The Elliot Schlissel New York Law Blog

Justice Palmieri in the Supreme Court located in Nassau County, New York, has rendered an unusual decision in a divorce case.  Divorce Law in New York does not make fault a factor in equitable distribution of assets unless there is “egregious marital fault.”  In this case, the wife’s husband of ten years had been convicted of sexually molesting her eight year old granddaughter from another marriage.  The attorney for the wife sought to make an inquiry with the husband with regard to his conduct being a potential factor in the equitable distribution of the property.  The husband’s attorney brought a protective order application alleging that this conduct is not material to the equitable distribution of assets.

Sexual Abuse Is Egregious Fault

Judge Palmieri, in his decision, stated “it cannot be seriously argued that this could never be a sufficient basis…for finding ‘outrageous’ or ‘conscious shocking’ conduct no matter what disclosure of the underlying facts might reveal.”  He therefore, allowed the discovery of material to develop the facts in this situation.

Mrs. G stated that after her husband was convicted she had a nervous breakdown.  She was forced to take medication which prevented her from functioning properly.  She needed therapy, but could not continue with the therapy because her husband refused to pay for the treatment.

Judge Palmieri in his decision stated “notwithstanding the plea, no trial Court can fairly determine whether the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently outrageous or conscious shocking to affect equitable distribution on a conviction alone.”  This is due to the fact plea bargains are often the result of negotiations in which various factors come into play.  The judge went on further to say “the issue is his conduct and the effect on the plaintiff and his alleged victims cannot be used as shields.”

Conclusion

Judge Palmieri has deviated from the established law with regard to allowing fault to be taken into consideration in the equitable distribution of assets.  I presume this case will be appealed.  It is my expectation that it will be reversed by the Appellate Division.

Fathers Rights’ Lawyers

Sometimes when fathers come into Court, they find the playing field is not level.  The Family Court is often referred to as “mommy’s court.”  However, there is a way to level the playing field and that is to hire the most experienced, most competent aggressive fathers’ rights lawyers available.

The attorneys of the Law Offices of Elliot Schlissel are recognized throughout the metropolitan New York area as the premiere father’s rights lawyers.  We litigate issues involving divorces, child custody, visitation, changing child custody, child support, child abuse, child neglect, annulments, parental alienation cases, as well as orders of protections. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802.

Female children in England now have an equal chance to become the Head of State. If newlyweds Prince William and Kate Middleton have a daughter, she can now become Queen. This is true even if she has younger brothers. The countries in the English Commonwealth have recently agreed to change the century-old rules concerning who can become the Head of State in England. In the past, ascension to the throne always took sons over daughters. But now if William and Kate, Dutchess of Cambridge, have a daughter she would be beat out her younger brothers to becoming the Head of State. She would become Queen! Before these changes can become fully effective they must be approved by the legislators of all sixteen nations in the English Commonwealth where Queen Elizabeth is considered the Head of State.

There has been speculation that Kate Middleton will be starting a family soon. This rule change has been discussed for the purpose of dealing with Kate’s children, especially if the oldest child is a daughter.

Hugo Vicors, an expert on the Royal Family, recently stated “you shouldn’t muck around too much with the Constitution, but it is a good idea to change this at this time. It’s much better to have it sorted out before any babies come along.” Although the new rule applies to future heirs to the throne, it does not impact on the current lines of succession. The current prime minister, David Cameron is a big proponent of these changes. He feels it’s important to give women equality regarding this issue.

Women’s Rights and Men’s Rights

Both men and women have equal rights involving divorces and family court issues. They are both entitled to protect their rights with regard to issues of child custody, orders of protection, visitation (parenting time), child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), child abuse, child neglect proceedings, and issues involving divorce and separation agreements. The attorneys at the Law Office of Elliot Schlissel have more than 100 years of combined legal experience in dealing with these issues. Should you have a matrimonial or family law issue, call us we can help you.

Divorces are very personal legal proceedings. You need a divorce lawyer who you have faith in, who is reliable and who you can trust. How do you decide that you have the right lawyer to represent you? Here are some suggestions:

1) Is your attorney familiar with the local court practices and procedures? Things are handled differently in different jurisdictions. The courts in New York City and Long Island differ on how they handle some aspects of matrimonial and family law issues. Is your attorney aware of these practices?

2) How do you feel about your lawyer? You should trust your instincts when you hire a lawyer. Are you comfortable with him or her? Is he or she dealing with your issues in a manner that makes you feel secure?

3) Does your attorney return your calls. Litigating divorce and family court issues can be aggravating and nerve racking. When you call your attorney, does he or she return your calls within 24 hours? Are your lawyers paying attention to your case?

Is Your Attorney Compassionate?

The law and the courts are cold. You may not always obtain the result you desire. Your lawyer should have compassion for your personal circumstances. You should be treated as a person with personal problems, not as a case file!

Professionalism and Interaction with Courts and other Attorneys

Your attorney should act in a professional, competent manner. He or she should do his or her best to deal with judges and opposing counsel. Sometimes antagonistic and difficult situations arise and your attorney must be very aggressive. Aggressive litigating may be necessary to get your point across. There are other times your attorney should be taking a negotiating posture to try and obtain the best possible result for you.

New York and Long Island Fathers’ Rights Lawyers

We represent fathers! We have been doing this for more than thirty years. We litigate all aspects of divorce, including child custody, visitation, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony)and equitable distribution of property. We also represent fathers with regard to proceedings in family court. We litigate issues involving paternity, downward modifications of child support, relocation problems, parental alienation cases and issues involving parental alienation syndrome. We also negotiate separation agreements for our clients. Feel free to call us for a free consultation.

In 1991, Kristine Cushing killed her four and eight year old daughters. She was tried for these murders and found not guilty by reason of insanity. Her defense counsel claimed that she murdered her children due to a bad reaction to Prozac. Kristine spent four years in a mental institution. In addition, she had ten years of psychiatric monitoring. She received an unconditional release in 2005 from the State of California.

Kristine Cushing has now moved back in with her former husband, John P. Cushing. John had two children with Theresa Conlin. Their sons are 13 and 14 years of age. The 13 year old lives with Mr. Cushing. Since Theresa Conlin has moved back in with Mr. Cushing, he also lives with a convicted murderer, who murdered her two children. This does not sit well with the 13 year old boy’s mother, Trisha Conlin.

Theresa Goes to Court in California

Theresa has brought a proceeding in the King County Superior Court to prevent her sons from spending time alone with a convicted murderer. Mr. Cushing originally lied to Theresa. He advised her that he was not living with his ex-wife.

In the court proceedings, Mr. Cushing’s attorney stated that Miss Cushing was temporarily insane and didn’t know what she was doing. They are taking a position that she has recovered from this temporary insanity and presents no immediate threat to children.

In June, Miss Conlin received a court order giving her full custody of both of her sons for a period of 30 days. The court advised her that she would have to make a showing on the next court date why this new parenting plan should become permanent. She is still dropping off her sons to spend time with the Cushings on Sundays. Query: Should an ex-murderer be allowed to be alone with children?

Family Law Lawyer for Mothers’ Rights and Fathers’ Rights

Mothers and fathers have rights when dealing with issues concerning their children. Children should be kept in a safe environment. They should not be subject to child abuse or neglect.

The law offices of Elliot Schlissel have been representing parents in matrimonial and family law matters for more than 30 years. We have developed an expertise in dealing with divorce, orders of protection, child custody and visitation. We litigate changing child custody, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony) and issues involving paternity. We also negotiate prenuptial and post nuptial agreements on behalf of our clients. We are especially adept in dealing with parental alienation issues and parental alienation syndrome. Call us for a free consultation.

On February 17th, Justice Maron, sitting in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, rendered a decision in the case of S. S. v. M.S, denying the defendant husband a downward modification of his child support and spousal maintenance payments. The husband’s application to the court indicated that his income had been greatly reduced. He stated his income had been reduced by 58%. He explained the reduction in his income was caused by being terminated from his high-paying position. He claimed he was only able to find employment at a greatly reduced salary.

Liquidation of Assets

The father claimed he had been forced to liquidate assets to maintain the current rate of his financial obligations for child support and spousal maintenance. He also alleged his health was being negatively impacted by this situation.

Justice Maron found the father’s net worth statement was not complete.  His decision stated that the father failed to set forth the total amount of his assets. He found the father was a title owner to a brokerage account worth over a half million dollars and, in addition, he owned an individual retirement account with a cash value of over $163,000.

Justice Maron reached a conclusion, based on the father’s additional assets, that he had sufficient liquid assets available to fulfill his financial obligations for child support and spousal maintenance. The Judge ruled the current child support and spousal maintenance payments did not create an extreme hardship for the father.

This is an example of the high standards that must be met for a father to obtain a downward modification of child support and spousal maintenance.

Divorce Lawyers

The law office of Elliot Schlissel represents individuals with regard to all aspects of matrimonial and family law. We litigate the grounds for divorce, orders of protection, child custody, child abuse, child neglect, annulments, issues involving fathers’ rights, mothers’ rights and we participate in mediation to resolve divorce matters. We also draft pre-nuptial agreements and post-nuptial agreements.  Feel free to call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.

This past summer, Justice Falanga, a Supreme Court Judge sitting in Nassau County, made a ruling that despite a child’s wishes, the relocation of the child with the mother to Michigan was denied. The wife decided to relocate from New York to Michigan. She had residential custody of the parties’ children. The father brought a proceeding for custody of the parties youngest child. He took this action in spite of the fact that the child had specifically expressed her desire to move to Michigan with her mother.

Dad Asks For Custody

Dad argued that the custody change was not in the child’s best interest. Justice Falanga decided that this was not a typical relocation case. Instead, he felt it was an application for change of custody resulting in the relocation of the child to another state.

The judge stated in his decision that the wife had the burden of demonstrating that the child’s best interest would be served by this relocation to Michigan, and by the changing of the residential custody from the father to the mother. The court noted that under child modification principles, the wife had established that she believed the child would be happier if she was allowed to reside with her in Michigan. However, she did not prove such change in circumstances would be in the child’s best interest.

The court also took into consideration the fact that the father had made diligent sustained efforts to develop the child’s relationship with his wife. The court ruled that he was the parent best able to provide for the child’s emotional, intellectual and social development. The judge further stated in his opinion that he could provide a more secure standard of living and financial future for the child.

In this case, a father’s rights were protected by the court. Thank you, Judge Falanga!

New York Fathers’ Rights Lawyer

Fathers need to have their rights protected. Important issues in matrimonial law involving divorce, fathers’ rights, orders of protection, child custody, child visitation, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), child abuse, child neglect, paternity, equitable distribution and relocation problems require experienced, dedicated fathers’ rights attorneys. We also represent fathers concerning issues involving parental alienation, parental alienation syndrome and paternity. Should you be presented with one of these issues, please feel free to call us.

Reports have been circulating the past few days that Tiger Woods has been in negotiation with his wife Elin to “update” the pre-nuptial agreement to induce her to stay in the marriage after news of several of his extra-marital affairs became public.

Originally, the couple’s pre-nuptial agreement, signed in October of 2004, stipulated that Ms. Nordegren would receive a $20m payment from Mr. Woods after 10 years of marriage, which would have been in the year 2014. But with the recent revelations, news sources  have  reported that he has offered her an immediate payment of $5m and an additional $55m if she stays with him until October of 2011. The new agreement would reportedly also given her even another $20m if she stayed longer (totaling $80m). It would have also required her to attend public events with him and allow him to show the world (and his corporate sponsors, who are sticking with him so far) that he and Ms. Nordegren had reconciled completely.

These reports make it (mildly) surprising that she left for Sweden this week, thus potentially forfeiting any payment under either the old pre-nuptial agreement or any new agreement. It would definitely be understandable if she simply felt that no amount of money is worth staying in a miserable marriage. Alternatively, her stay overseas may be temporary and the couple will be getting back together. Not much is known publicly at this point.

It is noteworthy that although most news sources are reporting that the couple were in negotiations to sign a new “pre-nuptial agreement,” that  term is not the correct one. If a couple who is already married signs the equivalent of a pre-nuptial agreement, it is called a “post-nuptial agreement” because the nuptials have already taken place.

You can always contact the office by phone at 800-344-6431 or by e-mail  for questions about pre or post-nuptial agreements, divorce, or any other kind of legal matter.

Picture courtesy of thisisdiversity.com. 

In an effort to bring in blog traffic discuss the laws relating to having a marriage annulled in New York, it is worthwhile to bring up Britney Spears’ petition to annul her marriage signed just hours after her Las Vegas marriage. The couple tied the knot in a Las Vegas chapel Saturday morning, January 3, 2004 at 5 AM. She signed a petition to have the marriage annulled that same day, it was filed Monday morning, and a judge granted the annulment on Tuesday, January 6th. The marriage lasted about 55 hours. Las Vegas Review Journal.

The manager of Nevada Divorce and Paralegal Services said that an annulment makes it “like [the marriage] never happened in the first place.” This is not the case in New York. Here, under NY Domestic Relations Law § 7, the marriage is only void “from the time its nullity is declared by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,” meaning that the marriage was legally valid from the time it began until the court declares it null and void.

A judge may annul a marriage, even where the parties have children (see §§ 7 & 24), when either one of the parties meets any one of the following criteria:

1. If a party is under age 18, then the judge may annul the marriage at his/her discretion, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances.
2. If either party is mentally incapable of consenting to a marriage because he or she is unable to understand the consequences and significance of a marriage.
3. If either party is physically and permanently incapable of entering into a marriage (i.e. having sexual relations). Sterility does not count.
4. The marriage occurred through force, duress, or fraud. Fraud may be shown where one party conceals or misrepresents some fact so material to the essence of the marriage that the other party would not have entered the marriage had it known about that fact.
5. One party has been mentally ill for five years or more before the marriage.

Britney Spears declared that the basis for her application for annulment was NRS 125.330, which allows annulment “for want of understanding.” This statute is worded very similar to New York’s, which allows annulment when “either of the parties to a marriage for want of understanding shall be incapable of assenting thereto.” New York’s law is almost the same allowing annulment when a party is “incapable of consenting to a marriage for want of understanding.” But Britney Spears said she  was “incapable” of agreeing to the marriage because she and her new husband “did not know each others likes and dislikes, each others desires to have or not have children, and each others desires as to State of residency.”

I don’t think this would work in New York. Incapacity does not mean that one simply doesn’t yet know certain information about the person she is marrying. It means she is actually incapable, due to “mental illness or retardation,”  of knowing what marriage really is, its significance and its consequences. Levine v. Dumbra, 604 N.Y.S.2d 207, 208 (2nd Dept. 1993). While some might claim, tongue in cheek,  that Ms. Spears does suffer from some mental defect, it is doubtful that a court would find that she suffers from any actual mental illness that deprives her of the capacity to understand what marriage is. She may not have known her new husband’s favorite color, but this hardly rises to the level of incapacity to understand the nature of marriage itself.

 If you need assistance with any matrimonial or family law matter, whether it be divorce, separation, child custody, annulment, adoption, or anything else, our office has over 30 years experience in these areas. So please contact our office by e-mail or call 800-344-6431 for help.

Picture courtesy of blog.canoe.ca.

Common Law Marriage Versus Regular Marriage

The majority of states have laws establishing that marriages are only recognized when created with a marriage license and an official marriage ceremony. This is very important because many rights are dependant on the existence of a valid marriage. For instance, only a wife is entitled to an equitable share in the couple’s marital property and only a husband in a valid marriage will  inherit from his wife if she dies without a Last Will and Testament. 

Many situations exist, however, where a couple lives as husband and wife without ever formalizing their relationship with a marriage license and ceremony. This is referred to as a “common law marriage.” The parties will only have marital rights if their common law marriage is valid in one of the few states that still recognize common law marriage. Those states include Pennsylvania, Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia (if created before 1/1/97), Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (for probate purposes), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Ohio, and Florida (if created before 1968). 

New York’s Recognition of Out-of-State Common Law Marriages

Even where a couple lives in a state like New York that has abolished common law marriage, if the marriage is valid in a state that does recognizes common law marriage, then New York would recognize the marriage as well,[1] pursuant to the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. 

For instance, if a common law married couple lived in New York, and merely vacationed briefly in a state like Pennsylvania that does recognize common law marriage, New York State courts may very well recognize that marriage as valid.[2] This is because “Pennsylvania [does] not require that the couple reside within its borders for any specified period of time before their marital status will be recognized.”[3] 

Not only that, but “behavior in New York before and after a New York couple’s visit to a jurisdiction that recognizes common-law marriage, like Pennsylvania, may be considered in determining whether the pair entered into a valid common-law marriage while cohabiting, even briefly, in the other jurisdiction.”[4] Evidence of either actual cohabitation in Pennsylvania (like hotel receipts) or the renewal of the private marriage vows in Pennsylvania would still be required.[5] 

Because New York only recognizes a common law marriage where that marriage is valid under the laws of a state that validates common law marriage, it is important to understand what the elements of a common law marriage are in that state. This will determine what one must prove in order to have the marriage recognized in New York. Using our Pennsylvania law example, there is one primary requirement that must be met to validate a common law marriage. 

Common Law Marriage Under Pennsylvania Law

“A common law marriage can only be created by an exchange of words in the present tense, spoken with the specific purpose that the legal relationship of husband and wife is created by that.”[6] “Present tense” means that there must be evidence that the couple made a verbal commitment to enter a marriage at the time of that verbal statement. This means that making statements affirming or acknowledging a pre-existing marriage status or verbally expressing the intent to get married in the future do not qualify. 

Where one or both of the parties are unable to testify that words were spoken in the present tense to create a marriage status, Pennsylvania law will create a rebuttable presumption that a common law marriage exists when the party alleging the existence of the common law marriage offers “sufficient proof” that the couple was in (1) Constant Cohabitation and a (2) reputation of marriage “which is not partial or divided but is broad and general”[7] 

Interestingly, in September of 2003, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in its PNC Bank decision purported to abolish all common law marriage going forward, after the date of that case.[8] However, other Pennsylvania courts may not be bound by its decisions,[9] and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declined to abolish common law marriage, deferring that decision to the legislature.[10] 

But even assuming that the PNC Bank decision were binding, many common law marriages will still survive. If the facts that gave rise to the common law marriage took place before September 13, 2003, when PNC Bank was decided, the marriage would still be valid.[11] This means that if the couple made their private statements creating the marriage, cohabited in Pennsylvania, and had the general reputation of being married prior to Sept. 13, 2003, then their common law marriage would still be recognized under Pennsylvania law, even if PNC Bank were held to be binding precedent. 

Conclusion

If a couple has (1) made statements to each other to effect their marriage, (2) has lived together continuously (and at least temporarily on vacation in a state like Pennsylvania that recognizes common law marriage), and (3) has held themselves out and has had the reputation generally of being husband and wife, then New York Courts may indeed recognize their marriage as valid for the purpose of equitable distribution in divorce, a spousal share in an estate, and many other purposes. 

As always, these legal issues are complicated, and it is worth noting that our office has extensive experience in matrimonialand estate law. If you need legal representation in general, or if you find yourself in a situation where you may have legal rights under the theory of common law marriage in the divorce or estate contexts, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

[1] See, e.g., In re Steiner, 786 N.Y.S. 2d 83, 84 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dept. 2004); Sears v. Sears, 700 N.Y.S. 2d 626, 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. 1999); Lancaster v. 46 NYL Partners, 651 N.Y.S. 2d 440, 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dept. 1996); Tornese v. Tornese, 649 N.Y.S. 2d 177, 178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dept. 1996).

[2]Tornese at 178.

[3]Carpenter v. Carpenter, 617 N.Y.S. 2d 903, 904  (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dept. 1996); In re Landolfi, 727 N.Y.S. 2d 470, 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dept. 2001).

[4] Carpenter at id.; In re Landolfi at id.

[5]In re Landolfi at id.

[6]Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 714 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1998).

[7] Id.

[8]PNC Bank Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 831 A.2d 1269, 1272 (Commw. Ct. Penn. 2003).

[9]Stackhouse v. Stackhouse, 862 A.2d 102, 104-05 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).

[10]Staudenmayer at 1020 (1998).

[11] Id. at 108.

Picture courtesy of ehow.com.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvBcnDnIH7g]

In addition to his wide-ranging experience in most major areas of law in general, and his extensive experience in Matrimonial and Family law  in particular, Mr. Schlissel has a particular expertise representing fathers in child custody matters.

Feel free to browse his Father’s Rights website for more information about that, or contact the office directly.