Reading your Spouse's Email Could be a Crime

If you haven’t been following the Oakland County, Michigan criminal case against Leon Walker, now is the time to do it.

I previously blogged about the criminal charges pending against Leon Walker: Reading your spouse’s emails: snooping or hacking?  Leon Walker and his wife Clara Walker were living together, but going through a divorce. Leon Walker logged into Clara Walker’s Gmail account on her computer by guessing her password. While logged in, Leon Walker printed a number of emails between Clara Walker and a friend, and theses emails revealed that Clara Walker was having an affair with her second ex-husband. Leon Walker, her soon to be third ex-husband, printed these emails off and gave them to Clara Walker’s first ex-husband, who used the emails as a basis to file an emergency motion for custody of their child.

Leon Walker was charged with violating Michigan law MCL 752.795, which states that a person cannot “intentionally and without authorization” access a computer, computer program, computer network, or computer system, to “acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property.” The same law prohibits spam and viruses. Despite the fact that they were married at the time he accessed her email, and despite the fact that the computer was purchased by him and her password was not always kept a secret, Prosecutor Jessica Cooper charged him with a felony that is normally reserved for serious hackers—and Leon Walker now faces a penalty of up to five years in prison.

Leon Walker appealed his charges to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On December 27, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its opinion, and upheld the charges against Leon Walker.

The Michigan Court of Appeals determined the following:

1. Leon Walker intentionally accessed the account by guessing her password, and his intention was also revealed by him printing emails and distributing them to a third party;
2. Leon Walker accessed the account without authorization because Clara Walker testified that she never shared her password with him, and he didn’t even use her computer;
3. By accessing Clara Walker’s Gmail account, Leon Walker did access a computer (Gmail email is stored on Gmail servers), did access a computer network (Gmail emails are sent to the user over the internet), did access a computer program (Gmail itself is a program), and did access a computer system (Gmail servers act as a computer system;
4. Leon Walker acquired the emails by viewing, printing and distributing them, which is essentially acquiring property of someone else.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the criminal charges against Leon Walker should stand, as his actions satisfy the elements of the criminal statute. The case is now sent back to Oakland County so that a trial date can be set. It is unknown if Leon Walker will appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, and even if he does, even more unknown if the Michigan Supreme Court will hear the case.


What are the practical consequences of this case and this Michigan Court of Appeals ruling? Your email is absolutely private unless you share your password with someone else or authorize them to check your email. If you do not share your password or permit someone access, it is a crime for them to access your account without your permission. This is equally true for strangers as well as for spouses—there is no spousal exception.

If you are going through a divorce, it is best to leave your spouse’s email and facebook accounts alone. The Michigan Court of Appeals has made it very clear that unless permission is given, it is a crime. Oakland County has made it very clear that it will prosecute. It is likely that other counties will follow their lead.


Read the Michigan Court of Appeals case here: 

People v Leon Jermane Walker. 

 Read the news articles here:

“E-mail snooper loses appellate bid”

“Michigan man may face trial in computer hacking case"



If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Is Annulment an Option?

So Kim Kardashian files for divorce, and her husband Kris Humphries files instead for an annulment, listing fraud as the grounds for his request. Does he have a chance at succeeding? What exactly is an annulment?

In Michigan, you can end your marriage by filing for one of three things: divorce, separate maintenance (legal separation), or annulment. An annulment is only granted if the marriage itself was void from the beginning or the marriage is voidable.

A void marriage in Michigan is a marriage that could not have taken place legally from the beginning. Legally speaking, this means that there was consanguinity, affinity, bigamy, minority, incapacity or incompetency. In simple, plain English, this means the following:

• Consanguinity: you married a blood relative prohibited by law.
• Affinity: you married a blood relative of your spouse prohibited by law.
• Bigamy: you married someone who was already married.
• Minority: you or your spouse is under the age of 16, or between 16 and 18 and you didn’t get a parent’s consent.
• Incapacity or Incompetency: you or your spouse has a mental illness or is mentally incompetent to the degree that you or your spouse cannot enter into a contract.

Marriages that are void as a matter of law (examples above) can be ended with an annulment.

Voidable marriages in Michigan mean marriages that can be voided for fraud, duress, sterility and impotence. Sterility and impotence must be incurable. In order to have your marriage annulled for these reasons, you must file for an annulment within two years of the marriage. Examples of fraud and duress are as follows:

• You marry someone to obtain a green card (for emigration purposes only).
• A person is induced to marry because they are told that a child is biologically theirs, and this turns out not to be true.
• You marry under the influence of drugs or alcohol. (meaning, really really drunk or high, and not your typical Vegas defense).
• You marry someone who is barren or sterile and they do not tell you.
• You marry because you are threatened. (duress)

The grounds for a voidable marriage must be proven with clear and convincing evidence in order to obtain an annulment.

There are, however, defenses to annulment. This is particularly so if the spouse finds out about any of the reasons above and still lives with the other person even after finding out. Cohabitation is a defense, and can overcome any request for an annulment based upon voidable grounds.

Whether or not Kris Humphries will succeed with an annulment remains to be seen. Fraud can be difficult to prove, and it is something he has to prove with clear and convincing evidence. Just the fact that the marriage was short-lived is not a basis in and of itself to seek an annulment. In any case, it should prove interesting to see if the annulment moves forward or if the court determines that there is no basis, and will only grant a divorce.

Read the USA Today article here: Kris Humphries files to annul on grounds of fraud.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Should the State be Allowed to Place Obese Children in Foster Care?

In Michigan, the state has the power to remove children from their parents’ home if there has been abuse or neglect, and the child is unsafe. There are rigorous laws and regulations to be followed, but the ultimate goal is to protect the child.

An interesting definition of neglect was just used by the state of Ohio to remove an 8 year old from his home. A 3rd grade boy in Cleveland was removed from his parents’ home and placed in foster care for what the county termed “medical neglect.” However, what constituted “medical neglect” was actually obesity.

The 8 year old boy weighs more than 200 pounds. The county agency indicated that they had been working with the mother for the last 20 months in order to get his weight down. The mother’s failure to control his weight is what the county considered medical neglect, and the court agreed. The boy was removed from his mother’s home and placed in foster care.

While details of the weight struggle are missing from the news coverage, it does appear that the boy did not suffer from any significant medical conditions. He was diagnosed last year with sleep apnea, which is when the county became involved. Other than that, there appears to be no evidence of any other medical conditions. In Michigan, a child is not removed from their parents’ home unless there is evidence of neglect or abuse and the child is not safe. Is an obese child not safe if there are no other medical conditions?

With obesity being a nationwide problem, it raises some interesting questions.

Read the ABC News article here: Ohio puts 200-pound third-grader in foster care.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 

Prenuptial Agreement is Protection for More than just a Business

Forbes published an article this week titled “Protecting Your Business In a Divorce: Pre-Nuptial Agreement.” It is an excellent article, and a reminder that prenuptial agreements are useful for protecting more than just a business.

Prenuptial agreements are agreements made between couples who are planning on getting married. Those agreements will state what happens with their money and property if they ever divorce or die. It can dictate how they will purchase things and how they will share debt. It can indicate whether or not spousal support or alimony will be awarded if they divorce.

Prenuptial agreements are very common when two people are bringing significant assets of their own into the marriage, or even significant debt. They are also common when people are marrying later in life and they have grown children they want to provide for if they were to pass away. They are common with people who are marrying for the second or third time, or for people who have businesses that they have started or have inherited through the family. They are far more common than they used to be.

Lesson: prenuptial agreements can be useful even when there are not business interests at stake.

Read the Forbes article here: Protecting Your Business in a Divorce: Pre-Nuptial Agreement.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Kelsey Grammer's Cross-Country Custody Battle

As if we didn’t hear enough about celebrity family issues this week. Kelsey Grammer has filed legal papers in court seeking sole physical custody of his two children: 9 year old daughter Mason, and 6 year old son Jade. The kids actually live in L.A. with their mother, Camille Grammer, while Kelsey lives in Chicago with his new wife, Kayte Walsh. In the divorce, Camille Grammer was granted physical custody of the children, but Kelsey Grammer apparently wants to change that and move them to Chicago: Kelsey Grammer Trying to Rip Custody from Camille.

What does it take to win a custody battle, and move two children from their home in LA to Chicago? In Michigan, this is no small feat. First, the Court must determine that there has actually been a change in circumstances or that there is good cause in order to change a custody arrangement. If the Court determines that there has been a change in circumstances or good cause, then the Court must determine that the proposed custody arrangement is in the best interests of the children. This means that the Court must listen testimony and review evidence surrounding 12 best interest factors, listed in MCL 722.23. In the case where the proposed custody change would essentially transfer the children physically from one parent to the other, the Court must find that the proposed change is in the best interests of the children by “clear and convincing evidence.”

Additionally, in Michigan, if you not only want to change custody, but then want to move the children out of state, the Court must consider other issues. In what is called the D’Onofrio test, the Court must find that the relocation is in the best interest of the children by a preponderance of the evidence after consideration of the following factors:

1. Will the change improve the quality of life for the child and parent
2. The degree to which each parent has complied with their parenting time schedule
3. The degree to which the court can modify parenting time to preserve & foster the relationship
4. The extent to which the opposing parent is motivated by financial reasons
5. Domestic violence, regardless of whether it involves the child

Obviously, a cross-country custody battle is not as easy as just filing legal papers asserting what you want. The process is extremely involved and requires substantial evidence that the proposed custody change will be best for the children. This case provides good reminder that the Courts are there to determine what’s best for the kids—not just what the parents want.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Teenage “Love Child:” Why is Paternity Public Now?

There is no question that the hottest news (gossip) topic in the last few days has been centered around the “love child” fathered by Arnold Schwarzenegger with his housekeeper, allegedly Mildred “Patty” Patricia Baena, while he was married to Maria Shriver. The news has been shocking, devastating, and sad, to say the least. Even more shocking that the child is now a teenager, and this entire relationship and child was hidden privately and publicly for over a decade.

Which raises an interesting question. Why has this become public now, since the child is assumed to be about 14 years old? Why not earlier? While I don’t presume to know the laws of paternity in California, a brief overview of paternity law in Michigan may provide some possible answers.

In Michigan, if a child is born while a woman is married, that child is legally presumed to be the biological child of the married parents. No one can challenge this paternity while the couple is married, even if a DNA test proves that the biological father is someone else.

If a woman becomes pregnant when she is unmarried, but then marries someone before the child is born, the child is presumed to be the father of the man she marries. This is true again even if DNA tests prove that the biological father is someone else.

In short, Michigan honors the sanctity of marriage for purposes of paternity. If a child is born during a marriage, the husband is presumed legally to be the father.

However, if the couple files for divorce, the mother or father can challenge the paternity of any of the children born during the marriage. If this happens, a DNA test is conducted, and if the test proves that the husband is not the father, the divorce judgment can include this information, and that child’s paternity remains an open question. If this happens, once the divorce becomes final, the mother or the assumed true biological father can the file a paternity action to establish paternity of that child.

Simply, if a man knows that he has fathered a child, even if a DNA test is done, he has no standing under Michigan law to establish his paternity if the mother is married to someone else. Additionally, if the mother does divorce, but the divorce judgment indicates that all the children born during the marriage are children of the husband and wife, the biological father still lacks standing. The husband is presumed to be the father (despite DNA), and this issue cannot be challenged once the divorce is finalized.

Turning back to the case of Arnold Schwartzenegger and his housekeeper, it was noted by the press that Patty Baena was married at the time she conceived this “love child.” If that is the case, then Patty Baena’s husband was legally presumed to be the father. However, the press has also stated that she is now divorced. Perhaps the divorce judgment indicates that this “love child” is not a child of that marriage, leaving paternity open. Perhaps Patty Baena is now going to file either a paternity or child support action, seeking financial support for her child. It’s just a guess, but if you analyze the law surrounding paternity issues, it makes sense.

Read the LA Times story that broke the news here: Maria Shriver on Schwarzenegger's paternity admission: 'Painful and heartbreaking.'

Read the Radar Online story that broke the news about the housekeeper’s identity: WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mother Of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Love Child Revealed!


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
. 

Take "All my Loving" (and my Money too)

Paul McCartney is marrying for the third time—this time to Nancy Shevell. Apparently they have known each other for 20 years, and she has independent wealth of her own. Perhaps this is the reason they have announced they are not going to sign any prenuptial agreements. The media has reported that Nancy has signed a one-page document stating that she won’t pursue any of the trust fund money going to Paul’s children. Other than that, no prenuptial agreement. Good or bad?

Prenuptial agreements are agreements made between couples who are planning on getting married. Those agreements will state what happens with their money and property if they ever divorce or die. It can dictate how they will purchase things and how they will share debt. It can indicate whether or not spousal support or alimony will be awarded if they divorce.

Prenuptial agreements are very common when two people are bringing significant assets of their own into the marriage, or even significant debt. They are also common when people are marrying later in life and they have grown children they want to provide for if they were to pass away. They are common with people who are marrying for the 2nd or 3rd time, or for people who have businesses that they have started or have inherited through the family. They are far more common than they used to be.

For couples that are anticipating marriage, it is very important to at least consider whether or not to have a prenuptial agreement in place prior to getting married. This is particularly important if each person has their own property, investments, retirement and savings. If a couple decides on a prenuptial agreement, they must fully disclose to each other all of their property and debt and the value of each, and must agree to consult with an attorney prior to signing it. They are usually signed prior to the wedding.

And yes, they are drafted for people just like you and me, even if we don’t have royalties from Beatles’ songs at stake.

Read the ABC news story here: Paul McCartney Engaged to Nancy Shevell: Third Time Charmed?


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

The iPhone Divorce App: Will it Make Divorce Lawyers Extinct?

There is no doubt that the iPhone offers significant advantages to cell phone users with the hundreds, if not thousands, of apps (applications) that you can download and use. You can use your iPhone to read on the (free) Kindle, rent movies, check local gas prices, plan your workouts and download coupons, just to name a few. You can truly personalize your phone to your own life. Now, it appears you can also download apps to help you through your divorce.

A Dallas Texas family law attorney created 2 divorce apps for the iPhone: one that focuses on the cost and preparation for a divorce, and the other for splitting assets. You can review these apps here: DivorceApps.com.

You can also download another divorce app called the “Divorce Encyclopedia,” which can be found here: 3stepdivorce.com.

Without looking at the apps themselves it is difficult to tell how effective or educational they may be. I typically advise my clients to read anything online with skepticism, because only a Michigan family law attorney truly understands how the court will handle your divorce issues. That being said, there are valuable websites that offer a wealth of credible information. Perhaps apps will do that as well.

So, are the apps worth it? I don’t know—I have a Droid phone. I guess I’ll have to buy an iPhone to know for sure!


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 

Parenting Time: Are Courts Biased?

Parenting time is the legal term used in divorce for the specific schedule that each parent has with their children. Two recent studies conducted by Arizona State University raise some questions about whether the family courts are biased in their awards of parenting time.

I blogged last week about the parenting time schedule that the Wayne County Circuit (Family) Court recently implemented. Effective this year, parents that have a judgment or order that specifies “reasonable parenting time” will be bound by the court’s schedule, found here: Wayne County Circuit Court Co-Parenting Plan. Interestingly, the Co-Parenting Plan establishes parenting time plans time based upon the child’s age. Even a brief review of the Co-Parenting Plan reveals that in no way does it provide for equal time for both parents. The Co-Parenting Plan provides the non-custodial parent (usually dad) overnights on an every-other weekend basis, with one overnight each week.

However, the studies conducted and summarized here, Public Support Rising for Joint Custody, reveal that there is an incredible growing public support for equal time for both parents. Equal time was preferred in these studies even in high-conflict situations. The participants of the study made mock decisions as a judge in custody disputes, and overwhelmingly granted equal time to the mother and father. The studies reveal that the public believes that courts favor mom, and that the courts should instead be giving equal time with the children to both mom and dad.

The law in Michigan regarding parenting time states that “It is presumed to be in the best interests of a child for the child to have a strong relationship with both of his or her parents… parenting time shall be granted to a parent in a frequency, duration, and type reasonably calculated to promote a strong relationship.” MCL 722.27a. Many believe that this goes hand-in-hand with giving mom and dad equal time with the children. Many believe that the enforcement of cookie-cutter parenting time guidelines or even the Wayne County Co-Parenting Plan does not promote a strong relationship between the parents and their children.

It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to the growing public demand for equal parenting time, especially in light of recent parenting time guidelines that generally favor mom.

Lesson to learn? If you are going through a divorce and you are unsatisfied with the court’s parenting time plan, make sure that you or your attorney negotiate the specific time that you want time with your children. Agree on a schedule that works for the best of your own family.

If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Detroit Divorce TV

The Michigan Film Office has just approved film incentives for a pilot courtroom reality TV show: “Domestic Justice.” The TV show is described as an “explosive new judicial reality show” where “real life drama meets common sense justice.” The episodes will involve domestic disputes involving custody and parenting time, but also bullying and harassment. The justice will be administered by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Vonda Evans.

So is this going to be another Judge Judy show? A close look at the TV show’s website may provide an answer to this: Domestic Justice. It appears that the unique twist of Domestic Justice is that it will employ short-term and long-term counseling and therapy supervision for the participants, and appears that the focus of the “justice” will be on finding resolutions that integrate on-going counseling for everyone involved. The goal is also to provide follow-up segments to track the progress of the people involved in the dispute.

Do you have an issue that you want to submit for “common sense justice?” If so, the website Domestic Justice provides you with a list of questions to answer, and if your issue is relevant to the show, a submission form for you to fill out.

Keep posted for more details—and read more on MLive’s website: Michigan Film Office approves Detroit-filmed judge show for incentives.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Honoring Michigan Mothers

“I’ll be a wife and mother first, then First Lady.” ~Jackie Kennedy

Mother’s Day is this Sunday, and it is fitting to take a moment to honor some Michigan mothers who were not only role models for their own children, but pioneers in their field. Because I am a lawyer, I am obviously drawn to Michigan mothers who were pioneers in the field of law.

Martha Strickland Clark (1853-1935). Martha was a single mother when she began law school at the University of Michigan Law School in 1882. In 1887 she became the first woman lawyer in Detroit. She was also) the first woman to argue a case before the Michigan Supreme Court, and argued that a woman could divorce a husband who was abusing her. She was back in front of the Michigan Supreme Court in 1890 arguing that a woman could hold the office of deputy county clerk. She won both cases.

Rachel Andresen (1907-1988). At the age of 28, Rachel was widowed, left to raise three children on her own. Perhaps this was why she focused on children, founding Youth for Understanding, an international exchange program for high school students. Youth for Understanding still exists today, and provides opportunities for thousands of high school students. For her pioneering work and founding of Youth for Understanding, Rachel was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973.

Anne R. Davidow (1898-1991). Anne was actually denied admittance to the Detroit College of Law because she was a woman. So she attended another law school. She married and had two children, and became famous for a case she argued in front of the United States Supreme Court in 1948, Goesaert v Cleary. In that case, she argued against a law in Michigan that did not allow women to tend bar unless their fathers or husbands owned the bar. While Anne lost the case, the law was actually repealed, and the case of Goesaert v Cleary is taught in law schools around the country.

Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy (1923 - ). Cornelia Kennedy was the second woman to serve as Judge in Wayne County Circuit Court and the first Michigan woman to be appointed to the federal bench by President Nixon in 1970. She was then appointed by President Carter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I have a special place in my heart for Justice Kennedy. When I had just passed the Michigan Bar, Justice Kennedy administered my oath to the federal bench, and swore me in as an attorney to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. I also had the privilege of working for her son, Charles Kennedy, also a lawyer.

I couldn’t close this without thanking my own mother, Dorothy Sluka, for her constant love and support, for without that, I wouldn’t have the inspiration to be both a mother and lawyer today.

“All mothers are working mothers.” (author unknown). Take a moment this Sunday to thank those mothers who have made a difference in your life.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Removing the “Sheen” from Celebrity Divorce

Sorry, Charlie. As if Charlie Sheen hasn’t had enough “winning” media coverage—he received even more as his divorce with Brooke Mueller was finalized this week. The media has focused solely on money (big surprise), so all news stories have only discussed the amount of the property settlement and monthly child support award.

However, TMZ posted the actual divorce judgment online here: In Re Marriage of Sheen. There are some interesting things to note in that Judgment other than just how much money was awarded.

First, despite the fact that Charlie and Brooke are celebrities, the custody, parenting time and child support provisions of their Judgment look pretty similar to the provisions that are in most “average Joe” divorce judgments, including those that I have drafted. For example, Charlie and Brooke share legal custody of their 2 year old boys, Bob & Max. While Brooke has sole physical custody, the parenting time is pretty equally shared. Brooke and Charlie share all holidays and have equal vacation time with the kids. They also agreed to allow the other to take the kids out of state without advance written permission from each other. Charlie must provide health insurance for the boys, and Brooke and Charlie agree to equally share the cost of any of the kids’ extra-curricular activities. Brooke and Charlie also agree that neither can make unilateral decisions about where the boys attend school, but if private school is chosen, Charlie will pay the tuition. Those are pretty “normal” provisions in any divorce.

One of the more interesting and unique provisions in the Judgment involves child support. Brooke was awarded $55,000 per month (yes, per month) for child support for the boys. The Judgment goes on to state that Brooke’s child support shall never be less than the child support that Charlie Sheen pays to his other ex-wife, Denise Richards. The Judgment continues, stating that Charlie and Brooke both recognize that Denise has more assets and earning capacity then Brooke, and that Denise’s children have trust funds, while Brooke’s children do not. Thus, the absolute minimum child support that Brooke will receive will never be less than child support paid to Denise. This is a pretty interesting provision because it provides a base child support number without consideration of income or parenting time. This would be a difficult provision to enforce in Michigan.

What else is noteworthy in this Judgment? Well, Brooke signed a prenup or “Premarital Agreement” on May 27, 2008, before she married Charlie. The Divorce Judgment abides by this prenup, which means that Brooke receives zero spousal support. Yes, Brooke waived her right to alimony now and forever. While that may be surprising in this divorce to waive alimony, it is pretty common in most divorces.

Anything else stick out? Brooke agrees to never talk to the media about Charlie’s alleged sexual affairs and alleged drug use, and Charlie agrees never to talk to the media about Brooke’s alleged drug use. Interesting.

By taking a closer look at Charlie and Brooke’s Divorce Judgment, one can easily see that despite their celebrity status, Charlie and Brooke’s issues are resolved in a pretty standard way.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Jail for Former Red Wings Trainer: Unpaid Child Support

The Detroit News reported that former Red Wings’ trainer John Wharton was arrested and jailed for unpaid child support: Former Wings trainer Wharton jailed on child-support charges. It appears he had been arrested before for unpaid child support, but paid a bond and then left the state moving to New York. He recently returned to Michigan, however, and was arrested again on a warrant issued by the Michigan Attorney General.

In Michigan, child support obligations are enforced by not only the courts, but also the local prosecutors and even the attorney general’s office. For non-payment of child support, the Friend of the Court can garnish your tax refunds, suspend your driver’s license, file a lien against your property, report the debt to credit agencies, garnish a private pension or retirement, and issue a bench warrant for your arrest. Additionally, in cases where the amount of support owing is excessive, the Friend of the Court can refer the case to the local prosecutor for felony charges. Felony non-support cases can also result in jail sentences.

What people don’t always realize is that child support is modifiable in Michigan. The Friend of the Court can conduct an automatic review of child support every 36 months. However, if there is a substantial change in income, a parent can file a request for modification and have it reviewed, even if it hasn’t been 36 months.

The court and Attorney General will also work with parents on overdue support. However, an effort must be made to make timely payments, and if the parent is unemployed, to find viable employment.

The lesson is clear—if there is a substantial change in income, it is important to request modification of child support. If the person paying child support becomes delinquent, the penalties can be excessive and extreme, and, in some cases, avoidable.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Splitting the House in a Divorce…. Literally

The 6 year divorce case of New York’s Simon and Chana Taub was recently finalized by order of the court last week. Yes, it was a 6 year divorce. And no, the fact that it took 6 years is not the only shocking fact about this divorce.

One of the issues that the Taubs fought intensely about was who would live in their 3 story brownstone in Brooklyn. When they both refused to move out while the divorce was pending, they split the house. Literally. They installed a wall down the middle of the house so they could both live there.

If that gives you flashbacks to the movie “War of the Roses” then you are spot on.

However, the Judge ordered that the house now be sold. Neither Simon nor Chana Taub will be able to keep the house. Can the Judge do this? Can the Judge order that the house be sold?

Absolutely. Judges in family court can dispose of the marital assets in any way that they determine is fair and equitable. Even in Michigan, if two people are fighting over a house, or any piece of property for that matter, the Judge will likely just order that it be sold. Selling the property definitely ends the dispute about who gets it.

In Michigan, selling property is sometimes a complicated solution because of the real estate market and downward economy. However, it is often the only equitable decision if the divorcing couple continues to fight over who keeps the house, and refuses to settle the issue themselves.

You can read more about Simon and Chana Taub’s divorce here: NYC couple who split house with wall get divorce.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 

Wayne County Family Court Establishes Parenting Time Guidelines

In a divorce or custody case involving minor children, the parents must ultimately decide how legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time is going to be shared. Parenting time is the legal term for the specific schedule that each parent has with the children. (courts used to call this “visitation”—obviously “parenting time” is a much more preferable term). Often times the parents will agree to work together, and in those cases the issue is resolved with the order or judgment specifying “reasonable parenting time.” This avoids having to agree to a rigid and specific schedule. “Reasonable parenting time” has typically meant that the parents will work together to create and maintain a flexible schedule.

However, that is no longer the case in Wayne County Family Court. Effective this year, 2011, Wayne County has established parenting time guidelines titled “Wayne County Circuit Court Co-Parenting Plan.” Effective this year, parents that have a judgment or order that specifies “reasonable parenting time” will be bound by the court’s schedule, found here: Wayne County Circuit Court Co-Parenting Plan. Interestingly, the Co-Parenting Plan establishes parenting time plans time based upon the child’s age.

In theory, this is a good thing. The Co-Parenting Plan will give parents a schedule that is predictable and manageable. It also simplifies the negotiation process. Parents can now just agree to “reasonable parenting time” in a judgment or order, and have a schedule that they can rely on and work from.

The down side? If a parent is unaware of the Co-Parenting Plan, and agrees to “reasonable parenting time” in their order or judgment, then despite any agreement otherwise, the court will enforce the Co-Parenting Plan. If one parent asks the court to enforce parenting time, the court will hold both parents responsible for following the Co-Parenting Plan, even if they were not aware of it at the time their order or judgment was entered with the court.

An interesting note: published opinions from the Michigan Court of Appeals have held that a request for a parenting time change must be based on a change in circumstances or good cause, and also a determination that the requested change is in the best interests of the child. However, if you look at the Co-Parenting Plan closely, the parenting time schedule changes as the child grows older. The Co-Parenting Plan is based upon the notion that parenting time should change automatically as a child ages, without showing a change in circumstances or good cause. Many parents, judges and attorneys firmly believe that this should always be the case. The Michigan Court of Appeals has yet to publish an opinion supporting an automatic change based upon age. Until that happens, there will be some conflict between the established law and the implementation of the parenting time guidelines.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Should you Change your Name After Divorce?

A small but important question is always asked of the wife during divorce proceedings: Do you want to keep your married name, or go back to your maiden name? If the attorney fails to ask the wife this question, ultimately the Judge will ask the question at the final hearing.

In my experience as a divorce attorney, many women have a difficult time making this decision—especially if they have children from the marriage. Most women are concerned that if they go back to their maiden name, that their name will be different from their children’s’ name, and that this will cause problems. Some women, on the other hand, are concerned that if they don’t go back to their maiden name, and their soon to be ex-husband remarries, it will be too confusing altogether. Others who have established a professional reputation during their marriage are concerned that changing their name back to their maiden name will have a detrimental effect on their business. There are obviously a host of reasons that make this decision difficult.

To clarify, just having a provision in the Divorce Judgment changing a woman’s name doesn’t make the name change legal. In order to legally change your name you must take that Divorce Judgment to the Michigan Secretary of State and the Social Security Office to officially change it. So even having a provision in the Judgment of Divorce doesn’t make the name change automatic. There are further steps to take in order to make the change legal and official.

There is, however, a very significant advantage to including a name change provision in a Divorce Judgment. If this provision is in the Divorce Judgment, the woman can decide at any time to make the name change legal and official. That means that she can make the change right away, wait a while, or never change it. Having the provision in the Judgment makes it easy to change it officially.

What happens if you don’t have this type of provision in the Divorce Judgment, but want to change it later? If there is no name change provision in the Divorce Judgment, then you must file a petition with the Court for a name change, and follow all of the necessary procedures. The Michigan Courts website offers a tutorial on this process here: Name Change Self Help. It should be that there are significant costs included in a name change petition. There are filing fees, fingerprinting fees, publishing fees, and order fees. These fees will exceed $300.00. You also have to be fingerprinted, and your fingerprints must be sent to the Michigan State Police and the FBI. Both agencies must report to the Court about any pending charges or convictions. The process is time-consuming and expensive.

If in doubt, it is better to err on the side of caution and include a name change provision in your Divorce Judgment. If you decide never to change your name, it won’t hurt you. If you decide to change your name in the future, it will save you significant time and money.

If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Divorcing? Don't Forget the Dog

Last week, the New Zealand Herald posted a story titled “Divorced couple in court over dog custody.” While the story may have been written tongue-in-cheek, it most certainly was not a joke. We often think that custody battles involve just children. However, pets are often cherished members of the family, and how divorcing couples share time with their pets is often of primary focus and concern. It is not uncommon to hear the following: “My dog is my baby.”

Despite the close loving relationship we have with our family pets, they are considered personal property in Michigan. This means that a divorcing couple must come to an agreement on who is going to take the pets. Sometimes this is easily resolved, because in some marriages only one spouse is emotionally attached to the pet and wants it. But what happens when both people want Fido? How can you resolve that sort of situation?

In one of my former cases, we wrote a specific agreement into the Divorce Judgment regarding the dog. One person took custody of the dog, but the other person had the option of monthly visits with the dog, and was entitled to advance notice if the dog fell ill or needed to be put to sleep. The upside of this: the person who didn’t take the dog had a chance to continue visits with the dog. The downside of this: in a divorce with no children, the couple continued to be connected after divorce. (yes, for most people this is a downside).

In another of my former cases, the dog was actually awarded to the minor children, and the dog travelled back and forth with the children to mom and dad’s house. The expenses for the dog and any vet bills were to be shared equally between the mom and dad. There didn’t appear to be any downside to this type of arrangement.

While those are merely two examples of how to handle a divorce dispute about a family pet, there are dozens of potential solutions, and particularly a solution that caters to your unique situation.

Lesson to be learned? If you are going through a divorce and have a pet, be sure to tell your attorney. If your attorney doesn’t ask and you don’t let them know in advance, this can potentially hinder a successful settlement because it will be a surprise issue in the end.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

How Child Support is Calculated in Michigan

It seems like one of the biggest mysteries with family law clients is how child support is actually calculated. It is a common misperception that child support is based just on the income of both parents. While income is a factor, it is not the only consideration when child support is calculated.

In Michigan, the following is a standard list of items considered to calculate child support:

1. Income. Each parent’s income is considered, which includes wages, overtime, commissions, bonuses, self-employment income, contract income, investment earnings, social security, unemployment, disability, worker’s compensation, retirement income, military pay, tips, gambling earnings, alimony (spousal support) and employment perks, just to name a few.

2. Deductions from Income. Income is reduced by deductions, including but not limited to actual taxes paid, mandatory payments withheld as a condition of employment (like union dues), life insurance premiums if the children are beneficiaries, employer contributions to pension plans, and spousal support paid to someone other than the other parent

3. Number of Children. This is the number of children of this particular marriage.

4. Second Family Adjustment. There is an allowable deduction for other biological children of each parent.

5. Tax Filing Status. It must be specified how each parent is filing taxes: single, head of household, married filing jointly, or married filing separately.

6. Tax Exemptions. Child support considers how many tax exemptions each parent has, and how many of those exemptions are for children under the age of 17.

7. Child Care. The monthly child care amount (and for how many children) must be specified for each parent.

8. Health Insurance Premiums. The monthly amount that each parent pays for health care insurance premiums is considered. (premiums only—not out of pocket expenses)

9. Parenting Time Schedule. Child Support considers the number of overnights each parent has with each child.

All of the above factors are considered, and each factor is plugged into a computer program that provides an initial child support recommendation. The courts use this computer program, and many family law attorneys (like our office) have programs that are similar to the court’s program.

While the list above sets forward the general factors used in computing child support, keep in mind that there are situations that can exist that justify a “deviation” from the recommendation. This can occur, for example, when one parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, when a child has special needs, if the parent is a minor, or if a parent is incarcerated to name a few, or other situations that a court determines relevant.

Each case has its own special facts and situations that must be considered in order to properly calculate child support. Income alone is not the determining factor for how child support is calculated. If you are currently paying or receiving child support and are unclear as to how your child support was calculated, you should contact a family law attorney to have your child support reviewed and analyzed. This is one of the most frequent services that we offer our own clients.

If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 

Legal Separation in Michigan

One common question that is often asked is whether or not Michigan has what is called a “legal separation,” allowing a married couple to legally separate, but still remain married.

The simple answer is yes, but the procedure is not so simple. Michigan has a legal action entitled “Separate Maintenance.” An action for “Separate Maintenance” is filed with the court just as a Divorce action is filed. The process for a Separate Maintenance action is identical to that of a Divorce. In a Separate Maintenance action, just as in a Divorce action, the couple must decide on how they are going to distribute their assets, share their debt, determine child support & spousal support, and also address how assets are purchased and debt is acquired in the future.

At the end of a Separate Maintenance action, a Judgment of Separate Maintenance is entered with the Court, and the couple is officially legally separated, meaning that all property and debt has been divided, but the party is still legally married.

Why would a couple proceed with a Separate Maintenance action instead of a Divorce? The most common reasons are religious and medical. Some people opt for a Separate Maintenance action because divorce is frowned upon or prohibited in their religion. Some people truly need the medical insurance of their spouse and cannot obtain insurance on their own. For these people, they essentially become “divorced” but still remain married.

What happens if you go through the entire Separate Maintenance action and then decide later that you want to become divorced? You have to file a Divorce action with the court and start from the beginning again.

Separate Maintenance actions are not very common in Michigan, but it is the only legal avenue in Michigan that allows a couple to split all assets, share all debt, live independently, but still remain married. It is the only way for a couple to become legally separated.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Going Through a Divorce? Marriage Counseling Can Help

The State of North Dakota is considering a law making marriage counseling mandatory for couples who want to get divorced. This law would require couples who want to divorce to actually postpone that divorce for a year, and go through mandatory marriage counseling. The only exemption would be if t here were substantiated allegations of domestic violence in the marriage.

To understand the effectiveness of marriage counseling, even with couples who are going through a divorce, I spoke with Dr. Gail Majcher, a Northville psychologist. I also asked Dr. Gail what her thoughts were on the proposed North Dakota law.

Wendy Alton: “Dr Gail, what are your thoughts on a law that requires mandatory marriage counseling before a couple files for divorce?”

Dr. Gail: “Marriage counseling is a good idea for the majority of cases. In fact, many of my couples have already filed for divorce when they first come in. I think the downfall is that it should not be implemented for abuse cases. Sometimes abuse in a marriage is well hidden and difficult to discover.”

Wendy Alton: “Dr. Gail, how common is marriage counseling and is there any sort of success rate?”

Dr. Gail: “I have a masters degree in marriage counseling as well as a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. Over the last 30 years of my practice, marriage counseling constitutes about 30% of my cases. The marriage counseling that I conduct is intense and includes homework for the couple so the process can go faster. My success rate for married couples is at least 70%.”

As a divorce lawyer, I have to admit that the 70% success rate is surprising—but also very encouraging. So, from a professional who knows from experience, marriage counseling can absolutely save your marriage, even if you have filed for divorce.

Dr. Gail is a local Northville psychologist, and you can learn more about her on her website: www.DrGail.com. Dr. Gail also published a book called “A Worthy Woman: Victory over Domestic Violence, a True Story and Self-Help Book.” She can also be heard on WJR as the co-host of “Sunday Sessions,” a psychological edu-taining show about mental health issues.

Dr. Gail can be reached at (248) 345-5050, and her office is at 114 Rayson, Suite One D, Northville.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

No Common-Law Marriage in Michigan

Common law marriage is the term for a “marriage” that exists solely by agreement and by cohabitation. More simply, a common-law marriage exists when two people agree to live together to be “married.” Common-law marriage is one of the fundamental rights that has existed in this country since the first settlers.

In 1838, Michigan passed a law that stated that “marriages may be solemnized by any justice of the peace in the county in which he is chosen, and they may be solemnized throughout the state by any minister of the gospel who has been ordained.” This was the first law enacted in Michigan in order to move away from the recognition of common-law marriage. The law was formalized in order to try to require either a justice of the peace or a minister to “solemnize” a marriage.

However, the law didn’t stick. In 1877, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Meister v Moore. This was a case about the validity of a common-law marriage between William Mowry and his wife, Mary, the daughter of a Native-American named Pero. William Mowry had cohabitated with Mary for seven years, and then passed away. They had one daughter together, and if they were actually married under Michigan law, any property William owned would eventually pass to his daughter. If William wasn’t married under Michigan law, then any property he owned would pass to his mother.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that Michigan’s law of 1838 did not require that marriages be validated by a justice of a peace or a minister, but instead stated such solemnization (authorization) was discretionary: “marriages may be solemnized.” Thus, the common-law marriage of William & Mary was valid, and their daughter would eventually inherit any land that William owned.

It appears that Michigan did not address this issue again until January 1, 1957, when it changed its law to require that marriages must result only from a marriage license. After January 1, 1957, mere consent to be married or cohabitation would not be enough. A couple wanting to marry and have their marriage recognized by Michigan law would have to apply for and receive a marriage license. After the marriage license was issued, the marriage would then have to be authorized by a judge, a mayor, a court clerk or a minister.

However, Michigan will recognize a common-law marriage that was entered into before January 1, 1957, and will also recognize a common-law marriage that was formed in another state that recognizes such common-law marriages under their law. Presently, only Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages.

Long story short, in Michigan, unless you have lived with someone with the agreement that you are married since December 31, 1956, Michigan will not acknowledge your common-law marriage. In order to be married, you must apply for a marriage license, and have your marriage solemnized or authorized by persons specified by Michigan law. This also means that in Michigan, in order to receive all the benefits that a spouse receives (health care, property, and inheritance); just living together is not enough.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

The Wedding's Off--Now Who Keeps the Bling?

You are engaged to be married, and have either bought or received a beautiful (expensive) engagement ring. Unfortunately, something happens to destroy the pre-wedded bliss and the wedding is called off for good. If the marriage never happens, who gets the engagement ring? The courts in Michigan have answered that question unequivocally: the person who gave the ring in anticipation of the marriage gets it back.

The definitive case on this issue in Michigan is Meyer v Mitnick, 244 Mich App 697 (2001). In that Oakland County Circuit Court divorce case, Dr. Barry Meyer purchased a custom-designed engagement ring for his finance’ Robyn Mitnick at the cost of $19,500. After he gave her the engagement ring, but prior to the marriage, Dr. Meyer asked Ms. Mitnick to sign a prenuptial agreement. Ms. Mitnick refused. What happened next? The marriage was called off.

However, Ms. Mitnick refused to return the engagement ring. So, in return, Dr. Meyer sued her to get it back. Dr. Meyer argued that the engagement ring was a conditional gift, given only in anticipation of marriage, and since the marriage wasn’t going to happen, the gift should be returned. Ms. Mitnick argued that Dr. Meyer was at fault for the marriage not happening since he broke off the marriage. She argued that based upon that fault, she should be allowed to keep the ring.

The trial court, Oakland County Circuit Court, ruled that the ring should be returned to Dr. Meyer, deciding that because the engagement ring is a conditional gift given solely in anticipation of a marriage, it must be returned to the purchaser if the marriage doesn’t happen. The trial court also decided that it didn’t matter who broke off the engagement, refusing to consider fault in determining who keeps the ring. Ms. Mitnick appealed that decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The Michigan Court of Appeals sided with Dr. Meyer and upheld the trial court’s decision. They concluded the following: “In sum, we hold that an engagement ring given in contemplation of marriage is an impliedly conditional gift that is a completed gift only upon marriage. If the engagement is called off, for whatever reasons, the gift is not capable of becoming a completed gift and must be returned to the donor.”

Long story short, if the marriage doesn’t happen, the ring must be given back to the person that gave it.

With that being said, that two people can always come to a written agreement otherwise. If there is a written agreement that the person receiving the engagement ring can keep it regardless of what happens, that agreement would usually govern. Also keep in mind that once the couple is married, the condition of marriage is fulfilled, and the engagement ring, once a conditional gift, is now an outright gift and belongs solely to the person receiving it.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.