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
Divorce is done; Custody is awarded; but the other side keeps on bad-mouthing you. Yes, it happens! Your divorce case is completed, or custody orders are in place, but the other side keeps telling your relatives, your friends, even your employer and anyone else who will listen what a totally terrible person you are, how you cheated in gaining what you were awarded, and whatever other terrible things the other person can create to tear you down. And often, the children are included in those tirades.
You might have heard about divorce counsellors, divorce coaches, and the like. But what do they do, and are they for you. A lot of times, those people are social workers, family counselors, or psychologists. They work with you to handle the stress involved in your life situation, and coping with divorce or custody issues.A Legal Coach is different - A Legal Coach or Counselor is an experienced family law attorney who has handled all of the different issues involved in divorces, paternity matters, and petitions to either change existing orders or enforce current orders. The underlying issues can include custody, parent-time or visitation, child or spousal support, retirement issues, how the house is handled, personal property, and the need for restraining orders.A Legal Coach knows the law on those issues, as well as the procedural aspects and issues involved in filings, motions, required initial disclosures, discovery, mediation, and trial if you cannot settle. A Legal Coach may not actually represent you in the legal action, allowing you to handle the majority of your case on your own if that is what you want, or the Legal Coach may enter either limited appearances, or a general appearance, in your case to assist you while working to keep fees down. The advantage though is that the Legal Coach can help you lay out your goals and plans on how to reach those goals; taking into account the overall status of your case and your situation.This education and planning phase is the most important part of your case. It allows you to know what you want, whether your goals are realistic, and the overall steps required to attain your goals. In that way you can plan your case, know what you can realistically handle, and have the assistance of an experienced attorney if things take a wrong turn, like when your spouse hires an attorney.If you start with an attorney that you feel comfortable with, and develop trust in that person because the attorney is capable of being brutally honest with you, then you'll have the confidence to handle what you can, and the knowledge to know what needs to be done. You'll will have your own trusted expert in your corner, a knowledgeable ally who already knows you and your concerns.
Going to court negatively impacts the children, Right? I participate in a number of the online legal question and answer forums I often see that claim. But, it is always preceded by allegations that the other parent is not allowing visits, won't let the parent have time with the child, breaks his or her agreements to allow a visit, or demands that all schedules and agreement must be his or her way -- all without going to court. Let me be blunt. The only way parents going to court for assistance in establishing custody and parent-time orders impacts a child is if one, or both, of the parents put that child in the middle and involve the child in the case. If both parents are doing what is best for the child, then the child will not even know that there is a court case, because that case is between the adults. So, going to court to obtain orders concerning custody and parent-time should not directly impact the children. Any impact the child would be passive by way of having parents who love the child and allow the child to openly love each parent -- that can only be a positive impact. Plus, going to court will provide a set, consistent, and predictable schedule for parent-time. A schedule that the parents and the child can count on, and look forward to with happiness and anticipation. So, if the other parent is already causing problems by denying access, limiting parent-time, or playing games with dates and time, that parent is already putting the child in the middle and causing the child harm by way of depriving the child time with the other parent. In those situations, the one parent needs to be an adult and take the situation to court to obtain appropriate orders, including orders to keep the child out of the case. And, I bet that it will be the offending parent who then cries that going to court will "negatively impact the child"!