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.