Missouri Divorce and Family Law Blog : Kansas City Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Wortman Law Firm

I can’t think of how many times that I have had a client tell me, regardless of what the issue is that is in dispute, that the opposing party is “just worried about money” or that it is “all about the money” for him or her, and that is their sole motivation in the case. Or maybe it is the other way around. My usual response is “isn’t it always?” There are so many financial aspects of divorce that have to be balanced that if parties aren’t careful, they can end up in a big money mess. Here are a few of the big ones:

1.       2 households instead of one: Before a couple or family divorces, they live in one residence with one set of bills and expenses, paid by however much money the couple/parents bring in. Upon divorce, the same level of income still exists, but now there are two mortgages/rent, two sets of utilities, two sets of grocery bills, two car payments, relocation expenses, first and last month’s rent, and so on. Basically, double or so the expenses on the same income.  It is not hard to see how difficult this is in and of itself.

2.       Debts. These days, many families are just a paycheck or two away from real trouble with credit cards and other unsecured debts, and if there are significant debts involved in the divorce, a real challenge exists. Sure the court can divide the debts and assign liability to each spouse, but it doesn’t do much good if the net marital estate is significantly reduced or eliminated by the debt. A divorce is a separation of financial livelihoods, and when possible, it is a good idea to use assets in the marital estate to reduce or eliminate debt before dividing assets. The less debt after the divorce the better for both parties, even if on paper one spouse is supposed to be responsible for it. It is a future fight or bankruptcy filing waiting to happen.

3.       Child Support: Quite simply, nobody is happy with it. If you have to pay it, it is going to be perceived to be too much, and if you are receiving it, it is perceived to not be enough.  In Missouri child support is largely a mathematical calculation based on incomes and other expenses, and to some degree it is what it is.   But regardless, it another factor affecting the same level of income pre-divorce, and it will never make a party “whole” or maintain a pre-divorce standard of living.

4.       Maintenance: Although there is no mathematical formula the same holds true as does for child support, it is probably both too much and not enough,  and it is still going to have to come out of the same pot of money.  Unless the parties are very well off financially to begin with, to expect the same standard of living pre-divorce is usually unrealistic. Although appropriate in some cases of long marriage, large disparities in income, or other factors, maintenance in Missouri is awarded in a small percentage of cases.

5.       Health Insurance: Regardless of your politics on the issue, health insurance is expensive and upon divorce usually a former spouse cannot remain on the other spouse’s health insurance. So, unless both parties can get affordable health insurance, if such a thing exists, then this can be a big financial factor that likely may only have a handful of undesirable solutions.

6.       Attorney fees and case costs: On top of all of this, the divorce is a direct expense in terms of attorney fees and costs associated with the case. If the case is contested, then the total cost on the family is the sum of both spouses total investment in the case. Attorney fees are not usually awarded, which is all the more reason to try to approach the case in an informed and rational way, and try to keep costs and conflict down. The higher the conflict, the higher the cost every single time.

There are of course, other issues particular to certain cases, but regardless of how extensive the list may be, the bottom line is that divorcing spouses need to be smart and rational about how to separate financially and view their situation in a realistic way. Otherwise,  financial disaster in one form or another, certainly awaits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With so many people facing bankruptcy in the current climate, it may be good news to know (depending on which side you are on, of course) that the bankruptcy does not allow a person owing a domestic support obligation to use bankruptcy as a way to avoid payment of the debt. In fact, virtually any obligation that is domestic in nature cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Here are a few facts:

• A domestic support obligation is not dischargeable in a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 consumer bankruptcy proceeding. 
• “Domestic Support Obligation” is a debt that is owed to or recoverable by a spouse, ex-spouse, or child of the debtor or their guardian or representative, or a governmental unit (such as the Children’s division or the Court). This includes alimony, maintenance, child support, state assistance, even if the debt is not titled exactly in that manner. Also included is a debt arising out of a separation agreement, divorce decree, or property settlement agreement.
• Also non-dischargeable in a Chapter 7 is any debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child not described above that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree, or other order of a court of record. Any debt that falling under this section may be dischargeable in a Chapter 13 debt adjustment, however.
• Domestic Support Obligations receive the number 1 priority for repayment in a Chapter 13 plan or when funds are available in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate.
• To summarize, if it is domestic in nature, it is going to have to be paid. This includes not only child support or maintenance, but also property and debt divisions, such as: marital estate equalization payments, payments in settlement, qualified domestic relations orders, contempt payments, divisions of debts, vehicle debts, mortgages, credit cards, lines of credit, personal loans, medical insurance, costs for non-covered medical care, retirement plan divisions, military retirement divisions, attorney fee awards, and the kitchen sink.
• No special language is necessary in the divorce settlement or decree to make these provisions apply, although it may be a good idea just to drive the point home.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Burden of proof of stalking for order of protection. Thomas Schwalm, Respondent v. Lori Schwalm, Appellant, No. 87829 (Mo. App. E.D., March 20, 2007), Richter, P.J.
  This case is instructional to the extent it discusses the failure of proof that required the reversal of the judgment for an order of protection.
  Husband sought an order of protection where the evidence showed that wife knocked on husband's door multiple times, once blocked husband's vehicle in a parking lot, followed him to work on occasion and once approached him at a gas station. That sounds like stalking, except for one crucial element. “While the statutory definition of stalking requires alarm (in the victim), a plaintiff is required to do more than simply assert a bare answer of 'yes' when asked if he was alarmed. A plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct caused him fear of danger of physical harm as stated in the statutory definition of alarm. See Section 455.010(10)(c).”
  Note: A similar case was just reported for the same proposition: Clark v. Wuebbeling, No. 88413 (Mo. App. E.D., March 20, 2007), opinion also by Judge Richter.

Identical twins yield identical paternity tests. State of Missouri, ex rel., Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, and Holly Marie Adams, Petitioners/Respondents v. Raymon Miller, Respondent/Appellant and Richard Miller, Respondent, No. 27188 (Mo. App. S.D., March 14, 2007), Garrison, J.
  This was a paternity action in which twin brothers were having sexual relations with the eventual mother of a child for whom child support was sought. The brother named as the father appealed on the basis that the burden of proof of his paternity was not met because of the results of DNA testing of both brothers. The results were identical.
  Held: Affirmed. When competing tests for paternity show two potential fathers, the court must look to the nongenetic evidence to determine if there is a preponderance of evidence of the identity of the father. Here, the mother's testimony established that appellant was the only one of the two who could be the father.

Disqualification of guardian ad litem in modification action. State of Missouri, ex rel. Larry Dreppard, Relator, v. Hon. Phillip Jones, Com., and Hon. John Essner, Respondents, No. 89214 (Mo. App. E.D., March 6, 2007), Norton, P.J.
  A motion to modify was filed and the trial court re-appointed the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) from the dissolution of marriage action. Within 10 days of that appointment, father asked for the disqualification of the GAL. The request was denied. Father now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to grant the motion to disqualify.
  Held: Writ made absolute. Section 452.423.1, RSMo provides that each party has a right to one disqualification of an appointed GAL if requested in a timely manner (within 10 days of the appointment). The trial court viewed the motion to modify as a continuation of the original dissolution action. However, the opinion notes “… that by 're-appointing' the GAL following the motion to modify, the court recognized that the modification proceeding was independent from the original dissolution proceeding. Otherwise, no appointment would have been necessary.” Since the motion to modify is deemed by the rules to be an independent proceeding, the parties had a right to disqualify the GAL.

Pension benefits and disability payments. Sandra Ray Coffman, Respondent v. Elvin Cale Coffman, Appellant, No. 66204 (Mo. App. W.D., February 27, 2007), Ellis, J.
  In this dissolution of marriage action, the parties were married in 1982. At that time, husband had worked for General Motors for approximately 4 ½ years. He continued that employment until December 2002 for a total of 24 years. Earlier that year he had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and his father was named as his guardian and conservator by the probate court. He was 45 years old as of his last day at General Motors. He had received disability payment from General Motors and eventually qualified for Social Security disability benefits, too. He qualified and was ultimately receiving disability benefits from General Motors. The trial court determined that all but the pre-marital years of credited service were marital property having been accumulated during the marriage. It was divided equally between the parties. Husband appealed.
  Held: Reversed. The court of appeals determined from the evidence that the only reason the husband had begun receiving benefit payments was because of his disability. Otherwise, he would not be eligible for pension benefits until reaching retirement age under the plan. Further, the terms of the General Motor benefits provided that husband would receive the disability payments based on his years of service until either he reached age 65 (retirement age) or became capable of gainful employment. After age 65 the benefits would revert to being pension benefits in character. Thus, the benefits he was and would later be eligible for were partially marital and non-marital in character. The opinion notes that disability benefits are not marital property “… if they serve as a substitute for earnings lost due to the recipient's inability to work. In re: Marriage of Thomas, 21 S.W.3d 168,173 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000).”
  The case was remanded for a determination of which portion of the marital portion of the benefits will be awarded between the parties and to award husband the non-marital portion thereof.

Order of protection between brothers-in-law. Terry Pratt, Respondent, v. Chuck Lasley, Appellant, No. 65992 (Mo. App. W.D., January 16, 2007), Ellis, J.
  The two parties are brothers-in-law because they are each married to women who are sisters. Respondent was found to have assaulted the Petitioner and an order of protection was entered. The Respondent appealed asserting that the definition of family member in the statute (§455.020.1) did not apply since there is no blood relation between them.
  Held: Affirmed. “Had the legislature intended to limit the statute's applicability to those 'of kin' or related by cosanguinity or direct affinity as proposed by (respondent), the legislature would have used those terms in the statute.
  “The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase 'related by marriage' includes one's brother-in-law.”

Source for Post:  The Missouri Bar

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One very important, and often overlooked, factor to consider as part of your dissolution of marriage is a re-evaluation, (or first evaluation as is often the case) of your estate plan.   If there is no plan in place, the laws that will determine how your estate will be divided upon your death change significantly when you are divorced.  If there is a plan in place, you will most certainly want to make changes for your future to match the changes in your life today.  Below are some very basic points on estate planning from about.com:

If you have assets, no matter what your age, marital status, or financial wealth, you should plan your estate in the event of your death or incapacitation. If you should die without a sound estate plan, someone will be exposed to additional grief and expense. If you become incapacitated, your bills might not get paid. You could also be put on life support which is OK unless you have strong feelings about your life being prolonged artificially if you have no chance for recovery. A little preparation and maintenance could make this difficult time less taxing for those you love and who love you.

There are many reasons to have a sound estate plan but here are eight I feel are most important. If you should die or become incapacitated, a sound estate plan could:

1. save your family thousands of dollars
2. distribute your assets to those of your choosing, not of the government's choosing
3. designate who will raise your minor children
4. make sure someone is authorized to pay your bills
5. avoid conflicts among your family members
6. make sure your assets aren’t divided among your children’s ex-spouses
7. keep your children from frivolously spending the inheritance
8. prevent death taxes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pension Was Marital And Non-Marital Property
Pension is a hybrid of marital and non-marital property; the former to the extent that it represents deferred payment of wages earned during the marriage, and the latter to the extent that it represents compensation for future wages lost due to disability. Remanded to Circuit Court to reconsider property and debt division, and maintenance awards.
Sandra Ray Coffman, Respondent v. Elvin Cale Coffman, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

Separable Finality Did Not Apply
When a party to an action for dissolution of marriage dies, action continues if Circuit Court has already dissolved marriage "even though the order may be partial, interlocutory or not a final judgment resolving all issues in the case." But action abates if Circuit Court has not already made some order purporting to dissolve the marriage. Order nunc pro tunc cannot correct that omission.
Mary Ruth McMilian, Appellant, v. James Henry McMilian, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks