Is Alimony Still Relevant in South Carolina Court?

What do you think? Are South Carolina Court less likely to award alimony in this day and age that in the past?

South Carolina law (S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (Supp. 2008)) provides that in determining an award of Alimony, Court must "consider and give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate to all of the following factors:

(1) the duration of the marriage together with the ages of the parties at the time of the marriage and at the time of the divorce or separate maintenance action between the parties;

(2) the physical and emotional condition of each spouse;

(3) the educational background of each spouse, together with need of each spouse for additional training or education in order to achieve that spouse's income potential;

(4) the employment history and earning potential of each spouse;

(5) the standard of living established during the marriage;

(6) the current and reasonably anticipated earnings of both spouses;

(7) the current and reasonably anticipated expenses and needs of both spouses;

(8) the marital and nonmarital properties of the parties, including those apportioned to him or her in the divorce or separate maintenance action;

(9) custody of the children, particularly where conditions or circumstances render it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home, or where the employment must be of a limited nature;

(10) marital misconduct or fault of either or both parties, whether or not used as a basis for a divorce or separate maintenance decree if the misconduct affects or has affected the economic circumstances of the parties, or contributed to the breakup of the marriage, except that no evidence of personal conduct which may otherwise be relevant and material for the purpose of this subsection may be considered with regard to this subsection if the conduct took place subsequent to the happening of the earliest of (a) the formal signing of a written property or marital settlement agreement or (b) entry of a permanent order of separate maintenance and support or of a permanent order approving a property or marital settlement agreement between the parties;

(11) the tax consequences to each party as a result of the particular form of support awarded;

(12) the existence and extent of any support obligation from a prior marriage or for any other reason of either party; and

(13) such other factors the court considers relevant."

Any thoughts out there from those that have gone through a divorce and request for for Alimony?

Protection from Foreclosure in South Carolina-Do you qualify?

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has suspended foreclosures on mortgages which may be eligible for modifications. See entire order below.


Ex Parte Federal National Mortgage Association, Petitioner.

In Re Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) Loans Subject to Foreclosure Sale.

ORDER


Petitioner asks this Court to issue an ex parte temporary injunction1 or restraining order “enjoining all judicial officials in South Carolina conducting foreclosure sales on May 4, 2009 (or the next judicial sales dated) from dismissing all eligible one- to four-unit owner occupied properties securing Fannie Mae portfolio mortgage loans and MBS pool mortgage loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae for which there is a foreclosure judgment.” It asserts that this injunction is necessary to avoid undue costs if these foreclosure actions are dismissed rather than stayed or postponed based on the fact that the underlying loans may be subject to modification under the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HMP), and the United States Treasury Supplemental Directive 09-01. It also states that, “absent injunction, mortgagors eligible for relief under the HMP program could be denied their right to participate because their property was sold at the foreclosure sale. This qualifies as irreparable injury for which the court should provide redress in the form of a temporary injunction.”

While I am very troubled by the ex parte nature of this petition2, I grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the foreclosure sale of any property arising out of a loan owned or guaranteed by petitioner or Freddie Mac or held by a servicer who has signed an agreement to participate in the HMP3. If a sale has already taken place today prior to issuance of this order, this TRO shall stay the master-in-equity, circuit court judge or special referee from taking any further action to complete the sale including the issuance of a deed to the purchaser.

By May 15, 2009, the plaintiff in every mortgage foreclosure action stayed by this order shall serve on all other parties to the action (including petitioner and/or Freddie Mac as appropriate) an affidavit setting forth its belief whether the loan is subject to modification under the HMP. If the affidavit indicates that the loan is subject to modification under the HMP, the foreclosure shall be stayed pending a determination if the loan will be modified. If the loan is modified, the foreclosure action shall be dismissed. If the loan is not modified, the foreclosure may proceed.

If the affidavit indicates that the loan is not subject to modification under the HMP, the TRO will be lifted unless petitioner, Freddie Mac or another party serves and files a counter affidavit asserting that the loan is subject to modification under the HMP by May 22, 2009. If a counter affidavit is timely filed, the TRO will remain in effect until the master-in-equity or circuit court judge determines if the HMP is applicable to the loan. The lower court shall insure that these determinations are made in an expeditious manner.

If the loan is determined not to be subject to modification under the HMP, the TRO shall be lifted and the foreclosure may continue. If the lower court determines that the loan is subject to modification and the loan is modified, the foreclosure action shall be dismissed. If the lower court determines that the loan is subject to modification but the loan is not subsequently modified, the TRO shall be lifted and the foreclosure may continue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


s/Jean Hoefer Toal
JEAN H. TOAL
CHIEF JUSTICE

Columbia, South Carolina
May 4, 2009
4:50 p.m.

Alimony in South Carolina

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Linda Huff Browder, Appellant,

v.

Cecil Ray Browder, Jr., Respondent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal From Lexington County
Richard W. Chewning, III, Family Court Judge


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinion No. 4524
Heard March 5, 2009 – Filed March 26, 2009


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Michael Taylor, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Mark Taylor and Katherine Carruth Link, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

PIEPER, J.: In this appeal of a divorce decree, Linda Huff Browder (Wife) asserts the family court erred in: (1) denying her request for alimony; (2) failing to hold Cecil Ray Browder, Jr. (Husband) in contempt; (3) valuing and apportioning the marital property; and (4) denying her request for attorney's fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Husband and Wife were married on December 15, 1973, and last resided together on November 22, 2003, in Lexington County, South Carolina. Prior to the filing of the instant matter, they were married for thirty-one years and had three children.

During the marriage, Husband worked as a salesman earning approximately $80,000 to $130,000 per year, while Wife was the primary caregiver of their three children. In 1992-93, when their youngest child was twelve, Wife began working part-time and eventually obtained certification from Midlands Technical College for floral design. Wife earned roughly $8.00 per hour through her part-time employment. Significant assets were acquired during Husband's higher income years which included a large home on Lake Murray, two parcels of property, and a home in Columbia, South Carolina, purchased for the use of their children while attending college (the College Street property).

Wife filed for divorce on October 30, 2003, citing the statutory grounds of habitual drunkenness and adultery. Prior to trial, a temporary order was issued ordering Husband to pay $1,750 per month in alimony to Wife. The temporary order also required Husband to provide a detailed accounting of the proceeds received from the sale of the College Street property.

On August 4, 2004, Wife claimed Husband failed to timely account for his handling of the College Street property proceeds and requested that Husband be held in contempt. After issuing a rule to show cause on August 9, 2004, the court ultimately found Husband adequately accounted for the funds at issue and declined to hold him in willful contempt.

The underlying case was heard on February 3, 2005, and March 10, 2005, before the Honorable Richard W. Chewning, III. At the time of the hearing, Husband was fifty-eight and was earning approximately $83,000 per year plus benefits as a salesman. Wife was fifty-four and was working part-time earning $8 per hour at a local floral shop. During the hearing, Husband admitted to committing adultery but denied Wife's allegations of habitual drunkenness. The parties stipulated to a 50/50 division of the marital property and offered expert testimony as to the appraised value of particular marital property. Specifically, Wife asserted the appraised value of their river home in Edisto was $105,000, while Husband offered testimony that the appraised value of the property was $73,000. The marital home, which was listed for sale prior to the hearing, was appraised at around $700,000 and the parties agreed to split the proceeds equally upon the sale of the home.

In its final order dated August 1, 2005, the court granted Wife a divorce from Husband on the statutory ground of adultery and denied Wife's request for alimony reasoning that Wife's receipt of significant liquid assets in concert with her ability to be employed on a full-time basis did not warrant an award of alimony. The court divided the marital estate equally[1] and concluded that each party would be responsible for paying his or her own attorney's fees. However, Husband was ordered to reimburse Wife for her private investigator's fees and costs. Wife timely filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the court granted in part to correct various mathematical and scrivener's errors. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In appeals from the family court, this court has the authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Wooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532, 540, 615 S.E.2d 98, 102 (2005). Despite this broad scope of review, we remain mindful of the findings of the family court judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony. Id.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Wife argues the family court erred in failing to award alimony. We agree.

An award of alimony rests within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278, 282, 569 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2002); see also McKnight v. McKnight, 283 S.C. 540, 543, 324 S.E.2d 91, 93 (Ct. App. 1984) (stating the decision to grant or deny alimony rests within the discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse thereof). An abuse of discretion occurs if the court's ruling is controlled by an error of law or if the ruling is based upon findings of fact that are without evidentiary support. Sharps v. Sharps, 342 S.C. 71, 79, 535 S.E.2d 913, 917 (2000).

"The purpose of alimony is to provide the ex-spouse a substitute for the support which was incident to the former marital relationship." Love v. Love, 367 S.C. 493, 497, 626 S.E.2d 56, 58 (Ct. App. 2006). "Generally, alimony should place the supported spouse, as nearly as is practical, in the same position he or she enjoyed during the marriage." Craig v. Craig, 358 S.C. 548, 554, 595 S.E.2d 837, 840 (Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Allen v. Allen, 347 S.C. 177, 184, 554 S.E.2d 421, 424 (Ct. App. 2001)). The objective of alimony should be to insure that the parties separate on as equal a basis as possible. Patel v. Patel, 347 S.C. 281, 291, 555 S.E.2d 386, 391 (2001). Thus, "[i]t is the duty of the family court to make an alimony award that is fit, equitable, and just if the claim is well founded." Allen, 347 S.C. at 184, 554 S.E.2d at 424.

In determining an award of alimony, the court is required to consider and give weight in such proportion as it finds appropriate to each of the following factors: (1) duration of the marriage; (2) physical and emotional health of each spouse; (3) educational background of each spouse; (4) employment history and earning potential of each spouse; (5) standard of living established during the marriage; (6) current and reasonably anticipated earnings of both spouses; (7) current and reasonably anticipated expenses and needs of both spouses; (8) marital and nonmarital properties of the parties; (9) custody of the children; (10) marital misconduct or fault of either or both parties; (11) tax consequences as a result of the form of support awarded; (12) existence and extent of any prior support obligations; and (13) such other factors the court considers relevant. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C) (Supp. 2008). "Fault is an appropriate factor for consideration in determining alimony in cases where the misconduct affected the economic circumstances of the parties or contributed to the breakup of the marriage." Craig, 358 S.C. at 554, 595 S.E.2d at 841 (quoting Smith v. Smith, 327 S.C. 448, 463, 486 S.E.2d 516, 523-24 (Ct. App. 1997)).

We find the family court's denial of alimony in the instant case was an abuse of discretion. Here, the family court denied Wife's request for alimony reasoning that Wife's receipt of significant liquid assets in conjunction with her ability to be employed on a full-time basis would alleviate her financial need. The court further found that "the proximity of the parties' net incomes does not warrant an award of alimony." However, the record fails to support the family court's factual finding that the parties' net incomes are in close proximity. Rather, at the time of the final hearing, the record indicates that Wife was working part-time earning $8 per hour, while Husband was earning $6,912 per month plus benefits. By the time of the hearing on Wife's motion to alter or amend, Wife had attained full-time employment at the rate of $10 per hour. The significant disparity between incomes is clearly evidenced by the record. Accordingly, the family court based its decision, in part, upon a finding of fact that is without evidentiary support.

Moreover, the court's emphasis on the speculative date of Husband's retirement was error. Although retirement may play into the factor of anticipated earnings, Husband was fifty-eight and gainfully employed at the time of trial. Any change in circumstances regarding Husband's retirement may warrant a modification of alimony when that event occurs; however, consideration of this anticipated but speculative occurrence at this time was inappropriate.[2] See Rimer v. Rimer, 361 S.C. 521, 528, 605 S.E.2d 572, 576 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]hen the effect of anticipated changes is not readily ascertainable, it is inappropriate for the family court to speculate as to the effect of such anticipated changes.").

Based upon our own view of the facts, we conclude an award of alimony is appropriate. We have considered all of the previously cited factors regarding alimony. We place significant weight in this case on five of those factors: (1) duration of the marriage; (2) earnings of each spouse; (3) educational background of each spouse; (4) employment history and earning potential; and (5) marital misconduct or fault of either party. The fact that this was a thirty year marriage in which Wife spent the bulk of the marriage caring for their children weighs heavily in favor of alimony. Additionally, Husband has a college degree and over thirty years of experience in sales, while Wife is a high school graduate and has little to no full-time work history; in this same regard, we have noted the disparity between the incomes of Husband and Wife. While we recognize that the purpose of alimony is not to penalize one party and reward the other, we also cannot ignore the fact that Husband admitted to committing adultery. Therefore, under our view of the evidence, we find an award of alimony is warranted. See Patel, 347 S.C. at 291, 555 S.E.2d at 391 (stating the objective of alimony should be to insure that the parties separate on as equal a basis as possible). Accordingly, we reverse the family court's denial of alimony and remand the matter for a determination of an appropriate award of alimony, including retroactive alimony. See Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 531, 599 S.E.2d 114, 122 (2004) (holding wife was entitled to retroactive alimony when alimony was awarded on remand).

Wife next asserts the court erred in failing to hold Husband in contempt. We disagree.

On appeal, a decision regarding contempt is not subject to reversal absent an abuse of discretion. Brandt v. Gooding, 368 S.C. 618, 627, 630 S.E.2d 259, 263 (2006). An abuse of discretion occurs if the court's ruling is controlled by an error of law or if the ruling is based upon findings of fact that are without evidentiary support. Davis v. Davis, 372 S.C. 64, 82, 641 S.E.2d 446, 455 (Ct. App. 2006).

Contempt results from the willful disobedience of a court order. Bigham v. Bigham, 264 S.C. 101, 104, 212 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1975). Willful disobedience requires an act to be "done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law." Spartanburg Co. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Padgett, 296 S.C. 79, 82-83, 370 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1988). A party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must show the order's existence and facts establishing the other party did not comply with the order. Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 553, 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008).

Wife asserts Husband's failure to provide documentation of three accounts paid from the proceeds of the sale of the College Street property amounted to willful contempt of the court's order for an accounting. At trial, Husband explained that he repeatedly requested records of the accounts at issue to no avail. He further explained that the records were sent to the marital residence and that he was unable to find the pertinent information that Wife requested. In addition to his efforts to obtain the records, Husband's testimony at trial thoroughly explained the amounts and debts of the disputed accounts, which were accumulated prior to the instant action to pay for the parties' expenses as well as the expenses of their children. Based on this evidence, the court found Husband adequately explained the allocation of the proceeds of the College Street property and concluded that the debts were marital. This finding is supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the denial of a contempt finding by the court was not an abuse of discretion.

Turning to the next issue on appeal, Wife asserts the court erred in its valuation and apportionment of the marital property. Specifically, Wife contests (1) the valuation of the Edisto River property, (2) the valuation of Husband's personal property, and (3) the assignment of Husband's credit card debt as marital. We disagree.

In making an equitable distribution of marital property, the court must: (1) identify the marital property to be divided between the parties; (2) determine the fair market value of the property; (3) apportion the marital estate according to the contributions, both direct and indirect, of each party to the acquisition of the property during the marriage, their respective assets and incomes, and any special equities they may have in marital assets; and (4) provide for an equitable division of the marital estate, including the manner in which the distribution is to take place. Gardner v. Gardner, 368 S.C. 134, 136, 628 S.E.2d 37, 38 (2006). Generally, marital property subject to distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced. Id. The court has broad discretion in valuing marital property. Pirri v. Pirri, 369 S.C. 258, 264, 631 S.E.2d 279, 283 (Ct. App. 2006). As such, "[the] court may accept the valuation of one party over another, and the court's valuation of marital property will be affirmed if it is within the range of evidence presented." Id.

Here, the parties stipulated to a 50/50 division of the marital assets. Among the assets to be apportioned was the River House property on Edisto River. Wife asserts the court's valuation of the property at $73,000 was an abuse of discretion. Both parties offered expert testimony from an appraiser as well as their own appraisal reports in valuing the River House property. Husband's appraiser valued the property at $73,000, and Wife's appraiser valued the property at $105,000. Despite Wife's assertion the property is worth more based on other comparable properties in the area, Husband's expert testified the valuation was adjusted to reflect the differences in the comparable properties. Because the court may accept one party's valuation over another and the valuation based on Husband's appraisal was within the evidence presented at trial, we find no abuse of discretion. See Pirri, 369 S.C. at 264, 631 S.E.2d at 283 (stating the court's valuation of marital property will be affirmed if it is within the range of evidence presented).

As to Husband's personal property, Wife asserts Husband's boat, valued at $2,500, and a DVD player, valued at $100, were improperly excluded from the court's valuation of the marital estate. This issue was not ruled upon by the trial court nor was it raised in Wife's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend; thus, it is not preserved for our review. See Lucas v. Rawl Family Ltd. P'ship, 359 S.C. 505, 511, 598 S.E.2d 712, 715 (2004) (stating an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); Woodward v. Woodward, 294 S.C. 210, 363 S.E.2d 413 (Ct. App. 1987) (finding husband's argument that the court erred in failing to consider certain items in equitable distribution was not preserved for appellate review where the issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court).

As to the credit card debt in connection with the disputed funds from the College Street property, this issue was discussed in regard to the contempt finding above. As noted, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that these debts were marital. Husband's testimony revealed these debts, which had been used to pay the couple's monthly expenses as well as the expenses of their children while in college, were accumulated over time prior to the parties' separation. Additionally, despite Wife's assertion that it cannot be presumed that the debts were incurred before the filing of the instant action, the evidence indicated the disputed balance transfers took place in May and August 2003, prior to Wife's filing for divorce in October 2003. The proceeds from the sale of the College Street property were received on November 3, 2003, and the payments on the balance transfers occurred between November 5, 2003, and November 11, 2003. Accordingly, the court's inclusion of these debts as part of the marital estate was not an abuse of discretion.

Lastly, Wife asserts the court erred in failing to award attorney's fees. We agree.

An award of attorney's fees lies within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 533, 599 S.E.2d 114, 123 (2004). In determining whether to award attorney's fees, the court should consider each party's ability to pay his or her own fees, the beneficial results obtained by counsel, the parties' respective financial conditions, and the effect of the fee on the parties' standard of living. E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992).

Where the substantive results achieved by counsel are reversed on appeal, an award of attorney's fees is subject to reversal. Sexton v. Sexton, 310 S.C. 501, 503, 427 S.E.2d 665, 666 (1993). In light of our disposition as to alimony, the results achieved by Wife's counsel were beneficial. Accordingly, we find an award of fees is appropriate and remand the issue to the family court for a determination of reasonable fees and costs.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the family court is

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

HEARN, C.J., and LOCKEMY, J., concur.

Reasons to use an Experienced and Dedicated Family Law Attorney in South Carolina

If you live in South Carolina and you are going through a divorce you need to hire professional staff because you will need legal advice. Hiring an experienced and dedicated attorney is the best option if you are looking at paying alimony, fighting for child custody, and much more. There are five grounds for divorce in this state, as well as jurisdictional and venue requirements.

When you hire a family law attorney for a child custody issue you are making a good decision. There are muliple factors that courts look at when considering custody which an attorney can help you with. The court process can be very stressful on children as well as the parties. When you use a professional staff experienced with divorce they can help you understand the court process and advise you of your rights throughout the entire process.

When you are going through a divorce you may have problems with mediation and agreeing to certain things in the divorce like the amount of money you have to pay or should receive for alimony and child support. You might feel you deserve custody also. Mediation is when you will sit with a court appointed professional staff that will try and make the both of you come to agreements about the divorce. Mediation is required in many South Carolina counties in divorce, child custody cases, alimony and property division, as well and other states around the nation. An attorney can help you work through agreements and possibly bypass the mediation process in the courts. Alternately if you hire an attorney who also a certified mediator, you get the benefits of both legal advise and/or mediation services, depending on your needs.

Hiring a family law attorney can help you come to agreements with your spouse during the divorce process. You do not want to fight and be bitter through the process because it can cause you to lose rights. However, if one of the parties is impossible to work with then the judge may recognize this. An attorney can help make the process more fair when it comes to alimony payments and if you even have to pay anything, child support and visitation and more.

Consulting with an experienced attorney when you are going through a divorce, legal separation, child custody, child support, adoption, alimony or property division in South Carolina is the best option you can chose. You need to consider a family law attorney because the entire process can be too stressful to endure on your own and you may lose valuable grounds by waiting. The consultation allows you to gather sufficient information to protect your family and find out your rights. Finding an experienced and dedicated attorney will help you ensure the outcome is fair and at the best interest of the child. An attorney can help you calculate alimony payments if you should have to pay them, get the most time in visitation or even full custody, and help with mediation. You need a professional staff to work with you through the entire process. Itcan even help to speed up the entire process by coming to agreements with the other party.

Divorce Lawyer

In the unlikely event you have to retain the services of a divorce lawyer, ensure they have adequate experience and you can rely on them. If this happens you will need an attorney where at least fifty percent of their work in this area and unless you're expecting problems, preferably one trained in divorce mediation who practices it professionally. Still, you also need to feel at ease with them; someone who immediately instills a sense of trust.
Attorneys that tend to follow the mediation route are good at giving settlement advice but you may need an attorney who is more familiar with courtroom settlements. To save time, always ensure you know exactly what you are going to say to your divorce lawyer and what questions you need answered.

Plan each conversation by making an agenda and write down the things you want to talk about; take notes on the content of the conversation and the amount of time spent on phone calls. Physical meetings will cost more so if an item can be dealt with by mail or on the phone this will save money.

Your divorce attorney is just a resource for legal matters so do not try to get them personally involved as that is not their function; if you need emotional support there are others who can help with this. Try not to involve you divorce lawyer with any tales of bickering that you and your ex-partner are involved in that are not directly pertinent to the divorce.

The most important aspect for you to get sorted out is the control of the situation which should be yours and then you will be able to use your lawyer more effectively. Your legal representative must be told up front that while his or her advice is essential, all decisions regarding the divorce will be made by you. You must also let them know that you expect copies of all correspondence to be sent to you for you own records and if you contact them by phone, you expect a reply within one working day.

Not all cases need a courtroom to be decided upon so you could employ a lawyer just to help you with a marital settlement, legal information or advice. For someone taking this route, it is only important that you approach a lawyer to have certain aspects explained once you have carried out you own research. Divorce lawyers can draw up or assist with marital settlements their clients have drawn up themselves, but in this scenario, if things awry at least you will have someone who is familiar with your case.
About the author: Tab Solon is an independent website builder who owns and runs mainly news sites on various topics such as http://www.legalmattersnow.info and http://www.healthfirst1.info

Essential parts in separation agreements

It is vital to keep in mind that even though a separation agreement can be a very potent document it cannot end a marriage; a divorce is the only thing that can end a marriage. However they can work together, while a divorce will end the marriage the agreement can take care of the particulars.
Or, it can be used on its own so that a divorce can come later, or not at all. Some separated couples get back together or remain apart but never actually terminate their marriage with a divorce.

Filing the agreement is sometimes done with a divorce but usually done when one party needs help enforcing it. It does not need to be filed with the court to be legal as long as it is correctly signed.

Some provinces cannot enforce certain terms of the agreement unless both spouses have had independent legal advice (from a lawyer) or sign a waiver of independent legal advice witnessed by a lawyer before signing the agreement. It is always smart to have a lawyer take a look at the agreement before signing it.

Make sure your spouse gets independent legal advice too. This can prevent him or her from later asking a court to overturn it on the grounds that he or she did not understand what he or she was signing.

The care and financial support of children, spousal support, and division of property and debt. These are the main issues that need to be taken care of in a separation agreement. If you do not have one or any of these issues to deal with then the agreement will be easier to make.

The crucial aspects of a separation agreement that you need to know are: 1. to understand what an agreement can and cannot do; 2. to make sure that it is signed correctly after receiving independent legal advice; and 3. to make sure it deals with the important issues of children, income and property.



About the Author
James MacKenzie
This writer suggests that you visit DivorceOnline.ca for additional hints on a separation agreement.

Divorce: "Divvying Up" the Debt*

In any divorce, financial matters can be the stickiest issue for couples to get around. When you carefully consider all of your debts without bias or hard feelings, the both of you can eventually reach an agreement that is fair to all.

Contacting an experienced attorney is the fist step in getting the best divorce advice for your particular situation. Next, you will want to make a list or spreadsheet of all your joint and individual debts, sorting them into three separate columns. Be sure to include the names of your creditors and the balances owed along with the account numbers. Prioritize which are the debts you will need to pay first, such as utility bills and mortgage or rent.

Once you have listed all your debts, assess your individual incomes. Whoever earns the most will naturally be better able to pay a larger chunk of the debt. This is can be a very crucial detail, particularly in the case of women and divorce, since they will many times be the ones to stay home and care for the children throughout their marriage.

Get a copy of both your credit reports. Decide which, if any, debts can be eliminated or paid off immediately. Be logical about how debts are assigned and try to be sensitive to your spouse’s future plans such as going back to college or starting a new business.

Finally, obtain information with regard to debt consolidation and bankruptcy (as a last resort).

Once you and your spouse have sorted out a fair plan, have your lawyer incorporate it into your divorce settlement or judgment of divorce. While there is no such thing as an “easy divorce,” staying civil and calm throughout the debt division process will certainly help to speed things along for the both of you.

*Written by Nathan Dawson
About the author:
Nathan Dawson writes for http://www.lifeaftermarriage.coma great online source for finance information.


*Metts Law Firm, LLC is not responsible or liable for the content in this post. It is intended for informational purposes only, and not as an offer of legal advice or representation. Anyone seeking a divorce should contact an attorney to get advice.