• Pay interest on his monthly payments to his wife, because he did not pay each in a lump sum;
• Be held in contempt for failure to obtain a life insurance policy naming his ex-spouse as the sole irrevocable beneficiary;
• Pay for her attorney fees in taking the matter to court.

The outcome has proven costly for the husband, and it illustrates the importance of ensuring you fully understand your obligations under each provision of the original Indiana divorce agreement. Failure to abide by any part of it could prove an expensive mistake. more

According to court records, Husband appealed the trial court’s order requiring him to pay interest on the unpaid balance of the settlement judgment he owed to his former wife, finding him in contempt for failure to obtain life insurance, and requiring him to pay his wife’s attorney’s fees for this contempt. Husband argued that he should only have to pay interest on the monthly payments if he failed to make them – not simply because he didn’t pay each in a lump sum. He further argued that the trial court failed to allow him due process by not informing him of the factual basis for the contempt allegation before the hearing, and also that there was not enough evidence he intentionally disobeyed the dissolution decree. He also insisted the court had wrongly denied him the opportunity to purge his contempt before it imposed the sanction.

The court rejected each of his arguments.

First, it looked at the judgment in which the husband was ordered to pay $272,000 to his wife, which he could do either in a lump sum or in 84 monthly installments of $3,238. The decree didn’t specifically indicate that Husband would have to pay interest if he chose the latter option, but it did say Wife was entitled to legal interest on any unpaid balance of the judgment. Husband argued this meant he only was required to pay interest if he didn’t keep up with those monthly payments. Wife argued this was unfair, as it would essentially mean her husband had an interest-free loan.

The court looked at the plain language of the agreement and sided with the wife, noting that “any unpaid balance” would include whatever he didn’t pay right away upfront.

Next, on the issue of contempt, the court analyzed the requirement of the husband to obtain a life insurance policy that named his ex-wife. The dissolution of their marriage occurred in October 2013. At that time, the husband was ordered to obtain a life insurance policy. However, the wife filed a motion in September 2015, arguing he still had not done this. Husband argued he should not be held in contempt for this because he had been trying to secure a life insurance policy, but had encountered great difficulty in the interim. He’d suffered several blood clots in the years leading up to the divorce. Following the third clot, which he suffered in August 2013, he was diagnosed with Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT). When he tried to obtain life insurance, he spoke to a financial adviser in March 2014 who explained that this would be difficult, and that it would probably be at least two years before he was able to do so. Husband explained that he waited one year, until in July 2015, at which point the financial adviser indicated he could try again. He applied for one policy for $500,000, but was told it would cost $23,000 a year due to his medical condition. Because the rate was so high, he applied to another company, and that application was still pending at the time of this suit.

Husband argued that he’d still kept his ex-wife on the life insurance policy he’d held before, worth about $41,000, and he’d also named her the beneficiary of his net estate in his will – which he asserted was more than what he owed her.

However, the trial court ruled this was not sufficient to meet the terms of the agreement, and the appellate court affirmed both the finding of contempt and the requirement that Husband pay his ex-wife’s attorney fees.

Here again, communication with an experienced divorce lawyer at the outset of this agreement may have helped to avoid these financial headaches.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Laesch v. Laesch, Aug. 24, 2016, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

Wallerstedt v. Wallerstedt – Relocation in Indiana Child Custody Case, July 25, 2016, Indiana Divorce Lawyer Blog

But there are still some gray areas in our nation’s civil court systems with regard to these relationship. Take for example the recent case of Luttrell v. Cucco, weighed in on by the Virginia Supreme Court.

At its core, this case was a dispute over spousal support. As is common in many temporary spousal support agreements, a provision indicated that the support agreements were subject to termination in the event of “cohabitation,” as defined in Va. Code 20-109. The law states that maintenance and support of an ex-spouse may be discontinued upon cohabitation, remarriage, or death. Specifically, the law states that an ex-spouse who has been “habitually cohabitating with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage for one year or more” is subject to termination of spousal support benefits. more

In this case, plaintiff (Husband) and defendant (Wife) were married in 1992. They later separated and Wife filed for divorce in 2007. Pursuant to the divorce agreement, Husband was to pay Wife monthly spousal support for a term of eight years. However, those payments could be terminated earlier if the wife died, remarried, or began cohabitating in a marriage-like relationship. The agreement also indicated that reasonable expenses incurred by a party in the successful enforcement of the agreement would have to be paid by the defaulting party.

In 2014, the husband hired a divorce lawyer and sought an amendment of the spousal support agreement, arguing that his ex-wife was engaged to be married and had been living continuously with her fiancée for at least a full year. He sought to terminate his spousal support agreement, and he also wanted his ex-wife to refund the equivalent of one year’s worth of payments.

At the hearing, Wife did not dispute the allegations, but she contended that because her relationship was with another woman, it wasn’t technically “cohabitating” under the terms of the law.

The circuit court decided that the right to marry was a separate question from the issue of cohabitation for spousal support purposes. Citing dissent in a prior Court of Appeals decision, the court ruled that only opposite-sex couples could cohabitate for purposes of spousal support termination. Several prior decisions had held that cohabitation be interpreted as a “man and a woman” and as “husband and wife.” Husband’s motion was denied and he was ordered to pay his ex-wife’s legal fees.

He appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, but the Virginia Supreme Court reversed.

Justices stated that they favored an interpretation that would further the statute’s purpose, rather than obstruct it. The court noted that the legislature, in wording the law, had not modified the word “person” with the phrase “of the opposite sex,” meaning it could include persons of either sex. The court further noted that although same-sex marriage wasn’t legal in Virginia in 1997 when the law was written, that was not relevant because the phrase “a relationship analogous to marriage” doesn’t equal “marriage.”

Therefore, a same-sex relationship could be considered “analogous to marriage,” regardless of whether the two could legally marry (which, of course, now they can). The lower court’s ruling was reversed.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Luttrell v. Cucco, April 28, 2016, Virginia Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Ahls v. Ahls – Appeals Court Favors Wife in Indiana Divorce Settlement, April 20, 2016, Indiana Divorce Lawyer Blog

That’s why January has a reputation for being “divorce month.”

But as heartbreaking – or freeing – as the process may be, one of the first things we recommend to those on both sides of the aisle: Companionship.

Not with each other, of course, but with an experienced divorce attorney. You’re going to need a legal, tax and investment professional to help guide you through this change so you don’t end up on shaky financial ground. The goal is to keep things as amicable as possible and as equitable as possible. In cases where relations are contentious or strained, it’s especially important to have a third-party to help mediate the conversation and goals.more

Some ways in which you can help to reduce cost and lessen the financial and emotional burdens:

Keep it civil. For one thing, if you have children, this is best for their emotional stability through what is already a confusing and tumultuous time for them. But beyond that, if you start squabbling over every minor asset and issue, you’re going to spend time and money fighting over details that may not matter in a few short years.

Recognize what is no longer “on paper.” Even just a few years ago, a significant portion of financial records were “on paper.” That’s no longer the case. Most financial information is now in a digital format, usually on computer hard drives, smart phones and other digital devices. There are many laws protecting what can and can’t be accessed and how. You may be entitled to information your spouse is holding, but you have to be careful how you collect it.

Review your taxes. Nobody likes looking at taxes, and many people’s eyes glaze over at the thought. However, it’s worth it to become familiar with your joint tax return. This usually contains important information about partnerships, investments and other sources of income.

Educate yourself. If you have generally been the one to avoid dealing with money and investment issues, the time to get educated about these issues is now. It’s fairly common for spouses to hide investments from one another, and this is where working with a divorce lawyer can help you uncover those assets – to which you are entitled a portion.

Re-examine your financial needs. Your plans for savings, spending and investment may change significantly once you are single. For example, all that money you were setting aside for your child’s college fund? You may need to revisit that.

Adult children and real estate. Increasingly, older couples are divorcing and wrangling with questions about how to divvy up real estate like beach houses or downtown condos, because they want their children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy them. But these properties are almost always more hassle than they are worth, once you factor in upkeep, scheduling conflicts, etc. It’s often best to sell the property and divide the proceeds among the kids.

The bottom line is that each case is going to be different. Our legal team can help set you on the right financial path as you embark on this next leg of the journey.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

How to Handle Investments When You Divorce, Nov. 16, 2015, By Lou Carlozo, U.S. News & World Report

More Blog Entries:

Gertiser v. Gertiser – Indiana Supreme Court Weighs Spousal Maintenance, Dec. 20, 2015, Hammond Divorce Attorney Blog

Officials were careful to caution that the appearance of those emails doesn’t necessarily mean anyone signed up for the service using their work email, but an investigation was being launched nonetheless. It’s not so much a moral issue, they say, as a potential violation of government email use policy.

But whether having an account tied to the site that encourages affairs causes workers trouble with their employer, it may not have a direct effect on one’s divorce. That’s because Indiana is a no-fault state when it comes to divorce.more

What that means is the reasons for one’s divorce – even if they are valid, like adultery – are not considered by the court with regard to division of assets, division of debts or child custody or parenting time.

However, this does not mean an extramarital affair is never relevant to a Gary divorce proceeding. What would be necessary to show is that the affair in some way negatively affected joint finances, debt situation or the emotional well-being of children.

Our Indiana divorce lawyers would first start with the issue of dissipation. In any divorce case in Indiana, there is the presumption that all liabilities and assets are going to be equitably divided. That presumption can be rebutted in a number of ways. For example, if one party makes significantly more income than another who stayed home to care for children, the stay-at-home parent may be entitled to a larger share of assets. Now, let’s say a cheating spouse used marital assets on an affair partner – or trying to obtain an affair partner (say, though Ashley Madison). Any finding of moneys spent for these purposes could be used as grounds to deviate from even division.

In cases involving minor children, we might analyze whether infidelity might be used to our advantage in court. It’s important to note courts do not tie a person’s fitness as a parent with his or her degree of faithfulness in a marriage. However, if the cheating spouse used poor judgment in introducing the affair partner to the children or dating a person who poses a clear risk to the children – those elements could be weighed by the court in custody and parenting time determinations.

Interestingly, in the case of Ashley Madison, some officials have noted certain accounts may reflect attempts by some people to catch their spouses in an act of infidelity, rather than actually engage in it themselves.

It would be unwise to jump to conclusions about the email addresses listed. But those who have through this hack uncovered information about their spouse they deem troubling should discuss their concerns with an experienced divorce attorney who can help you explore your options. That might not necessarily mean divorce. Some couples confronted with this kind of revelation choose this turning point to enter into a post-marital agreement. This is an opportunity for spouses to rededicate themselves to the union, with the agreement going a long way toward showing the aggrieved spouse the other is serious about putting the past behind them.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Indiana agencies, cities probe worker email addresses linked to Ashley Madison site, Aug. 21, 2015, By Justin L. Mack, USA Today

More Blog Entries:

Negotiating Retirement Benefits in Indiana Divorce Agreement, July 20, 2015, Gary, Indiana Divorce Attorney Blog

In re: The visitation of L.- A.D.W., the state high court ruled visitation in this case was appropriate, even if it went against the father’s wishes to more strictly control such interactions. The court considered the best interests of the child in reaching its conclusion.

Although grandparents in Indiana face significant hurdles in obtaining visitation if it is against the express wishes of the parents, a strong argument can often be made where the bond is especially strong and/or when one of the parents has died.

more In this case, the child from the time she was born had a close relationship with her maternal grandparents. In fact, the grandparents lived with her when she was first born. Even after they returned to their own home, they remained a part of the child’s daily life.

When her mother was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer, her grandparents moved back into the home to help care for the mother. Mother battled cancer for three years. In the midst of all this, her husband – child’s father – filed for divorce. Mother passed away before the dissolution was final. The girl was just 8-years-old.

Mother expressed in her will that she wished for her parents – the girl’s grandparents – to have visitation rights. During the divorce, the relationship between the grandparents and the father had grown contentious. They worried the father would cut them off from all contact with the child, and sought a court order to allow regular grandparent visitations.

Meanwhile, father wanted to control any visitation schedule.

Two mental health experts testified before the court that it was in the child’s best interest to maintain a regular, ongoing relationship with her parents.

Based on this and considering the totality of the circumstances, trial court ordered grandparent visitation. The schedule would allow for full-time transition to her father’s custody (remember: The girl had been living with her grandparents and mother at the time of her mother’s death).

Father appealed. He argued trial court failed to give proper weight to his decisions regarding his daughter’s upbringing or to apply the presumption that, as a fit parent, he was acting in her best interest. He also argued that the amount of visitation awarded was inherently unfair.

Appeals court affirmed on the issue of visitation, but reversed and remanded on the question of how much visitation was appropriate. The court ruled the amount of visitation awarded was excessive in light of the “occasional, temporary” amount permitted under the Grandparent Visitation Act.

However, the state supreme court in its review noted that there was no standard established in the act for determining the amount of appropriate visitation. Further, trial court did not abuse discretion in determining the set amount of time in this case – which the supreme court found was not excessive. Rather, it was in the child’s best interests, and therefore, the entire trial court order was affirmed in its entirety.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources: In re: The Visitation of L-A.D.W., R.W. v. M.D. and W.D., July 30, 2015, Indiana Supreme Court

More Blog Entries: In re: Marriage of Honer – Valuation of Marital Assets, June 18, 2015, Indiana Family Law Attorney Blog