In a recent Ethics Advisory Opinion. Opinion # 17-05, the Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee determined that the apparent structure of Avvo Legal Services is unethical, violating a number of the Bar's rules.While not naming Avvo, or any other service, the opinion cites procedures that Avvo appears to advertise on its website.
In a new case, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of an alimony obligation upon retirement. In the original decree, wife agreement to pay alimony to husband under the usual standards for termination. However, the agreement did include language about retirement as a basis for termination.When she retired, wife sought to terminate her alimony obligation. At trial, it was shown that husband's expenses did not exceed his income, so the trial court terminated the alimony obligation. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. It must be noted that this case was successful because of the inclusion of the language about retirement as a basis to change alimony.The case is Nicholson v. Nicholson
You have heard the phrase contested divorce. It points out a salient fact: that in dissolving a marriage, you have to split up everything - the money you saved, the home you made together, even the children you brought into the world.
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a decision concerning this issue and addressed what constitutes a new income stream to justify a substantial change in circumstances to allow for a modification of alimony. The issue surrounded the sale of property which was awarded to the wife. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision that husband failed to show a substantial change in circumstances that was not foreseeable at the time of the original divorce. This is an important case exploring the "foreseeable" aspects intertwined with potential changes in circumstances, having potential dire consequences in hoping to change alimony "down the road".The case is MacDonald v. MacDonald.#alimony #property #divorceproperty #inheritance #separateproperty #jointproperty #wealth #marriage
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a decision discussing the application of Utah's Homestead Exemption in a divorce action dividing property, reaffirming that such does not apply in an action between a husband and wife. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the husband was not entitle to a homestead exemption on the property in issue, or on the proceeds from its sale. The case is White v. White.#divorce #property #divorceproperty #separateproperty #jointproperty #wealth #marriage
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a new decision on this alimony issue. The main issue was that of the pre-divorce standard of living and the concept of equalization of the post-divorce standards of living rather than just going on the recipient's needs. The trial court erred in not establishing the base standard of living, instead going to simply the needs of the parties. The trial court's decision was vacated and the case remanded for the trial court to reassess its alimony award.The case is Rule v. Rule.
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a new decision addressing the requirements that must be demonstrated at trial, and reduced to findings by the court, in order for alimony to be properly awarded. The case is Chesley v. Chesley, and the main problem appeared that insufficient evidence was presented as to the recipient's need in relation to the amount of alimony awarded.#divorce #property #divorceproperty #inheritance #separateproperty #jointproperty #wealth #marriage #alimony #chesley
The Utah Court of Appeals has issued a new decision addressing the requirements for alternative service in a divorce action. The case is Silva v. Silva, and goes into detail as to the requirements the moving party must go through in order to obtain service of process via alternative means. It also discusses Rule 60(b) setting aside a default and the effects of a void judgment on a sheriff's sale. #highconflict #divorce #separateproperty #jointproperty #wealth #silva #default
On June 21, 2017, the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Committee on Attorney Advertising, and Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law issued a Joint Opinion (ACPE Opinion 732, CAA Opinion 44, UPL Opinion 54) stating that the legal service program operated by Avvo through its website is an impermissible lawyer referral service, in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2(c) and 7.3(d), and comprises improper fee sharing with a nonlawyer in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a). New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the Avvo legal service program.
You and your future ex decide to file divorce on your own -- DIY. You file the petition and then your ex pulls some stunt like filing a counterclaim, files some motion, or gets an attorney to fight you. What do you do?You can hire an attorney to help you. Or on the other hand, you can work with a legal counselor, an attorney experienced in family law you hire to help you, by educating you and coaching you on your options and how to accomplish your goals. The legal divorce counselor may, or may not, appear in your case, depending on what you decided to do. But at the very least, you have an experienced lawyer in your corner to help you out.You can then control how much you use the counselor, and you can continue in your DIY divorce case with some level of confidence.