California Lasik Surgery and Laser Eye Surgery Prices

A through a lens darkly

The widespread effects of the economy in case of divorce have not been shown

By Dorothy K. Sydney Phillips and Mason Coutts

Weekly Special Law

The deteriorating economy has become the lens through which we see everything in these difficult days and has changed our perspective.

There have been many articles in the news recently about the effect of the economy on divorce. Money problems can put a tremendous strain on a relationship, making some people feel is impossible to stay together. But the problems that many couples are experiencing in today's financial climate also makes it extremely difficult to break.

In a very basic level, breaking up is more expensive than staying together because where there was once a house, now there must be two. If there is agreement shared child custody, each household costs are even greater, since each resident must provide enough space and supplies for children. This can be be more difficult for couples to manage in these times, especially if one or both of them are unemployed. Therefore, the media has focused on the Couples are postponing the divorce because they feel they simply can not afford to do so. However, deciding not to divorce is not a remedy. The couple has to find a way to coexist in the same household, without they or their children miserable.

 

 

Value of Assets

The couple who decide to go ahead with the divorce must determine what the economy has made that the value of marital property. Historically, the most valuable asset was the marital home. A common method of distribution was to award the home to a spouse to borrow against the property to compensate the other party or its property. Often one spouse has a retirement assets that can be granted for offset the amount of equity in the house. Alternatively, the parties could sell the house and divide the net income. In the past year, the values of these two important assets have plummeted. Now, the parties may find they actually owe more on the mortgage of the property could sell in this current real estate market slump. In these difficult times to a distressing situation for the court, which is responsible for developing a fair and equitable distribution of marital property.

The courts often rely on real estate assessments to establish a fair market value of real estate assets acquisitions. Valuations generally use recent sales of comparable properties in the area to arrive at a value. But with so few sales occur, the possibility of such assessments is limited due to lack of sales and therefore a lack of "comps". The court is forced to place a market value of property in a market many economists argue is broken. Therefore, fair market value just by the historical use of comps is not possible. Banks recently succeeded in the argument that was unfair to require them to use current market

values in all cases. Similarly, in the context of equitable distribution, it seems clear that the courts will have to reach some means of assessment of real estate to satisfy the policy of the Divorce Code to achieve economic justice between the parties.

Beyond the question of valuation of property for purposes of equitable distribution, the court and parties will address the practical consequences of this market also. If a couple is more at home than it is currently worth, how to address this situation for economic justice?

The parties may decide that the best course of action is to hold on to property with the hope that the market values recover in the future. A common situation is where one spouse wants to keep living at home with children. Assuming the mortgage payment is affordable for the parties, a solution could be put out of the division of property value. You may be able to hold on to property by a number of years, usually until the last child finishes school, with the expectation that the property will be sold at the end of the period and the product must divided in a specific way. The advantage of this option is that the parties do not have to risk the value of your investment in property on the market today. Moreover, A drawback is that it would be expected to realize revenues. They would have to continue working together to ensure that the mortgage and property taxes were paid. In addition, not residing in the property would have to trust that the party will keep the home adequately.

Once a decision divorce is granted, the fiction of marital "tenants by the entireties" ends and the parties become tenants-in-common, as of right. Creditors of both parties to a marriage can not come to rental property by the entireties. As for the property owned as tenants-in-common, judicial creditors a party could tax the interest of that party's ownership in the property. A creditor's failure could also seek partition and forced sale of the property. Therefore, the exercise of this option is not always a safe or wise.

Moreover, clinging to a home until the housing market "returns" is not a realistic option for parties who are already experiencing financial difficulties. If one spouse is unemployed or have experienced a drop in revenue, the parties can not afford to keep paying the mortgage. One can imagine a situation in which it has become a well house money, which require exorbitant maintenance costs.

What was their window of a house, something that felt entirely appropriate when the family unit was intact, may seem an extravagance now unbearable. An intact family may be willing to be poor house – to pay too large a proportion of their income on house payments and maintenance costs – for a variety of reasons. However, there is little point for a couple who are divorced to do so.

In this situation, the parties may seek to sell the house on the market today, meaning they can end up owing money instead of making any product of the sale. They are much more successful in negotiating a short sale of property, in which case it would make an agreement with your lender to sell the property for less than value of their property. The lender then would take the whole product and the brand of the loan paid. Another option would be to let the bank repossess the property. As Alternatively, the parties may declare bankruptcy. All these options would have negative effects on credit ratings of the parties. A short sale might even be in a tax bill from the IRS, debt forgiveness can be considered taxable income.

It is therefore possible that some parts divorce and may receive little more than one part of the decoration of the house, reducing the retirement accounts and the family dog, and yet the certainty that failed to pay the debt.

After the smoke clears

So that he thought his divorce settlement was safe because it ended last year, before the economy really went sour. Think again. Sure, you may have addressed the issue of distribution of the marital home, but what about the continuing obligations such as alimony, child support Juvenile and disbursement of amounts equal distribution?

Many have lost jobs or are earning less, affecting their ability to pay child support and / or alimony. Pay-out for the equitable distribution can not be posssible. The economy has affected the poor the ability payment of increases for children, as private schools and the camp. The party has been ordered to pay support can not fulfill its obligation on the part of the statement Bankruptcy: In general, domestic support obligations are excepted from discharge in bankruptcy. The current language of 11 USC § 523 (a) provides, in relevant part:

"(A) The downloads on … the title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt … (5) for an obligation domestic support, … (15) to a spouse, former spouse or child of the debtor and not of the type described in paragraph (5) that have been made by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation or under a separation agreement, divorce or other order of a court of record, or a decision in accordance with state or territorial a governmental unit. "

In Pennsylvania, a party may request modification of a court-ordered amount of maintenance "to change the circumstances of either party to substantial and continuing nature." In addition, a

parents can request a change in a child support order in a sample of a substantial change in circumstances.

Significant changes in income qualifies as a material change in circumstances which would justify a reduction in child or spousal maintenance. In accordance with Pa. RCP 1910.16-2 (d) a voluntary reduction in income usually have no effect on the child support obligation. But the rule is to allow a reduction of aid when income reduction is not voluntary: "[A ppropriate settings] will be continuous for the substantial reduction in involuntary admissions, including but not limited to, the outcome of the illness, dismissal, termination, job elimination or some other employment situation over which the party has no control. " Pa. RCP 1910.16-2 (d) (2).

Even when a parent has lost their jobs involuntarily, he or she can not go without income for an indefinite period. Foreign domestic offices granted unemployment compensation to pay child support orders. It is expected that the party unemployed seeking a new job that would pay a adequate income based on their situation, on pain of being assigned an earning capacity:

"Generally, any the parties to a support action who willfully fails to obtain suitable employment, is deemed to have an income equal to the capacity to win the game. Age, education, training, health, work experience, earnings history and child care responsibilities are factors to be considered in determining earning capacity. "

Of course, when the statute of Pennsylvania Support and the Rules of Civil Procedure became law, this economy oppressed could not even imagine. People today have never experienced a "recession" as is happening now. The courts continue to face an increase in the number of requests for change in the rate of unemployment continues to rise. In evaluating these requests, the courts have to determine whether the party made real efforts to find a reasonable substitute employment. In an economy where you see the news of former general manager who are delivering pizzas and lawyers who have been dismissed tending bar, the question of what is "reasonable" will have to change. The expenses of the parents were ordered to pay for being a custom side lifestyle of the family – such as summer camps and private schools – may be necessary to remove to make an order that is more appropriate for current income parents.

Beyond the issue of ongoing support obligations, it is conceivable that we may see some of the parties attempt to challenge the finality of settlement agreements of goods. In one case out of New York, a partner in a law firm is seeking to reopen his 2006 settlement agreement property, in which he paid $ 2.7 million money to his wife in order to maintain the investments of the parties ($ 5.4 million) with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. The husband was so confident in the background Madoff at the time of divorce the parties that he was willing to buy out your spouse's investments.

If the court New York allows this case to proceed would open the door to many similar claims, really muddy the waters for many former spouses who thought their divorce was a "Done deal" and that their lives were financially secure. Lasik may need to correct the economic ills of the divorce court. •

Dorothy K. Phillips is the founder and managing partner DorothyK.Phillips & Associates in Philadelphia. She focuses her practice on domestic relations law. A former therapist family, she is an author and frequent lecturer on a variety of family law issues.

Coutts Sydney Mason, a 1991 graduate University of Pennsylvania Law School and former law clerk to the Honorable Stephen E. Levin Philadelphia Court of Common

Pleas, a member of DorothyK.Phillips & Associates. She is admitted in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

About the Author

For more information on this area of law, visit http://www.mydivorceattorney.com or contact Phillips at 215-568-7757.

Mike McCrary had LASIK by Carl J May MD at The May Eye Care Center in Pennsylvania 2009

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 28th, 2008 at 7:14 am and is filed under Laser Eye Surgery Prices. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.