Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (House Bill 1358) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (House Bill 1360), failed to pass during final week of 2008 legislative session

Two proposals by the Family Law Section of the Missouri Bar failed to pass in 2008. 

House Bill 1358 proposed to enact the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act.  Missouri remains one of only four jurisdictions that has not adopted the Act.  If adopted, the act would have changed the rules pertaining to initial child custody jurisdiction, continuing jurisdiction, modification jurisdiction, and emergency orders.  Text of the bill can be read here.

House Bill 1360 would have made changes to Missouri's Interstate Family Support Act, which governs jurisdiction and enforcement for interstate child support orders.  The proposed bill would have also established several direct interstate enforcement mechanisms for caretaker parents.  Text of the bill can be read here.

 

Case Law Update: Favorable Judgment No Defense To Interest On Maintenance

Recent Case Summary

Statute requires interest on maintenance not paid. Neither "good faith . . . reliance upon what [Obligor] understood to be a valid court order" that no interest was due, nor Obligee's inconsistent theories on amount due, are a defense. Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees award "based on a variety of factors expressly authorized by" statute.

Case Holding

Appellant was entitled to statutory interest pursuant to section 454.520.3, RSMo, for the entire time period that Respondent failed to pay his full obligation under the divorce decree. The obligation to pay interest under section 454.520.3 is mandatory and is intended to compensate the recipient spouse, rather than punish the payor. Although Respondent may have relied in good faith on the circuit court's 2002 modification order, this court held that the 2002 order was null and void; Respondent's obligation to make $4,000 per month maintenance payments under the original divorce decree thus subsisted throughout the relevant period. On this issue the judgment is reversed, and remanded to the circuit court for calculation of the interest owing to Appellant.

The circuit court denied Appellant's request for attorneys fees and costs based on multiple factors, including Appellant's resources, the justiciability of the issue concerning the validity of the 2002 modification, Appellant's delay in seeking an attorneys fee award, and her conduct during the litigation. Pursuant to section 452.355.1, RSMo, the circuit court has broad discretion in deciding whether an award of attorneys fees is warranted. This court finds no abuse of discretion in the circumstances, and the circuit court's denial of attorneys fees and costs is affirmed.

Read the Full opinion here

Source for Post:  Missouri Bar

 

Short Sales: When Proceeds Are Insufficient To Pay Off The Mortgage

After divorce, it is common for the parties to agree to sell their marital home, or it may be ordered by the Court.  It is also common for one party to keep the home, and "buy out" the other spouse for their share of the equity.  In the current market however, sometimes this is not possible, and the value of the home is such that a sale will not bring enough proceeds to cover the outstandig mortgages.  In this situation, divorcing spouses may have no choice but to consider a short sale.  The following article, recently posted on the New Jersey Law Blog, explains a short sale, and the possible benefits and risks.

A short sale is when the proceeds from the sale of a home are not sufficient to fully pay off all outstanding debts which are secured by the property (mortgages) after first deducting the homeowner’s costs of selling the property.  In such instances, the selling homeowner can either bring funds to closing to make up the difference, or obtain approval from his mortgage holders to accept a reduced amount to satisfy his outstanding loans. 


Unless a homeowner is able to pay off all of the mortgages which are secured by his property, the homeowner will not be able to convey good title to a buyer.  If the homeowner is unable to obtain a sales price which enables him to pay off all loans and closing costs, and he does not have the funds to make up the difference, then he may want to try to obtain approval from his current lender(s) to accept an amount less than the full amount due on its mortgage.  For a lender, this may be acceptable to obtain repayment of a substantial amount of its loan and to avoid the costs and delay of foreclosing on the loan.  This will generally mean that the Seller will not receive any funds from the sale of his home.


In order to obtain such approval from a lender - which may or may not be granted - the homeowner needs to contact his lender(s) to determine what information they will need to make their decision.  This usually includes a financial statement of the homeowner, copy of a contract of sale, appraisal, and other pertinent documents.  Generally, a lender will not consider approving a short sale without a clear economic hardship on the part of the homeowner and an existing default or pending foreclosure.


Until recently, forgiveness of a debt under these circumstances, could trigger a taxable event according to the IRS.  This means that if a lender forgave a part of the mortgage debt by accepting a reduced amount in full satisfaction of the loan, then the amount forgiven could be deemed taxable income to the homeowner.  This was so even though the homeowner received nothing from the sale.  However, in December 2007 Congress passed the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.  This Act amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from gross income amounts attributed to a discharge of indebtedness incurred to acquire a homeowner’s principle residence.  The amount of the debt forgiveness can be up to $2.0 million.  Thus, a homeowner is now able to sell his home for less than what is owed on it without incurring an additional tax liability.   This exemption for forgiven debt, however, is only temporary and expires within three years.

Source for Post: New Jersey Law Blog