North Carolina State Bar Certified Family Law Specialist Matthew R. Arnold answers the question “How long does getting a divorce take?”
Divorce can be a trying time for a lot of reasons: the emotional pain, worries about your kids, financial stress, etc. Something that many people may not realize, but should pay attention to, is the way that divorce can impact your credit score. When assets are divided during a divorce, most people believe that’s the end of the fight, mistakenly assuming that if the other spouse was ordered to be responsible for a debt then they are free and clear. This is often not the case and can lead to an unsuspecting spouse having a once pristine credit score trashed. To find out more about how divorce can impact your credit score and what to do to prevent that, keep reading.
Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What can I do to gain custody of my child in North Carolina?”
Custody battles between parents in a litigated divorce case can turn into ugly proxy wars in which, sadly, children serve unwillingly on the front lines. The battles, which often have little to do with the children themselves, are instead often “about control and winning and lashing out” when one parent feels hurt by the words or actions of another.
Charlotte Divorce Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question ” Is there some property that the judge cannot divide?”
The split between New York media executive Noah Szubski from the daughter of “Wild Wild West” star Robert Conrad is heating up, with Szubski and Chelsea Conrad waging a courtroom battle over Cash.
Charlotte Divorce Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “How will the judge divide our property?”
A billion is not enough for the ex-wife of an Oklahoma oil magnate ordered last week to payout what is believed to be one of the largest divorce judgments ever recorded in the United States.
The case underlines how messy divorces can disrupt the businesses of parties to divorce actions, especially those who have not prepared for divorce through the execution of prenuptial agreements.
Sue Ann Hamm, ex-wife of oil magnate Harold Hamm, said she is appealing a divorce judgment entered last week on the grounds that it grossly undervalued the amount of marital wealth to which she was entitled.
Oklahoma Special Judge Howard Haralson ordered Mr. Hamm to pay his ex-wife $995.5 million in an 80-page order entered last Monday. The order followed a nine-week trial that ended in October. Under the terms of the order, Mrs. Hamm was due to receive a third of the sum—or $322.7 million—by the end of the year. She also was to keep additional assets that include a California ranch and a home in Oklahoma whose value are estimated to be in the tens of millions.
By the standards of Forbes Magazine, which ranks America’s wealthiest men and women, Judge Haralson’s award would make Mrs. Hamm one of the richest women in the United States.
Board Certified Family Law Specialist Matt Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can I get the judge to order my spouse to pay my attorney’s fees in a property division case?”
A divorce litigant and her lawyers are learning the hard way that when a case is over, it’s over.
“I’ll get the best lawyer!” Wife Josephine faints after husband Napoleon tells her he is filing for divorce.
The litigant, Jamie McCourt, didn’t think the tax-free $131 million and bevy of luxury homes she received in her 2012 divorce settlement agreement with ex-husband Frank McCourt was enough. She asked a court to set aside the agreement, arguing that her ex-husband undervalued baseball team the Los Angeles Dodgers before selling it for over $2 billion to a consortium that included ex-NBA great Magic Johnson.
Jamie McCourt alleged she was entitled to another $770 million.
Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon rejected Mrs. McCourt’s claims. He wrote that Mrs. McCourt was a “sophisticated individual” who was assisted by a team of lawyers and accountants during her divorce. The language of the settlement agreement made it clear that the McCourts intended to end their divorce case and that the terms of the agreement “were carefully considered and negotiated.”
The agreement also provided that if either side contested the settlement agreement, the contesting party would have to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees. Judge Gordon cited that provision of the agreement in a ruling entered July 1. He ordered Mrs. McCourt to reimburse Mr. McCourt’s lawyers $1.9 million in legal fees. That’s how much Mr. McCourt spent fighting Mrs. McCourt’s challenge to the divorce settlement agreement.
Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “I’m considering separating from my spouse; what actions should I refrain from doing?”
Being married business owners is a fairly common thing in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, married couples own more than 3.7 million small businesses. But what happens when the relationship sours? Does the business relationship have to end when the romantic relationship falters?
A recent story by NPR discussed the case of small business-owning couples that go through divorce and come out the other side with the business intact. Though the general rule is that couples either sell the business or one side buys the other out, there are plenty of examples of couples that either chose or were forced to continue operating the company side by and side and have thrived despite their marital rupture.
The case of Rhonda Sanderson and her ex-husband John Amato is one good example. The two had a very unhappy marriage but had always collaborated well at work. When the two divorced, there was the usual hostility at the beginning, but things began to simmer when talk turned to business. The couple decided to continue running the business together rather than liquidate it, a decision that has paid off in the long run.
Experts say that continuing to work with an ex is not something every couple can pull off. When you own a business together you will be forced to work closely together at times and things might become tense. As a result, you need to be able to interact professionally with one another. If you can’t, then it is likely best to consider other options.
Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “Does adultery affect who gets custody?”
Apparently it’s true what they say, dogs really are man’s best friends. And women’s best friends. Oh, and don’t forget about the cats. A recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers discovered that more divorcing couples are fighting over custody of their pets today than ever before.
Specifically, the survey found that 27 percent of lawyers say they have seen a rise in the number of people engaged in pet custody disputes during the past five years. Additionally, 22 percent of lawyers say that the judges across the country are more receptive to hearing pet custody cases. Another 20 percent of respondents said that courts instead preferred to treat pets only as assets, not willing to engage in conversations about custody.
Sadly, experts say that many instances of pet custody battles are often brought by one spouse as an attempt to gain leverage over the other spouse who actually has a deep attachment to the animal. In these cases, one spouse believes that by threatening to keep the animal for him or herself, it might be possible to extract other concessions from the pet-loving spouse.
The problem with this strategy (beyond the fact that it is sad and needlessly hostile) is that judges often see through this fight as it quickly becomes obvious which person truly does have the deeper connection to the animal. When this happens, it can end up making judges angry with the one spouse for wasting the court’s time on a frivolous matter.
Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “How can an attorney help me with my Divorce or Separation in North Carolina?”
We’ve discussed what’s known as the “gray divorce” trend several times before. Increasingly large numbers of people over the age of 50 have decided to file for divorce, many times more than in previous decades. While this can be a good thing for many couples, those facing divorce late in life face special challenges that young couples do not. Issues like retirement and building back up a comfortable nest egg can be more difficult for these older divorcees than for couples who split while in their 20s.
To help ease what can be a difficult transition for the over-50 individuals facing a divorce, the following are some tips compiled by a writer at Forbes for how to best minimize the financial damage divorce can do to your retirement.
First things first, the author says is to avoid the knee jerk reaction of most people to fight to keep the house. Most people wrongly assume that in a divorce it is better to end up with the home, something that is not necessarily true. Why? Well compared to retirement accounts, homes are far more likely to incur additional and ongoing expenses. Also, the future value of the home is questionable, especially given the recent crash in home values. Also, homes are not liquid assets meaning that people will have a more difficult time extracting value from the home to finance retirement.
Second, those facing divorce should be sure to understand the tax implications of a split on their retirement funds. Any withdrawal of funds from pre-tax accounts like 401(k)s or IRAs will trigger tax penalties. However, withdrawals from after-tax accounts like Roth IRAs are not taxed when the money is taken out during retirement. This means that if a divorcing couple has one 401(k) with a $500,000 balance and a Roth IRA with $500,000, the two are not equal due to the ways that each will be taxed, with the Roth IRA actually being more valuable.
Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “When do you get alimony?”
A woman in Omaha is likely pretty unhappy today after a recent ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court regarding her divorce case. The woman, Mary Kay Young, had filed suit against her former divorce attorney for $100 million, claiming the woman, Pamela Govier, cost her a fortune by providing bad legal advice.
The lawsuit by Young was filed last year after Young realized just how bad of a deal she got from her 2006 split. Young claimed that her attorney gave her bad advice by telling her to accept a divorce settlement that would pay her a $3 million lump sum as well as $12,500 in monthly alimony for up to 10 years. $3 million up front and $150,000 a year? Sounds fantastic, right?
Sure, the money is nothing to sneeze at, but put in perspective it’s not such a great deal. The problem in the case is that Young’s husband, Henry Davis, was a very wealthy CEO of a major midwestern meat packing company. Young says that by signing onto the agreement advocated by her attorney, she missed out on what could have been half of her husband’s $192 million marital estate.
The state Supreme Court upheld the ruling by a lower court judge who found that Young never sufficiently proved negligence by her attorney. Young further claimed that the settlement agreement signed with her ex-husband should have been voided because it was executed under duress. The judge also rejected that contention, claiming that no proof of such duress was ever shown.
The Supreme Court also ruled on another strange aspect of the divorce case, saying that Young was not allowed to force her ex-husband to take a physical so she can buy a $1 million life insurance policy on him. Young’s attorney argued the policy was necessary to secure future child support payments by Davis in the event that he dies prematurely.
Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “What does uncontested divorce mean?”
Surprising new data from the U.S. Census and the Pew Research Center reveal that women are the sole or primary breadwinners in four out of 10 American households with children. That number represents a huge increase from the 11 percent of households with breadwinning women in 1960. The level also represents a record high for female financial power but speaks to other potential problems on the home front that come with changes in economic clout.
Surveys done by Pew reveal that while women might hold more power over the pocketbooks, many still believe children are better off with stay at home mothers. The data showed that 51% of those interviewed said that children are better in households with a stay at home mom. Only 8% of those surveyed said the same thing about fathers. Even more surprising was that half of those surveyed agreed with the statement that the number of working women makes it harder for marriages to succeed.
The researchers behind the data say that the numbers show Americans are of two minds about the new role of women in the family and the workplace. On the one hand, more and more families are embracing the earning power of two incomes and welcoming the loosening of traditional roles. On the other hand, many lament the loss of traditional family life and say more modern roles have harmed marriages.
Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog
