LegalMatch: Family Law

Legal Separation and Divorce: What is the Difference Anyways?

For those of you in need of some political gossip...Al and Tipper Gore announced that they are separating after 40 years of marriage.  As with most announcements that have such a personal nature, it left everyone with lots of unanswered questions.  I though it would be helpful to first dissect what this announcement really means.

The Gores did not make an announcement of divorce, but rather a separation.  These are legal terms of art that mean very different things.  Plus, one does not become the other after a certain period of time. 

Couples that opt for legal separation are still legally married, but begin to live separately and usually deal with property divisions like divorcing spouses.  A legal separation is a court order that outlines the rights and responsibilities of each party regarding issues such as: child custody, child support, visitation schedules, health insurance benefits, life insurance benefits, and spousal support.  In some instances, property issues aren't even addressed in a separation, and the court order simply serves notice that the spouses are severing their economic community from that point on.  

What is similar about legal separation and divorce is the court process.  Both start with filing a petition, summons, and other documents with the court (and of course, paying the fee).  What is important to note when parties are filing these documents is that the issues agreed on for the separation may set a precedent for what is decided in the divorce. 

A recent study conducted by LegalMatch revealed a high interest in divorce and legal separation and because these two options have different and confusing legal ramifications, I am glad that people are reaching out to attorneys to help sort through the realities of their choices during such an emotional time.  To add to the confusion, there are four types of separation to choose from: trial separation, legal separation, permanent separation, and living apart. 

Although I have not personally experienced the stress of a legal separation or a divorce, I think that a trial separation is a good step to allow couples to deal with the legal and social stress of a divorce and decide if the permanency of divorce is best for them. 

By: Violet Petran

Tiger Woods Should Go To Jail in New Hampshire

So from the title of my blog, you are probably thinking I will be writing all about the “transgressions” of Tiger Woods. Although I love to keep up with pop culture and celebrity gossip, even I am sick of all the exposure his personal life has gotten in recent times! The media just loves to cover famous cheaters!

I will say that Tiger is lucky that he wasn't living in New Hampshire. New Hampshire still makes it a crime to commit adultery and although the wrongdoer won't face jail time, it is classified as a misdemeanor and carries a $1,200 fine. If you think that seems steep, when the law was first enacted, the adulterer was forced to stand on the gallows for an hour with a noose around his or her neck, received up to 39 lashes, and could spend up to a year in jail or a fine of 100 pounds!

Although the New Hampshire law, and other states that still criminalize adultery (including South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia) are rarely if ever enforced, some lawmakers think it is important to keep laws like this on the books in order to send a message of the inappropriateness of adultery. By repealing the law, there is the notion that society has somehow taken a different stance on the issue or diluting the importance of marriage.

Those opposed to the adultery law say that laws should not be regulating sex, love, and marriage laws. Although laws have always regulated such things, the recent passage of gay marriage in New Hampshire (the sixth state to do so) is cited as a reason that love and marriage can take on many forms and we should have laws that allow it rather than limit it.

A recent LegalMatch study revealed an interest in adultery-related divorces. Those states that require a showing of "fault" for a divorce all too frequently list "adultery" as a reason. Additionally, the presence of adultery in a marriage is also a factor many state courts consider when determining alimony / spousal support, meaning the cheater will pay for his past mistakes in a big way!

I am in total unison with the lawmakers and think adultery is and always will be a bad thing. I also believe that it is an intensely private and personal matter that should be dealt with in the home, and not a matter of an individual lawsuit. When the issue does arise, it is best handled in divorce court when determining settlements, alimony, and other related issues.

Gay Marriage In The News Again - Is Anyone Dropping Their Jaw In Shock?

We’re in the midst of autumn.  It’s a beautiful time of the year.  Birds are chirping, farmers across the country are eagerly anticipating the year’s harvest, leaves are falling off trees like nobody’s business (probably because they’re infested with ladybugs), and of course, same-sex marriage is under attack.  Yep, you just can’t call it autumn without an argument over gay marriage.

 

Alright, maybe making the connection between autumn and the fact that California’s Proposition 8, which passed last November and effectively prohibits marriage between same-sex couples in that state, is back in the news again was a little tenuous.  But hey, I’m complicated, like opening a banana monkey-style.

 

Anyway, the debate whether to allow gay marriage in California seems to rage on with no end.  The federal district court is set to hear a challenge to the controversial proposition this January, but it appears that supporters of Prop 8 are trying to cut the courts off before then by bring a motion to dismiss the case all together.  What grounds are they employing you ask?  Why the same ones that every person against gay marriage has been using since this whole debate began: that there is no violation of a person’s constitutional rights because marriage has traditionally always been between a man and a woman.  We’ve all heard it before, however this time they’re also throwing in some case precedent from Minnesota that upholds the constitutionality of Prop 8.

 

Now just to recap for you guys not following this mess of a situation, California itself has had a sorted history with same-sex marriage.  First the mayor of San Francisco allows it to be performed and recognized in San Francisco.  Shortly afterward, the rest of California catches on to him and shuts it down.  Then the California Supreme Court allows it, resulting in gay marriages across the yin yang.  Then Prop 8 cans it again and upon doing so, has a lawsuit brought against it in federal court.  Bringing us back to the seemingly never-ending question, “Should gay marriage be allowed?”

 

And the answer is: Yes.

 

Why yes?  Without trying to get too tangled up in the politics of such an answer (which is near impossible, I know) from a purely legal perspective it should be allowed simply because of equal protection and the inalienable right of every citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as allotted by our country’s constitution.  Right now, California is an odd state with three classes of people when it comes to marriage.  Heterosexual people who are allowed to get married, homosexual people whose marriages are recognized as legal since they became married while it was still legal in that state, and finally homosexuals who cannot get married.  I don’t know about you, but on its face that seems like a violation of equal protection.  Three classes of people, really?  There aren’t supposed to be any classes since wear all supposed to be equal right?  Because, I mean, if these classes are okay, why not just call them separate, but equal, too?

 

I was trying to not get political, but like I said, near impossible…

Alienation of Affection, Marriage, and Lawsuits.

Ever heard of “Heart Balm” laws?
You might want to look them up-- or you could end up being sued by your ex-fiancé.

A cuckolded plumber from Mississippi recently won $750,000 in a similar case, suing his ex-wife’s millionaire lover (and employer) for “alienation of affection” and stealing his bride. Plumber Johnny Valentine had his case when a paternity test confirmed that his wife’s child had been sired by another man.

The Associated Press quotes the Mississippi high court as saying that the purpose of such a suit is “the protection of love, society, companionship, and comfort that form the foundation of a marriage.” A bold statement for a court interfering in the sex lives of consenting (if not so mature) adults.

 

Alienation of affection lawsuits are still active in Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. So if you’re living in one of these states and considering an extramarital affair, beware of local laws.

Living in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia? You can take a deep breath and relax, because these states have all put Heart Balm laws in place for your protection. If you aren’t under the protection of these or similar laws in your State, think twice before you slip on that engagement ring. You could be sued for loss of benefits related to marriage, losses incurred as a result of a broken promise to marry, and even emotional damage such as anxiety, stress, or depression-- all because you changed your mind about getting hitched.

by Kate Beall