Divorce

Debt and Divorce in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: December 15, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent advice column on FoxBusiness.com, post-divorce debt is one crucial issue often ignored by parties in the aftermath of a divorce. Many mistakenly believe that everything has been resolved by the divorce decree. However, some unfortunate divorcees have discovered that things are not always so simple.

According to former bankruptcy judge and current attorney R. Glen Ayers, “Most divorce decrees allocate liabilities for pre-divorce obligations between the former spouses. So, the husband agrees or is ordered to pay certain credit card obligations and similar debts. The wife may agree or be ordered to pay a car note or some other debts. While the divorce decree may allocate responsibility between the spouses, that decree does not release either spouse from the obligation to the creditor.”

The fact is that even if a settlement agreement lays out who is to pay what debt, it does not mean that the other party is legally released from the formerly joint obligation. If the spouse responsible for making the payments falls behind, then the other spouse remains liable to the creditors, regardless of what the divorce decree says.

The Federal Trade Commission’s website contains advice for anyone considering divorce, saying to pay special attention to the status of your credit accounts. If you maintain any joint accounts with your ex-spouse, it’s critical that you continue making regular payments so that your credit score won’t suffer. As long as there’s a balance on a joint account, you both remain legally responsible for it.

If you do decide to divorce, a skilled North Carolina family law attorney would suggest that you close joint accounts or accounts where your former spouse is listed as an authorized user. You might also consider approaching the creditor directly and ask that they convert the account to an individual account.

Divorce and Sharia Law in North Carolina

Published on: December 13, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article in the Beaufort Observer, the North Carolina Court of Appeals this week handed down a somewhat surprising decision concerning Islamic Sharia Law. The Court of Appeals decided to grant an annulment to a man on the grounds of bigamy. The husband argued that his marriage of 12 years (and resulting in three children) was null and void because the wife was previously been married according to Sharia Law and that earlier marriage was never properly dissolved.

The North Carolina Court held that the wife’s first marriage was legal despite there being no marriage certificate and it not being performed by an imam or other licensed minister. Because no legal process to void the first marriage was ever undertaken, the Islamic wedding ceremony was upheld as an official legal marriage. Because the first marriage was deemed legal, the wife was already married when she met her second husband and that second marriage thus became null and void.

The decision was a split 2-1 decision which means it is appealable to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The woman in question is looking for assistance finding an attorney because she cannot afford to appeal at the moment.

The recent decision is both interesting and important. The decision upheld Sharia Law by legitimizing an Islamic marriage ceremony that was nothing more than one man pronouncing two individuals husband and wife. No marriage license was involved, no official minister. Yet the actions were condoned by the North Carolina Court of Appeals when they upheld the validity of the first marriage by granting an annulment for the second.

The wife in the case argued that she was divorced when she entered into her second marriage because she had complied with Islamic law for dissolving a marriage. Bizarrely, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument (the exact one they accepted from the husband). On one hand, the Court decided to enforce a religiously-based marriage that did not meet the legal requirements of marriage, while on the other hand the Court refused to accept the religiously-based divorce, instead requiring a civil termination.

Divorce Lawyers for Dads – Worthwhile or a Slick Marketing Campaign?

Published on: November 22, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

You have probably seen the “BIG D” divorce lawyer commercials on The Golf Channel or maybe on ESPN. They seem to run on channels that men would generally watch and they tug at the heartstrings of men going through, or potentially going through, a legal separation or divorce. The “BIG D” is omnipresent in the lives of the men portrayed in the commercial while a gentleman with a soft southern accent does a moving voiceover. The commercial makes reference to a dad’s perspective in child custody matters as well as illustrating how divorce can affect his financial position (apparently alluding to post separation support, alimony, child support or equitable distribution matters).

Alas, a “nationwide domestic law firm” from St. Louis, Missouri has set up shop in North Carolina. This law firm markets itself as a divorce law firm for men.

One question, obviously, is whether the “Divorce Lawyers for Dads” focus is an advantage or whether it is just a slick marketing campaign. One may also wonder if it is a good thing to hire a “nationwide domestic law firm” or whether it is better to have a lawyer who is local, with deep roots in the community. Obviously, you need to make these determinations for yourself. But, Fox News Charlotte has done this report:

Prenuptial Agreements – Divorce Lawyer Fees Just the Beginning (Costly Sports Divorces)

Published on: November 3, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

An article recently on Yahoo.com entitled “Ten Costly Sports Divorces” seems to have been spurred by the recent announcement that NBA basketball player Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian were divorcing after only 72 days of marriage. According to this article, the Humpries-Kardashian wedding cost $10 million. Kardashian filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences. The couple had a prenuptial agreement in place, so the marriage and quick divorce should not create any complicated financial issues to resolve.

The point of the article is to illustrate how much these various sports figures would have benefited from a prenuptial agreement. Here are the examples that are cited:

Jeff Gordon and Brooke Sealey: The full details of the deal were not disclosed publicly , but according to a report by the Associated Press, Sealey was guaranteed $15.3 million from the sale of two homes. One might guess that she received significantly more than this in alimony and other property distribution.

Michael Jordan and Juanita Vanoy: Juanita Vanoy was awarded $168 million in the divorce settlement.

Greg Norman and Laura Andrassy: This settlement was for $105 million to Mrs. Andrassy.

Lance Armstrong and Kristin Richard: According to a book about Lance Armstrong entitled “Lance Armstrong’s War,” the settlement was for $14 million to Ms. Richard.

Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren: After the highly publicized car accident and allegations of Woods being unfaithful, Nordegren filed for divorce. The full details of the deal were not disclosed but according to “a source close to Nordegren,” she received $100 million.

More Divorce After 7 Years? Or 3?

Published on: October 20, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The common saying is “the seven year itch.” The theory being that around the seven year mark in a marriage, the couple is likely to become too comfortable and maybe even disenchanted with the relationship. Similarly, it may be that the rush of first being married has worn off. Or, maybe the couple has finished having babies so that thrill is gone too. Obviously, there is no formula which can predict with any certainty how long a marriage will last. Some end in divorce sooner, some end in divorce later, some marriages do not end in divorce. Perhaps the marriage ends when one of the spouses passes away.

But, according to a study in the UK involving 2,000 respondents, more couples run into trouble after the first three years of the marriage. The data seems to show that this is the point where the honeymoon phase really wears off. Similarly, this is also the point when the couple is likely to be making more significant financial investments together. Maybe the married couple signs an apartment least together, gets a joint bank account, joint cell phone contract, buy a house or maybe start having children (though it seems like couples are waiting longer and longer these days).

Common Law Marriage Appeal Dismissed as Interlocutory

Published on: October 6, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal as interlocutory. The case involved a man and a woman who had lived together in Texas before moving to North Carolina. The parties moved to North Carolina, separated and the woman filed against the man for absolute divorce, post separation support, alimony and equitable distribution. She alleged that, under Texas law, the parties were common law man and wife. Of course, North Carolina does not recognize common law marriage.
The man answered and denied that the parties were married. He also raised counter claims based upon property rights, but did not raise any Chapter 50 counterclaims. The trial court determined that the parties were not married because, under Texas law, the parties were required to have a present intention to be man and wife. Apparently, the fact that they were separated and suing one another was convincing to the trial court.

Divorce No More?

Published on: September 29, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a report by Reuters (‘Til 2013 do us part? Mexico mulls 2-year marriage), legislators in Mexico City are considering the concept of temporary marriage licenses. The new law would allow the couple to, on the front end, decide on how long their marriage would be. The minimum duration of of a marriage contract would be for two years – renewable upon the election of the couple. The couple would also decide, on the front end, how children and property would be handled if the contract is not renewed.

Divorce rates in Mexico City are much higher than in other parts of the country. In Mexico City, approximately half of the marriages end in divorce – often within the first two years.

Divorce Caused by Financial Infidelity?

Published on: September 1, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

We know that infidelity can lead to divorce, but what about financial infidelity? We recently discussed this issue on Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog in our article entitled “Are you Married to a Secret Spender?” We will look at this issue a bit more by discussing another article from Yahoo! and CNN Money entitled “Financial Infidelity: Catching a Cheating Spouse.”

This article takes a look at a recent survey about financial infidelity which was conducted by the National Endowment for Financial Education, or NEFE, a Denver, Colo.-based nonprofit. In some instances the results of this survey were very troubling.

Are you Married to a Secret Spender?

Published on: August 30, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In a recent article by Yahoo! and CNN Money entitled “I Married a Secret Spender,” the author explores behavior of spouses or significant others who hide their spending. In some of the cases, the behavior of the “secret spender” is similar to the behavior of secret drinkers. The article explores several case studies.

In the first, the wife tells of her husband who is a secret spender. He buys new clothes and tells his wife that he had them previously. Later, though, the wife find tags for the new clothes in the garbage. This wife says that it is usually clothes but that her husband has brought home jet skis, a motorcycle and even an old Chevy Blazer. She says that they have a garage and a storage unit full of things that the husband has bought. She is concerned because she has young children who she feels might be deterimentally impacted by her husband’s spending habits.

Contempt of Court Appeal Denied

Published on: August 22, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the case of Raprager v. Raprager, Husband and Wife entered into a Consent Order which appears to have temporarily resolved their dispute. It required Husband to make substantial payments to Wife: $2,000 per month in spousal support, $2,000 per month in child support and $1,000 per month toward an equitable distribution distributive award in the amount of $250,000. Not long after the Consent Order, Husband filed a motion to modify child custody, child support and spousal support. Shortly after Husband filed his motion to modify, Wife filed a motion for contempt because Husband was not paying as required under the Consent Order. The Court heard Wife’s motion for contempt and found Husband to be in wilfull contempt of court and ordered him to pay $22,500 in arrears to Wife. The trial Court further ordered that if Husband did not make the payments, he was to be immediately arrested and held in Granville County Jail until he purged himself by paying the amount ordered. The trial Court did not rule on Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees associated with the motion for contempt.