Deck 53: Family Law

Question 1

Marital Assets George Neville and Tina Neville were married. At the time, George was 31 years old and a practicing attorney; Tina was a 23-year-old medical student. After seven years, Tina became a licensed physician. Soon after, George filed for divorce from Tina because she was having an adulterous affair with another doctor. At the time of the divorce, George was earning $55,000 per year practicing law; Tina was earning $165,000 per year as a physician.
The divorce was filed in Mississippi, where the couple lived. Mississippi follows the doctrine of equitable distribution. George sought to have Tina's medical license and medical practice valued as an ongoing business, and he claimed a portion of the value. The court refused George's request and instead applied the doctrine of equitable distribution and awarded him rehabilitative alimony of $1,400 per month for 120 months. The aggregate amount of the alimony was $168,000. George appealed this award, alleging on appeal that Tina's medical license and practice should be valued and that he should receive a portion of this value. Under the doctrine of equitable distribution, is the trial court's award fair, or should George win on appeal? Neville v. Neville , 734 So.2d 352, 1999 Miss. App. Lexis 68 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi)

Answer 1

In the given case, Mr N raised two main issues on the cross appeal. The award of chancellor to Mr N was an abuse of judgement as he was very capable of supporting himself.
It is clear that the given award is a reasonable resolution of the uncontroverted fact that contribution of Mr N was substantial.

Question 2

Marital Assets Ronald R. and Edith Johnston were married and had three sons ranging in age from 12 to 16 when the parties separated. Edith filed for divorce the same year. The Johnstons owned a primary residence worth $186,000, with no mortgage on it. Ronald was a successful entrepreneur. He owned Depot Distributors, Inc., a business involved in selling and installing bathroom cabinets. He also owned several other businesses. In the four years leading up to the divorce, Ronald's income was $543,382, $820,439, $1,919,713, and $1,462,712. Ronald invested much of his income in commercial and residential real estate that was held in his name only. At the time of the divorce trial, the real estate was valued at $11,760,000 and was subject to mortgages of $4,966,343.
After their separation, Ronald engaged in certain transfers of property and distributions of property, in violation of the court's order, which obfuscated his income and net worth. The trial court judge therefore accepted Edith's appraisals of the value of the real estate. The trial court judge applied the equitable distribution doctrine of Massachusetts and awarded Edith real estate totaling $2,446,000, the family residence, and alimony of $1,200 per month. The trial court judge awarded Ronald real estate valued at $9,314,000 subject to mortgages of $4,966,343, for a net value of $4,347,657. The judge characterized this as a roughly 60-40 split of the real estate (i.e., 60 percent for Ronald and 40 percent for Edith). Ronald appealed the split of real estate and the award of alimony as violating the equitable distribution doctrine. Under the doctrine of equitable distribution, is the trial court's award fair, or should Ronald win on appeal? Johnston v. Johnston , 649 N.E.2d 799, 1995 Mass. App. Lexis 429 (Appeals Court of Massachusetts)

Answer 2

Case summary:
Person R and Person E were married and have three sons. Person E filed for divorce. Person E owned primary residence and Person R was a successful entrepreneur. Person R invested his income in residential and commercial real estates.
After their separation, Person R was occupied in transfer and distribution of property, which violated the courts order. Thus, court went with Person E appraisal of real estates. The court ordered for equitable distribution that is 60-40 split of the real estate that is 60% for Person R and 40% for Person E. Person R appealed to the court.
Determine whether Person R will win on appeal:
According to Person X, the court split of 60-40 is unfair according to the equitability distribution. There is a chance that Person R can win the case on appeal. The court ordered alimony that is fair but the split of real estate is not fair.
Person R is a successful entrepreneur than Person E and the income of Person R is more. All the income of Person R are invested in the real estate and more than half of the real estate are property of Person R. thus, the trial court decision is not fair and Person R can win the case if appealed.
Conclusion:
In this case, Person E is a plaintiff and Person R is a defendant. The court favors Person E against the Person R under the doctrine of equitability distribution. However, Person R appealed.

Question 3

Ethics Case Nagib Giha (husband) filed a complaint for divorce from Nelly Giha (wife), on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. On May 20, the parties reached an agreement for the disposition of their property that provided that they would divide equally the net proceeds from the sale of their marital assets. There was a statutory waiting period before the divorce was final. On December 25, during the statutory waiting period, the husband learned that he had won $2.4 million in the Massachusetts MEGABUCKS state lottery. The husband kept this fact secret. After the waiting period was over, the family court entered its final judgment on April 27 of the following year, legally severing the parties' marriage. Six months later, the husband claimed his lottery prize. When the ex-wife learned of the lottery winnings, the ex-wife sued to recover her portion of the lottery prize. She alleged that the lottery prize was a marital asset because her husband had won it before their divorce was final. Is the $2.4 million lottery prize a marital asset? Has Mr. Giha acted ethically in this case? Giha v. Giha ,609 A.2d 945, 1992 R.I. Lexus 133 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island)

Answer 3

Equitable distribution of property:
Equitable distribution of property refers to fair distribution of marital property during separation. In order to divide the property using the equitable distribution several factors are taken into consideration such as the length of the marriage, the number of children and the custodian, the standard of living after and before marriage, income and health condition of the family members.
Facts:
Mr. C and his wife applied for a divorce and the court ordered for an equitable distribution of the property. During this period Mr. C did some illegal transfers of property so as to skip the equitable transfer. The Court ordered him to pay, but without use, he was sentenced to jail for a period of seven years and during this time he wrote letters arguing that he is not going to pay and thus the court's order will be wasted.
Discussion:
In this case Mr. C did not act in an ethical manner because he refused to offer spousal aid to his divorced wife. He refused to honor the court order about the distribution of property when he denied his wife her rightful share in the property. Thus, he did not act ethically.
The court's decision of releasing him from the jail is a good decision. The 7 year period is the maximum punishment the court can offer and therefore punishing him any longer will not have any meaning. Thus, he should be released from the jail.

Question 4

STATE COURT CASE Same-Gender Marriage
Griego v. Oliver
316 P.3d 865, 2013 N.M. Lexis 414 (2013) Supreme Court of New Mexico
"We hold that the state of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry."
-Chavez, Justice
Facts
Various New Mexico marriage and beneficiary statutes prohibit same-gender couples in the state from marrying and qualifying for benefits available to opposite-gender marriage partners. Rose Greigo and Kimberly Kiel, same-gender partners, along with five other same-gender couples, sued the state of New Mexico alleging that New Mexico laws impeding same-gender marriages violate the equal protection clause of the New Mexico state constitution because the laws discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. The opponents of same-gender marriage assert that defining marriage to prohibit same-gender marriages is related to the important governmental interests of responsible procreation and childbearing.
Of the plaintiffs, Rose Greigo and Kimberly Kiel have been in a committed relationship for eight years, Miriam Rand and Ona Lara Porter for 25 years, Aaron Joplin and Greg Gomez for seven years, Therese Councilor and Tanya Struble for 23 years, Monica Learning and Cecilia Taulbee for 15 years, and Jen Roper and Angelique Neuman for 21 years. The plaintiffs include accountants, engineers, teachers, and small business owners. Many of the couples have reared to adulthood or are currently raising a total of nine birth or adopted children.
The New Mexico district court held that the refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violated the equal protection clause of the New Mexico constitution. This appeal ensued.
Issue
Do the New Mexico laws that prohibit same-gender marriage violate the equal protection clause of the New Mexico state constitution?
Language of the Court
"All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness." New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 4.
Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage. Barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the equal protection clause of the New Mexico constitution. We hold that the state of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law.
Same-gender couples are as capable of responsible procreation as are opposite-gender couples. No one denies that same-gender individuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and committed relationships that serve as the foundation for families.
Decision
The supreme court of New Mexico held that state laws that prohibit same-gender marriage violate the equal protection clause of the New Mexico state constitution. The court further held that the rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples.
Why was an equal protection clause included in the New Mexico constitution? Does the broadness of the language allow for flexibility in its application to address contemporary issues?

Question 5

STATE COURT CASE Separate Property
In the Matter of the Marriage of Joyner
196 S.W.3d 883, 2006 Tex. App. Lexis 5691 (2006)
Court of Appeals of Texas
"Belinda Joyner filed for divorce from Thomas Joyner. The day after the final hearing, Thomas purchased a winning lottery ticket worth $2,080,000."
-Carter, Judge
Facts
Belinda Ann Joyner filed for divorce from Thomas Stephen Joyner. The parties engaged in three mediation sessions to negotiate the settlement of property disputes. After the end of their third mediation session, the parties signed a mediated settlement agreement that delineated and partitioned their property. Each of the parties' lawyers also signed the agreement. Subsequently, the parties appeared in court for the final hearing, where the judge stated, "Your divorce is granted."
The day after the final hearing, Thomas purchased a lottery ticket. He won the lottery, worth $2,080,000. The judge subsequently signed the final decree of divorce. Belinda filed a motion, claiming that the divorce had not yet been finalized and that she was still married to Thomas because the judge had not yet signed the final decree of divorce. Belinda argued that the $2,080,000 lottery winnings should be divided equally with her. Thomas alleged that the divorce was final and that the $2,080,000 was his separate property and was his and his only. The trial court agreed with Thomas and awarded him the money. Belinda appealed.
Issue
Is the $2,080,000 lottery winning separate property that Thomas can keep, or is it community property that needs to be divided between Thomas and Belinda?
Language of the Court
A judgment is rendered when the court makes an announcement, either in writing or orally in open court, of its decision on the matter submitted for adjudication. Once a judgment is rendered by oral pronouncement, the entry of a written judgment is purely a ministerial act. In order to be an official judgment, the trial court's oral pronouncement must indicate intent to render a full, final, and complete judgment at that point in time. In this case, the words granting a divorce are undeniably there. Once a couple is divorced, they can no longer accumulate community property, for there is no longer a community.
Decision
The court of appeals held that the Joyners' divorce was final when the trial court made its oral pronouncement of such. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court that awarded the $2,080,000 lottery winnings to Thomas Joyner as his separate property.
When is a marriage final? Did Belinda act ethically in trying to obtain one-half the lottery winnings? Did Thomas act ethically in claiming all of the lottery winnings?