Who Gets the dog when couples split?
In New York State, as in most others, pets are generally considered to be property, and are treated as such. This means that in the course of a divorce, the pet is valued and split between the parties in Equitable Distribution.
But what does that mean? In plain English, there won’t be any doggy visitation schedule set down.
The dog will go to one of the parties, or it will be sold and the proceeds of the sale split between the parties. If the dog was an adorable mutt rescued by the ASPCA and adopted by the formerly happy couple, there probably will not be much value to be split. If the little doggie is a purebreed, or maybe a Spudz McKenzie, the dog could be worth a considerable sum! In these cases, the dog must be valued, and if one party is going to keep the dog, that party must buy out the other party’s interest in the dog. So if Spot is worth $20,000.00, and Molly is going to keep Spot, Molly is going to have to cough up $10,000.00 to Fred in the course of the divorce (assuming there is no reason to unequally split the value of Spot).
The same holds true for the award winning Gila Monster, the Siamese Cat, and even Joe the Gerbil. But the reality of the situation is that the Courts don’t put much of a value on pets, with the exception of extraordinary circumstances. And if a party wants to value a pet, and the other party does not agree with that value, an expert will have to be retained to testify as to the value of the animal. Now, if the pet means so much that the issue of who gets to keep the pet goes to a trial, I can tell you from experience that judges HATE these types of issues and will do just about ANYTHING to get out of sitting through a Hearing about how much you love Fluffy and your soon-to-be-ex refused to do the kitty litter.
As usually holds true in a divorce situation, attempting to settle the matter between the parties is the best course of action for all involved. Though Judges are bound to hear all the testimony, and review all the evidence about who should get Fido (and I am sure Judges do their level best to make the decision the he or she feels is right), the Judge could be going back into chambers and flipping a coin for all I know! Why risk it? Make and agreement and settle the issue yourselves.
I kid you not, a Judge in Florida had to deal with what he characterized as “very minor” domestic violence between a husband and wife.
The Judge’s sentence???
The Husband is to buy the wife some flowers, take her for a nice meal at Red Lobster, and then take her bowling!
(There was no indication as to whether the Judge expected the man to pay for the meal, or to let her win at bowling!)
You can find the Article here:Judge orders man to take his wife on a bowling date.
I’m not one to minimize domestic violence, but the article describes the guy as grabbing his wife by the throat!
I can guarantee that Judge Haendiges in Erie County, NY’s IDV part (that’s Integrated Domestic Violence… pray you never have to appear there) is not quite so forgiving with people who grab their spouses by the throat, and rightfully so!
But another part of me thinks this might not be such a bad idea in some cases. The ones that come to mind are for Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree. This diabolical law says that you can basically be found guilty for communicating with a person for the sole purpose to harass or annoy by telephone in a manner likely to cause annoyance. That’s a class A Misdemeanor (A crime punishable by up to 1 year in prison).
I will go out on a limb here and say I think it would be difficult, nay… impossible, to find a single marriage in the USA, of more than 2 years, where one spouse has not called the other on at least one occasion, pissed about something, with the specific intent to cause annoyance to the other spouse! This is a stupid law. It is on the books and people get slammed by it every day in IDV.
A number of these cases might just benefit by a sentence of flowers, Red Lobster & Bowling. Maybe Courts should try to HELP a relationship instead of sending people to jail for making a telephone call? What do you think?
P.S. I like Red Lobster! Try the Lobster Chops, they melt in your mouth!
Nov 28
Lindsey Vonn is getting divorced.
Lindsey was married to Thomas Vonn, a former racer on the US ski team, also served as Lindsey’s chief adviser, in 2007.
In 2010, (during the marriage) Lindsey won a Gold Medal in the Winter Olympics.
So, who gets to keep the Gold Medal? In New York State, any assets acquired by either party during the course of the marriage is subject to equitable distribution. If the marriage were to be dissolved in New York, what would happen to the medal?
Certainly Lindsey was the person who won the medal, but didn’t her husband, who was her “chief adviser” and an Olympic skier himself contribute to her winning?
Gold is worth a lot of money right now. Maybe the medal should be sold, or melted down and sold for the gold value alone and the proceeds split.
Should her husband be entitled to anything at all relating to the Gold Medal, even though she may not have won the medal without his advice and assistance?
At the end of the day, and if the divorce were to be handled in New York, there is no doubt that the medal would be deemed a marital asset and subject to equitable distribution. There is also a colorable claim by the husband to some interest in the medal. But I think Lindsey would likely be permitted to keep the medal (possibly with a credit to the husband for some amount of money as his interest).
What do you think?
Would the outcome be different if the husband had won the medal?
See what happened to boxer Shane Mosley’s three title belts in his California Divorce.
So… a couple braniacs in New Jersey named their kid Adolf Hitler.
Story here.
And then they had a couple more kids, who they named after other nazis.
All the kids have been taken from them and are now in foster care.
Regardless of the distaste that the vast majority of human beings hold for Adolf Hitler and nazis in general, should the government be allowed to tell us what we may or may not name our children?
Sure those kids are in for a life of prejudice, beatings on the playground, and being laughed at. But many people find other names equally disdainful.
Several religions prohibit certain names for children as being offensive (Muslims prohibit the name “Allah” or anything that is too similar; several Christian sects prohibit the name “Jesus” being given to an infant, but we don’t see thousands of Hispanic-Americans who name their kids Jesus being hauled away). So what exactly makes one name more offensive than another? What makes a name so bad, that the government will take your child away if you bestow it upon your child?
Is it genocide? If so, we need to lock up everyone of Slavic persuasion who has named their child “Vlad.” After all, Vlad the Impaler killed about 40,000 (give or take a few thousand) by publicly impaling them.
Why not take the children of all the Italians who name their kid Benito (Mussolini killed about 300,000)
Or the Russians who name their kids Josef (Stalin killed about 23million people)?
Or Chinese people who name their child Mao (Mao Zedong killed between 49 and 78 million people depending on the source)?
Charles Taylor killed 220,000 in the Liberian genocide between 1989 and 1996. Should my parents be faced with government reprisals for naming me Charles?
The names of some of the worst genocide perpetrators in history are not off limits. Why should Adolf Hitler be?
Now before you go thinking I’m some kind of nazi sympathizer, or Hitler lover, let me set that record straight. I am neither.
But I do believe that everyone in America should be free to name their kid whatever they want, free from government interference.
If you want to name your new twins Bevis & Butthead, more power to ya! Want to name your baby boy Satan? Have at it. How about naming your kid “Big-Dumb-Jerk-Baby?” Fine with me. How about naming your new-born daughter “Slut?” Well, if you think it’s appropriate, go to town.
The fact that I don’t like the name you choose for your kid should not be open to public debate or governmental inquiry.
If you want to name your child something that you like, but may subject him or her to ridicule and derision by the masses, that’s your decision. It might be a bad one, and your kids will probably not thank you for it, but it is yours none the less.
Johnny Cash wrote a whole song about the topic! A Boy Named Sue.
One of the most cherished and sacrosanct concepts in American law, enshrined in our Constitution, is the right to free speech. I think that Evelyn Beatrice Hall put it best when she wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
What do you think?
Nov 16
Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed – US news – Crime & courts – msnbc.com.
In New York State, parents have an obligation to support their children. Once a child support Order has been made, the obligation becomes something less than an altruistic ideal, and more of a monthly bill. Sometimes people fall behind in child support payments. This is termed by our legal system as falling into “arrears.” Arrearages are a bad thing, from everyone’s perspective. From the child’s point of view, they may not have enough to eat. From the custodial parent’s point of view, they may not have enough to pay the heating bill. But from the paying parent’s point of view, he or she could be facing jail time.
In New York State, once arrearages accrue (meaning they add up), the parent who is to receive child support may file a petition in Family Court. If the paying parent is found to have WILLFULLY failed to pay the support as it was ordered, that parent can be subject to jail time.
A surprising percentage of people jailed are able to miraculously make money appear, seemingly from thin air, where they previously maintained none was to be had. On the other hand, some sit in jail. The moral of the story is if you cannot pay your child support, don’t just stop paying and let the arrearages grow. For the love of Pete… DO NOT make a side deal with the recipient parent that you don’t have to pay for some period of time as these arrangements are almost never honored by the Courts (even when they are in writing, on a cocktail napkin!) and arrearages will continue growing. Speak to an attorney, consider filing a petition to modify your support obligation. Do something. Because once the arearages accrue, they generally don’t go away.
Sep 24
Divorce is a process.
Divorce is a long process.
Divorce is a long, tedious process.
Divorce is a long, tedious process that sucks the life out of you.
So, you need to remember that just because you’re going through a divorce, life goes on, and you should try to keep some sense of humor or you might just go nutz (that’s a technical legal term).
I came across this and thought I would share.
Amy Winehouse got her will right- MSN Money.
As unlikely as it may seem, Amy Winehouse was pretty savvy about her estate planning! She had recently had her will updated, and her bounty will be disposed of according to her wishes, thanks to good legal advice and her own willingness to address an issue that we all face, and all hate to think about.
Divorce can have a huge impact on your existing will. There are several different possible outcomes depending on whether one was to die during the divorce, right after the divorce without an updated will, right after the divorce with an updated will etc.
A question I often run across is whether a divorced parent can put in his or her will, that the ex-spouse is not to have custody of their children for one reason or another. What do you think the answer is?
Mosley loses title belts in divorce | Yardbarker.com.
Boxer Shane Mosley just got the decision on his divorce… his ex-wife gets to keep 3 of his title belts, one of which will go to each of his three sons as they turn 18.
Mosley is getting divorced in California, a community property state. Here in New York State, where we have equitable distribution, I tend to think he would be allowed to keep the belts, as he paid for them, literally, with blood, sweat and tears.
I think this case really highlights the difference between community property and equitable distribution states. What do you think should have happened to the belts?
