Residency requirements open doors for same-sex divorces

David M. Gabriel & Associates

A complex legal issue that is popping up in different states and continues to be addressed in the courts was discussed here previously on the blog. We have news about another new important case involving same-sex marriage and divorce laws. A Rhode Island man is in the midst of trying to divorce his husband after getting married in Massachusetts. Because of Rhode Island’s current laws pertaining to same-sex marriage and divorce, he was forced to move to another state to pursue a divorce. The man decided to move across the state line to Massachusetts and live there for a year before he would be able to file for divorce. However, there is new legislation pending in Rhode Island, according to a local media report that would simplify this matter for people with the same situation. If the new Rhode Island bill passes, any couple could file for a divorce in Rhode Island even if their marriage is not recognized as legal in the state. This would solve the problem faced by same-sex couples who jump state lines in order to establish residency so they can pursue a divorce and not be trapped in marital limbo. Although Rhode Island is not a gay marriage state, it did pass a civil union law in 2011. That piece of legislation provided a legal means for dissolution of a civil union. Whether a person is dissolving a civil union or seeking a divorce from a spouse, he or she will need to ensure that,

Divorced man stuck with Madoff-scheme losses

David M. Gabriel & Associates

Divorced couples in Massachusetts may believe their final court order settles everything. At the end of the dissolution process the court attempts to ensure that there has been an equitable distribution of assets. However, the court order is not always the end of the line for divorced spouses. A divorced spouse may hire an attorney and bring a matter before an appeals court when something changes in the case. An ex-spouse might believe there is a substantial change in information about assets that were divided and hire a lawyer to take a new action, such as seeking relief from an appeals court. Such was the case in a New York appeals court. A recent media report summarized how a panel of six judges for the New York Court of Appeals ruled in a divorced man’s high asset divorce case. He argued that he and his wife both made a mistake in believing their $5.4 million investment in a Bernard Madoff fund was valid. A panel of six judges discarded the man’s claim that his ex-wife should return $2.7 million she had gotten in “an equitable distribution of property” in their divorce. The man, an attorney, must now live with the financial losses that his Madoff investment incurred. The fund went bankrupt only two years after the couple’s divorce was finalized. The judges decided that the divorced man could have made the decision to cash in his investment in the Ponzi scheme before the financial troubles in 2008. Also, his ex-wife

Judge allows same-sex couple to divorce

David M. Gabriel & Associates

While more states have legalized same-sex marriages, gay couples whose marriages have fallen on hard times continue to find it difficult to legally divorce their spouse. The problem is that some states feel by permitting a same-sex divorce, they are by default acknowledging same-sex marriage. For example, two women who were married in Massachusetts later moved to Texas, a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. When the women began divorce proceedings in February 2011, Texas’ general attorney, attempted to stop the judge from allowing their dissolution. His motion stated that because Texas has a constitutional ban on gay marriage, the judge did not have the authority to grant a divorce. The motion was later thrown out by the judge because it was not filed in a timely manner. In a more recent case, two men who were married in New York on September 2011, filed for divorce in Ohio. Ohio, like Texas, does not recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions per a 2004 constitutional amendment. A Columbus judge signed off on the couple’s divorce. Again, the judge hearing the men’s case was met with an onslaught of criticism — called “rogue” by one man in an email to the Columbus Dispatch, a local newspaper. The attorney for one of the men in the case defended the judge’s decision to hear and approve the divorce; stating that Ohio’s constitutional amendment applies only to same-sex marriage and says nothing about same-sex divorce. Ultimately, the real hurdle lies in the fact that

Boston residents learn of one lawmaker’s view on civil unions

David M. Gabriel & Associates

With this year’s elections hot on the horizon, many politicians are working the circuit to plug their parties’ political agenda and push new legislation and/or alter existing laws. One of the focus areas for many lawmakers has been the topic of same-sex marriage and divorce. While more states are passing laws to allow same-sex marriage or civil unions, it still remains a heated topic for many states throughout the nation. In New Hampshire, one state lawmaker has his own vision for how to get rid of the 2010 gay marriage law. He has sponsored a new bill that would give voters the opportunity to cast their vote on a nonbinding ballot question. The issue at hand for voters to decide, if his bill passes, is whether New Hampshire should give new life to a 2007 law on civil unions. State Representative David Bates (Rep.) proposes the repeal of the gay marriage law on March 31, 2013, and its replacement by civil unions. These were defined in the law by a 2007 bill. Also, Bates wants to leave it up to NH voters if homosexuals could legally obtain a civil union, but the gay marriage law would cease to exist. In fact, if this amendment went through, the existing definition of marriage would be worded to be “between one man and one woman.” Bates calls the state’s current definition of marriage an “illegitimate definition.” Those against the change feel that the proposal is discriminatory and posed to take away the rights

Boston father’s obligation to pay upheld by courts

David M. Gabriel & Associates

If a woman gives birth to child after she and her husband separate, the husband can still be held financially responsible for the baby. This was the case of a Massachusetts man whose estranged wife gave birth to twins after an in-vitro fertilization involving donor eggs and donor sperm. According to court reports, in 2001, the wife threatened to “withdraw her support for his citizenship application” unless he consented to the procedure. The husband agreed to the IVF procedure provided that she signed an agreement that he would not be have to pay child support for any children she gave birth to. The couple separated shortly thereafter. The court ruled that the father was still financially responsible for the children, twin girls born in 2003. While the in-vitro procedure took place the couple after was separated, the decision to have the children occurred while they were still together. The Massachusetts Appeals Court said, “Simple consent to the procedure is enough to confer parental status.” It is wise for fathers to understand their rights when it comes to having children. This includes whether they will be required by law to provide financial support them even when they are no longer in a relationship with the children’s mother. Some divorce attorneys specialize in different types of family law, including paternity and child support. In this case, the man would have benefited from legal advice before continuing to give his consent to his wife’s in-vitro fertilization treatment. This case began in 2006 when

Massachusetts rolls out new alimony reform laws

David M. Gabriel & Associates

As of March 1, 2012 the newest alimony reform went into effect in Massachusetts. Many divorced couples are now checking their divorce papers in order to try to figure out if the new laws could apply to them. Other couples contemplating divorce are also curious as to how the new changes could impact their divorce going forward. But, if you are paying alimony at this time, don’t jump the gun just yet. Those payors must wait until Mar. 1, 2013 before a modification can be filed with the court. Many others may have to wait as long as Sept. 1, 2015 before they can file a change in their current alimony. Regardless, many are wondering, what changed? Key requirements of the new law take into account the length of the marriage. Depending on how long the couple was married is directly related to the percentage of time alimony will be paid. For example, if a couple was married for a total of three years, alimony is limited to 50 percent of the number of months married. In this instance, the total alimony duration would be 18 months. Additional breakdown of durational limits are as follows: 10 years but more than 5 years = 60 percent of the number of months married 15 years but more than 10 years = 70 percent of the number of months married 20 years but more than 15 years = 80 percent of the number of months married It’s important to note however, that the

Boston residents watch other states’ same-sex marriage trends

David M. Gabriel & Associates

A news story on the minds of Boston residents this week is the newest win for gay rights activists in the neighboring state of New Jersey. In fact, the upcoming decisions made in these other states matters when gay couples move from one state to another in the U.S. This is particularly important as more states recognize same-sex divorce along with marriage rights. Right now, six states, including Massachusetts, recognize same-sex marriages. This New Jersey development comes as more states grapple with what legal rights to award non-traditional couples. According to a Reuters’ report, the legislature in New Jersey legalized same-sex marriage earlier this week. Next, the New Jersey gay marriage bill goes to the governor, a person who could be considered for a vice-presidential bid later this year. Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, has promised to use his governor’s veto on this bill. This may be a setback for gay rights in New Jersey. The vote was passed in a majority of 42 to 33. However, Boston readers should note that the two chambers of the state assembly do not have the two-thirds majority of votes that would be required to override a gubernatorial veto. In related news, Maryland’s House of Delegates postponed until late Feb. 16 a debate on the “Civil Marriage Protection Act,” which has the sponsorship of the liberal governor, Democrat Martin O’Malley. This bill already passed with enough votes in two committees, but not the entire House. Gay rights activists are also watching the progress

Residency requirements open doors for same-sex divorces

Divorced man stuck with Madoff-scheme losses

Judge allows same-sex couple to divorce

Boston residents learn of one lawmaker’s view on civil unions

Boston father’s obligation to pay upheld by courts

Massachusetts rolls out new alimony reform laws

Boston residents watch other states’ same-sex marriage trends

Categories

TAGS

David M. Gabriel & Associates

Is Ready to Help You

Main Office

Salem Office

Burlington Office

Life Complicated? We Can Help