorce is changing, too, specifically when it comes to alimony payments.

A growing number of states are enacting new laws that throw away the old notion that alimony payments are a lifetime entitlement following divorce.

The Washington Times recently reported on a new bill in Massachusetts that limits the amount of time that some divorced spouses can receive alimony payments. The bill passed that state’s Senate unanimously.

The new bill says that couples who divorce before hitting their five-year anniversary can expect alimony to last just a few months or years, depending on the length of the marriage, the Washington Times reports. Couples who divorce after a marriage that lasts for decades might expect alimony to last until the former spouse making payments reaches official retirement age.

As the Times reports, Massachusetts is far from alone in taking steps to rework alimony payments. The story cites Texas and Mississippi, both states that award alimony payments only in marriages lasting at least 10 years. In Utah, former spouses only have to make alimony payments for as many years as the marriage itself lasted.

Supporters praise these changes, saying that the concept of alimony was long due for a reworking. Critics worry that some state measures go too far, and could leave former spouses in financially dire situations.

Whatever side of the issue you’re on, one thing is becoming clear: You can expect even more states to change the way alimony works.

Source: The Washington Times, “States no longer wedded to idea of alimony for life,” Cheryl Wetzstein, July 28, 2011

J. Crew boss to try on a size XL divorce

Many Milwaukee residents probably know J. Crew, the clothing company beloved by Michelle Obama and other clotheshorses. If so, they are probably familiar with the face of J. Crew, Jenna Lyons. J. Crew has made Lyons, its president and creative director, a prominent fixture of its marketing campaigns. She usually appears in advertisements with her son to convey the message that it is possible to be a modern, career-oriented professional and parent — and to look great all the while.

The focus of that marketing strategy might need to change, though. Lyons recently filed for divorce from Vincent Mazeau, her husband since 2002, and is reportedly leaving him for a relationship with a woman.

It seems Lyons’ marriage to Mazeau fell apart this summer. Now, the two are trying to figure out a child custody arrangement for their son, Beckett.

Another unresolved issue is whether Lyons will have to pay Mazeau spousal support. Last year, she earned $4.2 million while he was primarily a stay-at-home dad. Mazeau has said he gave up on his career as an artist so that Lyons could pursue her career at J. Crew.

All in all, this has the makings for a rather contentious divorce. Money, fame and a professional reputation are at stake and if it’s true that Lyons left her husband for a woman, then there is just a whiff of scandal about the whole affair.

Generally speaking, in child custody cases, judges consider the best interests of the child. When it comes to spousal support, they look to each spouse’s need and to the other spouse’s ability to pay.

Now, that is really an over-generalization. Every relationship is unique and there are a host of other nuances and smaller factors that play into the situation. (Here, for instance, is true that Mazeau “gave up” his career as an artist? Many artists do not make it professionally; was he really “giving up” anything at all?)

If you are heading towards a divorce or need guidance in determining an acceptable child-custody arragement, it would be a good idea to have a conversation with a Milwaukee attorney who specializes in these matters. He or she will be able to elaborate more on all the details of what goes into child custody and spousal support decisions.

Source: The Daily Mail, “Millionaire J. Crew boss who painted five-year-old son’s toenails pink splits from husband — and moves on with lesbian lover,” Daniel Bates, Oct. 25, 2011

Gathering evidence to terminate alimony payments

Wisconsin residents, particularly those who have been through a divorce, may be interested in an article detailing ways to gather evidence in order to terminate alimony payments. When an ex-spouse is in a new relationship, he or she may no longer require these payments, but it takes adequate proof and a court hearing to make a termination happen.

For many divorced spouses, paying alimony is an ongoing commitment that is financially and emotionally stifling as they try to move on from the end of their marriage. When an ex-spouse begins a relationship with another partner, often that ex will attempt to hide this fact. This is because cohabitation with a new partner could lead to termination of the spousal support payments. In order to prove that the ex no longer needs that alimony payments, it must be shown that he or she cohabitating and that both new partners are financially and socially “interdependent.”

This can be evidenced by the sharing of bills, babysitting of each other’s children and other ways that can be proven by a private investigator. However, evidence of continued cohabitation can be expensive to gather. Cellphone location data can show a person’s movements to and from the place of cohabitation. This technique, used by investigators, allows the gathering of the cohabitation evidence with much less cost to the spouse than hiring an investigator to document these movements over a period of months.

This evidence can then be used to file for an alimony termination in civil court. A divorce attorney may be helpful in ensuring that the proper proof is gathered and the filing is done correctly. This might facilitate a prompt and speedy resolution to a spousal support issue.

Source: The Huffington Post , “Using a Cell Phone to Show That Your Former Spouse Is Cohabiting“, Diane Danois , January 24, 2014