Thursday, March 15, 2012

With more blended families, estate planning gets ugly

The couple in their 50s pulled up to the estate lawyer's office in a
snazzy sports car. She was dripping in jewelry and carrying a designer
bag. He wore an expensive watch. They lived in a swanky part of town.

The veneer of wealth vanished when they laid out their finances. Home
equity? Wiped out by their borrowing. Business? Gone bust. Credit
cards? A dozen maxed-out and using another to pay minimum balances.
Despite their financial tailspin, the couple didn't look a bit
worried, says wills lawyer Les Kotzer. When he asked what the husband
did for a living, the wife joyfully answered: "Harry's a waiter."
No, not the kind who works in restaurants.
"A 'waiter' because he's waiting for his inheritance," Kotzer says.
It could be a long wait.
Heirs betting on their parents' golden nest eggs are running into
harsh demographic realities.
Longevity and a slew of changes that have transformed family
relationships (ex-spouses, stepkids, stepgrandkids, siblings living
thousands of miles apart) are turning the already-prickly matter of
inheritances into a gargantuan challenge. Add the gaping generational
divide between Depression-era parents, who valued frugality above all
else, and their Baby Boomer children, who relish self-reward, and the
dynamics can be explosive.
"I see families who never talk to each other again," says Kotzer, a
Canadian lawyer who has written several books, with law partner Barry
Fish, on fighting over estates (the latest is Where There's an
Inheritance…). "Family to me is our greatest asset, and we are losing
family. …It's the savers vs. the spenders."
People are living longer. Health care costs for the frailest seniors
are eating up family estates. Their reliance on others to feed and
care for them and their finances can put more elderly at risk of
financial or physical abuse by the caretakers they depend on.
The shaky economy adds to the volatility as more adult children lose
their jobs and see their retirement savings and home equities dwindle
while debts mount.
Despite the downturn, more than $20 trillion will be transferred to
heirs in the next 50 years — the largest transfer of wealth in U.S.
history, according to the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston
College.
"Boomers took risks, and they have a high lifestyle," Kotzer says.
"The housing market went down. The (stock) market went down. A lot of
these Boomers have been laid off. Where's the money coming from?"
The prospect of an inheritance stirs a cauldron of emotions — not
always heartwarming.
Eileen Zenker, director of client services at SeniorBridge, a national
care management company, says it's common for children who are faced
with costly care for their parents to react this way: "I'm watching my
inheritance go down the drain."
Bill McGaw wants to make sure his children — not his stepchildren —
inherit his assets.
"Death does weird things to people," he says. "Especially to those who
are still alive."
Longevity erodes life savings
The number of Americans age 65 and over has topped 40 million, or 13%
of the U.S. population. That's the most ever, both in sheer numbers
and as a percentage, and the number will grow rapidly. It's estimated
that the 65-plus population will make up one-fifth of the nation by
2050.
Not only is the share of seniors growing, health care advances are
pushing the oldest of the old to even longer lifespans.
The fastest-growing age group among seniors is 85 to 94, jumping 30%
to 5.1 million the last decade, according to the Census Bureau. The
number of centenarians is projected to exceed 600,000 in 2050. That's
good news except for one key factor: Half of those living beyond 85
have Alzheimer's disease, a condition that devastates one's quality of
life while requiring costly care that erodes retirees' assets.
"Relatively few people today have money to pass on to the next
generation because they consume it in life," says Hendrik Hartog, a
professor of family and social history at Princeton University and
author of the recently published Someday All This Will Be Yours: A
History of Inheritance and Old Age. "It's consumed through retirement
communities or through health care."
Miami financial adviser Sandy Jukel says that interest rates are low
but cost of care keeps rising. "The end result, if proper planning is
not pursued, they inevitably run out of money," he says.
Adult children often mistakenly believe that Medicare and other
retiree benefits will pay for their parents' care. In fact, only
long-term health insurance will cover custodial care.
"So many children don't expect they'll be responsible for their
parents in later life," Hartog says.
The complications of inheritance only intensify when the children must
care for an aging parent. If the estate is not clearly divided in a
will, for instance, children who took care of aging parents often feel
that they should inherit more than the siblings who did little —
either by choice or because of geographic considerations, according to
estate lawyers. And often, the children who do care for them are
tempted to dip into their parents' savings before they die because
they figure it's coming to them eventually.
Self-interest works both ways. Often, aging parents dangle the
prospect of an inheritance to make sure their children will care for
them in their later years, Hartog says. "The best demographic evidence
we have suggests most parents distribute assets equally between
children," he says, adding that most don't like to play favorites,
even if one child did more for them.
Tangled family trees
Family feuds over inheritance are as old as the Bible (Jacob tricked
his twin brother Esau out of his birthright and their father's
blessing.), and they can multiply in blended families. There are
ex-wives and ex-husbands, children and stepchildren, parents and
stepparents.
More than half of all first marriages end in divorce and about 75% of
divorced people will marry again, according to the National Stepfamily
Resource Center. About 65% of these unions will include children from
previous marriages. More than 40% of American adults have at least one
step-relative, according to a Pew Research Center study earlier this
year.
Newcomers to the family can heighten tensions.
"The children of the mom might say, 'I never liked my mother's new
husband and now I might have to take care of him?' " Zenker says.
Boomers who started families later in life are feeling the pressure.
They are dealing with children's college bills "while Mom is 87 and
needs care," says Claudia Fine, chief professional officer at
SeniorBridge, which has more than tripled the number of its branches
in the USA since 2008 by helping families keep elders in their homes.
"It's no longer the sandwich generation; it's the panini generation,"
she says, referring to the popular pressed sandwich.
McGaw is feeling the squeeze. At 46, he has "only $40,000" in his
401(k), and he has credit card debt. He is married for the second
time. His wife also was married before. They each have two children
from their first marriages. Their ex-spouses both remarried to people
who were married before. The blending is multiplied.
"The thought of two of the kids (hers) having access to my assets even
though they have no interest in accepting me into the family" makes
him wince, he says.
McGaw would like everything to go to his children, but that doesn't
sit well with his current wife. He says she got upset when he met with
an estate attorney without her. McGaw is going ahead with his estate
planning on his own to make sure his children get what he thinks they
deserve.
"I love my wife, but I would not want to benefit her kids from a
previous marriage, especially in a scenario which left my children
with nothing," says McGaw, a senior analyst for a medical information
systems company in San Antonio. "It's almost morbid and perverse in a
way. It's an extremely stressful situation. … It's a mess."
After his father died, he says his sister ended up with the family
house without his knowledge — and that has caused resentment.
Even if you don't want it
Paula Goldie, 57, is a typical Baby Boomer who celebrated her 50th by
taking up scuba diving. She plans to learn the rumba for her 60th.
Goldie's married and has a 40-year-old stepdaughter, a 25-year-old
daughter and 20-year-old granddaughter. Her mother died 16 years ago,
but her father, 82, remarried. His wife, 67, has four adult children.
Goldie, a court clerk in the Portland, Ore., suburb of Troutdale, is
inheriting something she's not even sure she wants: Her father's house
1,000 miles away in Southern California.
"He has left me on his house title," she says. "My younger brother
(who lives in Michigan) opted out, so it's up to me to handle Dad's
estate. Honestly, neither of us cares."
One problem: Her dad has a reverse mortgage, and he wants his wife to
stay in the house after he dies. Goldie wants to respect her father's
wishes but worries that she will be stuck spending money to allow his
widow to live there for free.
If the wife stays in the house, "she would have to pay taxes, but her
name is not on the house," Goldie says. "Her children have already
looked at the furniture in the house and said, 'Gee, I would like
that.' … The house is pretty much going to be a wreck. If he passes, I
still have to deal with it."
As much as she wishes she didn't have to, Goldie sees taking care of
the house as her duty and something her late mother would have wanted.
In the meantime, she has yet to draw up her own will.
Putting it off is "one of the things so many of us Baby Boomers are
facing," she says. "Death in the family brings out the best or the
worst in people. There's no gray area."
What to do?
There are no foolproof solutions to the wills problem, but talking the
issues out when parents are still alive can help. And planning is
crucial.
"If you cherish your family, you've got to plan," says Kotzer, who
runs an interactive website to help families deal with wills
(familyfight.com), even if they're not rich.
"Don't assume that people only fight over money," he says. "Many times
people fight over memories. It could be the painting on the wall over
the table in the hall."
Edward Gabriel, 67, is married (once) and has three children (all with
his wife) in their 30s and 40s. He admits that he put off drafting a
will but is finally doing it.
"My children say, 'Hey, it's your money, you do whatever you want with
it,' " says Gabriel, a manager at a financial processing firm in
Parsippany, N.J., who plans to retire this year. "But the older you
get, you want to make sure your children are taken care of."
He is making his daughter the executor of the estate and is trying to
divvy up assets equitably, leaving more to the kids who didn't borrow
his money. "It has to be done, like it or not," Gabriel says.
Hartog says heirs should remember that they are enjoying the fruits of
their parents' hard work long before they die.
"Children are effectively getting their inheritance much earlier —
their education, help buying their first business and their first
house," he says. "It makes more sense. Who wants to wait until they're
in their 70s?"
Advocates for seniors advise families to start planning when older
relatives show the first signs of health problems rather than waiting
until they have to be put in a care facility.
"Whenever it involves money, someone always feels that they're on the
short end of the stick," Jukel says. "There is no mathematical formula
for the distribution of wealth."
If there are three heirs, wills lawyer Kotzer suggests parents leave
it up to them to take what they want and tell them to resolve disputes
this way: When two of them want the same thing, flip a coin; when all
three want it, draw names from a hat.
"Everybody needs to plan because we're all going to die," Kotzer says.
"It's not if — but when."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Limits on Questioning in Family Law Cases; Unrepresented Parties Take Note

by familyllb

Limits on Questioning in Family Law Cases; Unrepresented Parties Take Note

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has recently released a decision
outlining limits on Orders under the Family Law Rules allowing the
questioning of one party by the other. The decision is particularly
noteworthy because it serves as a cautionary tale for those parties to
a family law dispute who are self-represented.

In Durbin v. Medina, the 56-year old husband and the 33-year old wife
had two children, and had separated in September of 2010. As part of
their divorce proceedings the husband – who happens to be a family law
lawyer – brought a motion to be allowed to question the wife, mainly
in connection with her proposed parenting plan relating to the
children.

Under the Family Law Rules, the court can make such an Order to allow
a person (whether a party to the litigation or not) to be questioned
by a party in certain circumstances, namely where:

1) it would be unfair to the party making the request to have to carry
on with the case without it;

2) the information is not easily available by any other method;

3) the questioning will not cause an unacceptable delay or undue expense.

However, in this case the court found that none of the criteria had
been met by the husband; in fact, it concluded that the husband's
motives for bringing the motion for questioning were "not plausible"
and "call[ed] into question his litigation goals."
In particular, the court found that there was no issue for which
questioning the wife would advance the case, and that none of the
husband's potential topics for exploration – which the court called
"minor irritants" – were necessary to ascertain the children's best
interests.

The court pointed out that under the Family Law Rules neither the
parties nor their lawyers could obtain an Order to question the
opposing side merely to "diminish, intimidate or attempt to embarrass
a former spouse," especially in cases where they hoped to parent the
children in a co-operative manner.

As if to underline the point, the court also ordered that the husband
pay $16,000 in court costs.

This ruling highlights an important distinction between the Civil
Rules of Procedure and the Family Law Rules: the Civil Rules
establish a presumption that the parties can question each other
whereas – as this decision illustrates – the Family Law Rules do not.
This distinction may come as a surprise, especially to unrepresented
family law litigants who may assume that such an automatic right
exists.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Monday, March 12, 2012

Marital Settlement Agreements or Postnuptial Agreements

By Shaffer & Engle Law Offices,

As a practicing divorce lawyer, my office routinely drafts marital
settlement agreements ("MSA's") or sometimes called postnuptial
agreements.  They are one in the same.  We have numerous clients that
walk through the door with their own agreements that they have
discussed with their soon-to-be ex spouse.  We need to sit down and
craft them within the bounds of the law and carefully review what's a
good idea and what's not.  Here are some topics to consider in a valid
MSA (this is only a partial list and should not be construed as
providing legal advice or opinion about a specific case):
Disclosure. Full and fair disclosure of all income, assets and debts
is the cornerstone to any valid MSA.  Failure to disclose income or
assets can invalidate the agreement. The agreement should contain a
disclosure provision, either couched in terms of an acknowledgment
that full disclosure has been made to each by the other or an
affirmative representation by each party that he or she has fully
disclosed all assets and income.
Opportunity to investigate or appraise. The agreement may reflect the
fact that the parties had an opportunity to investigate, appraise or
value all or some of the assets of the other party but have chosen not
to do so.
Release. It should be apparent from the MSA that the contents
described therein contain a "release" from any future claims.  In
other words, the MSA covers all claims from the marriage under the
Divorce Code.
Contingency or "self-destruct" clauses. The parties may wish to
provide that the agreement is to be contingent upon entry of a decree
in divorce and that it is automatically deemed null and void if a
decree is not entered within a specified period of time.
Waiver of estate rights. A provision citing the Probate, Estates and
Fiduciaries Code to the effect that statutory rights are being
acknowledged but are being modified or waived may be included.
Waiver of rights under the Domestic Relations Act. A specific
reference to the Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Act may be included
with an acknowledgment of the existence of the statutory rights being
modified or waived.
Equitable distribution. All of the parties' marital property should be
disposed of in one way or another in the agreement.  Where documents
are required to effect a conveyance or transfer, such as deeds and car
titles, the agreement should provide that the parties will execute
whatever documents are necessary to implement their agreement.
Mortgages. Refinancing, payoff, or sale of the real estate subject to
the mortgage should be clearly listed in the MSA.  It is not enough to
assume that if real estate is transferred from one spouse to another
that an obligation to be solely responsible for the mortgage will
follow with the transfer.
Counsel fees and expenses. The agreement should include a provision
regarding legal expenses in the event of breach, both as a remedy and
as a deterrent to a party tempted to disregard performance under the
agreement.
Debts. The agreement should specifically reference any outstanding
debts, either joint or separate, and which party is to pay them and
when.
Retirement benefits/insurance waivers. Waivers of a party's beneficial
interest in the spouse's retirement benefits or insurance policies, or
waivers of any other assets that require the execution of separate
documents such as beneficiary designations or written waivers of the
spouse's survivorship interest pursuant to the Retirement Equity Act,
should be explicit and should require the waiver whether or not the
employee spouse or owner of the insurance policy actually follows
through on the other paperwork.
Default. Provisions specifying remedies in the event of default or
breach may be included. For example, if a default in installment
payments is intended to permit a confession of judgment for the entire
amount due and not just the past due installments, the agreement must
contain an acceleration clause.
Alimony and spousal support. Waivers of support or alimony should be
specifically stated. The agreement should describe the tax treatment
to be accorded to cash payments to the payee as well as third party
payments for the payee's benefit, such as medical insurance, premiums,
mortgage payments and so on, all of which may be treated as alimony
for federal income tax purposes.
Remarriage or cohabitation. If alimony payments are to terminate upon
either the remarriage or cohabitation of the payee, the agreement must
specifically so state.
Child support. An agreement regarding child support, visitation or
custody is subject to modification upward or downward by the court
upon a showing of changed circumstances.  An agreement relating to
child support that is against public policy or is unsupported by
consideration may be unenforceable.
Education. Provisions requiring the parties to contribute to the
posthigh school educational expenses of their adult children are
enforceable.
Custody. On the theory that parents may not bargain away their
children's rights, the court is not bound by provisions relating to
custody and visitation, and these provisions are subject to
modification upon a showing of changed circumstances.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"


--
Sincerely,

Tatiana, Restrepo, Front Office Manager
From the Law Office of Yoel Molina, P. A.
Office: 305-548-5020
782 NW 42nd Ave, Suite 343, Miami, Fl. 33126 in the "Ocean Bank" Building


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to
www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com

Bankruptcy | Sports Law | All Criminal Cases | Traffic | DUI Defense |
Family Law

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if
any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and /or attorney-client
privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not
wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise
the sender immediately.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

In Age of Dual Incomes, Alimony Payers Prod States to Update Laws

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

MIAMI — In the waning days of this year's legislative session, Florida
lawmakers and advocacy groups are pushing to overhaul the state's
alimony law in a bid to better reflect today's marriages and make the
system less burdensome for the alimony payer.

Florida joins a grass-roots movement in a growing number of states
that seeks to rewrite alimony laws by curbing lifelong alimony and
alleviating the financial distress that some payers — still mostly men
— say they face. The activists say the laws in several states,
including Florida, unfairly favor women and do not take into account
the fact that a majority of women work and nearly a third have college
degrees.

The Florida House recently approved legislation that would make
lifelong alimony more difficult to award and less onerous for the
payer and, in the case of a remarriage, would place a new spouse's
income off-limits in awarding payments. Attention turns to the Senate,
where the companion bill is less far-reaching. Florida had already
changed some provisions in alimony law two years ago.

Traditionally, alimony was designed to prevent divorced women who did
not work and were less educated from falling into poverty. According
to this view, the woman's job was to raise children and run the
household. Today, with both spouses often working, that situation is
far less common. The question now is: What is fair alimony in the 21st
century?

"I think that with my parents and certainly their parents, there were
far less women in the work force," said State Representative Ritch
Workman, a Melbourne Republican who is sponsoring the House bill. "The
concept of a woman, after 15 years being married, to enter the work
force and survive on her own was ludicrous. It was an obligation of
the ex-husband to support her until she found another husband. I am
sure that's insulting to today's women that they have to go from one
husband to the next to be supported. It is not antiwoman to say that
out loud."

Last year, the legislature in Massachusetts, which had some of the
country's most antiquated alimony laws, passed without opposition a
measure to rewrite the laws and make them more equitable, following
the recommendations of a special commission. The changes in
Massachusetts, which were supported by the state bar association and
women's groups, have spurred alimony payers in other states to
organize and begin lobbying lawmakers.

In New Jersey, a resolution calling for the creation of a similar
commission to study the state's alimony laws has gained momentum.
Connecticut lawmakers are drafting an alimony bill, with hearings
expected in the next month, lobbyists say. And in Arkansas, the
Carolinas, Oregon, West Virginia and other states, activists are
setting up "Alimony Reform" groups, collecting stories about the
hardships of long-term alimony payments and presenting them to
lawmakers.

Because laws vary greatly from state to state and grant judges broad
discretion with few guidelines, alimony judgments diverge wildly,
sometimes within the same jurisdiction. In Florida, marriages lasting
longer than 20 years typically trigger lifetime alimony payments, but
it is also not uncommon for the higher-income earner in shorter
marriages to wind up paying permanent alimony, which can stretch for
decades and end only after the payer dies or the former spouse
remarries.

For many payers, reducing alimony is difficult, even when
circumstances and incomes change. Appeals are often lost. The high
cost of legal representation can make it impossible to continue
battling in court. Payers say alimony should not deplete retirement
funds, discourage women from working or remarrying, or sap the income
of a new spouse.

If the standard of living must drop after a divorce, as it often does,
the burden should be equally shared, they say. In Florida, that is not
always the case.

"It can strangle the person that is paying it," said Alan Frisher, the
founder of Florida Alimony Reform, an organization of 2,000 members,
several of whom testified recently at legislative committee hearings.
"Oftentimes, we can't afford to pay that amount of alimony. It can
provide a disincentive for the receiver to ever go back to work, to
make more money or remarry. I don't think anybody should have to be an
indentured servant for the rest of their lives."

But Barry Finkel, a family law lawyer in Fort Lauderdale, said the
bill would heedlessly chisel at judges' discretion.

"There certainly is a national trend against long-term alimony," he
said, "but the answer is not to create these roadblocks and hurdles
because there is an unhappy payer."

Cynthia Hawkins DeBose, a law professor at Stetson University in
Gulfport, said the bill, and others like it, could remedy some
inequities of permanent alimony, like protecting a new spouse's income
and ensuring that an ex-wife does not live in a $700,000 house while
her husband lives in a $180,000 one. Former spouses, she said, should
be permitted to move on and not be tethered forever.

"Over all, I'm mixed about this," she said. "I don't think alimony
should be welfare for the middle class, but I'm fearful of the tail
wagging the dog."

In Florida, as in most states, the alimony system works mostly as it
should. Ninety-five percent of those who divorce settle out of court,
and judges often make fair decisions, legal experts say.

David L. Manz, the chairman of the Florida Bar Family Law Section,
said his organization opposed the House bill because it was too
loosely written and would remove too much judicial discretion. In
remedying the plight of a small number of men, Mr. Manz said, the bill
could leave more divorced women vulnerable. He said he was negotiating
to change parts of the bill.

Even today, Mr. Manz said, divorce is more likely to hurt women. They
are still the ones who typically give up their jobs to focus on
raising children. Even when they do not give up jobs, their
child-rearing responsibilities can sidetrack their careers. Returning
to jobs after long absences is difficult.

"For every guy, there is a wife or former wife who got the short end
of the stick," Mr. Manz said. "Look at the standard of living of most
people in a long-term marriage: divorced men's standard of living goes
up, and the women's goes down. That happens every day."

"We are not in favor of disenfranchising someone who has given up her
career," he added. "What you are hearing about is a very vocal,
persuasive minority."

The men, and the few women, in Florida Alimony Reform agree they are a
minority. But they say the injustice in the system is no less
gut-wrenching. They say judges' attempts to follow the law and
maintain, after divorce, the same standard of living a couple shared
in marriage is mathematically impossible. Former wives often benefit
from this, they say.

Dr. Jose A. Aleman-Gomez, a Cape Coral cardiologist who was married
for 21 years, said he must pay $50,000 a year, or about 25 percent of
his salary, to his ex-wife, a practicing dentist with a solid income.
And Dr. Bernard R. Perez, a Tampa eye surgeon with throat cancer who
was married for 20 years, said he had been ordered to pay his former
wife 85 percent of his income; for the last three years, he has lived
in his brother's garage and is near bankruptcy, he said.

Each man was also ordered in court to carry a life insurance policy
naming his former wife as sole beneficiary.

The aggrieved men say they are not opposed to alimony. They are
opposed to alimony payments with no end in sight. In their view,
alimony should be awarded for long enough to allow a former spouse to
get an education, find a decent job or rehabilitate a career or, when
both spouses agree, until children reach a certain age. The Florida
bill would allow exceptions, like older women who cannot easily find
decent jobs.

"I am maintaining her standard of living but not mine," Dr.
Aleman-Gomez said of his former wife. He said he was paying off
$70,000 in lawyer's fees. "A person with a doctorate degree, with a
six-figure income, should not be receiving alimony," he said. "Alimony
is for the people who need it."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Friday, March 2, 2012

DEALING WITH CUSTODY BATTLES...OVER FIDO, SPOT AND MITTENS

On behalf of Gentry, William C.

Ask anyone with a pet in Marietta whether Spot, Mittens and Fido are
merely physical property or whether they are bona fide members of the
family and the response may be nearly universal -- family members.
More and more people in Georgia and across the country are looking at
their pets as family members, making divorce and custody more
complicated. Since Georgia still considers pets to be property subject
to equitable division, many divorcing couples are turning to their
lawyers to craft pet custody agreements.
The number of pet custody cases has increased considerably since 2001,
but there are often few rules and regulations on which a family court
judge can rely when making his or her pet custody decisions. There has
been an increase, however, in shared custody among the divorcing
parties. While working out a pet custody agreement may be difficult,
it is often easier than bringing it before a judge.
Much like child custody agreements, some ex-spouses will come up with
very detailed and extensive agreements. Pet parents will have to
decide who will have the dog or cat on what days of the weeks, on
vacations or during the holidays. Do the owners want to have separate
toys, beds, leashes or food bowls or do they want to trade them off
every time they trade of the pets? Will they use the same type of
food? Are there rules on how many treats each parent can give? And,
what would happen if the pet outlives one of the parents?
While some divorcing couples think they will just be able to deal with
pet custody issues on their own, it is often wiser to use a family law
attorney to craft a complete custody agreement. Using lawyers may make
it easier to ensure that even the most unlikely of situations is
covered, preventing future conflict over the pets.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"