Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog

Different Ways To Value A House :: Equitable Distribution and Property Division Lawyers and Attorneys in Charlotte, NC

Published on: March 19, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Many tasks that might at first seem fairly straightforward can quickly become complicated in the midst of a tense divorce. One good example of something that should be relatively easy, but can be expensive in certain circumstances is deciding on a value for your marital residence.

The problem is that the value of the house, often the couple’s largest asset, matters a great deal when dividing the marital estate. Each side often has something to gain (or lose, as the case may be) based on the value of the house, which is why arriving at one number is often easier said than done. The issue has only become more complicated in recent years due to the economic downtown. People may find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being underwater on a house or believing it to be worth far more than it is. To help stop the bickering over price, research needs to be done to come up with a realistic value to facilitate a relatively painless division of assets.

There are three primary ways to determine the value of the house. First, and least expensive, is to do some simple online research of your own. Digging around on the Internet and looking at comparable listings with local realtors or MLS listings can often help you gauge the marketplace. The estimate will not be precise, far from it, but it can help determine a range that your house might fall into. This might end disputes where one spouse insists on a wildly inflated (or deflated) number. In some cases this might be enough research to put the issue to rest, but in the most acrimonious cases the value will likely be seen as too speculative to hold up in court.

The next approach is to have a comparative market analysis done. This means that an examination of sales prices of homes in your area is done. Realtors will usually do a CMA for little or no money and can help give you a fair market estimate for your house. Though this approach is much less expensive than a full-fledged appraisal, it’s also not as accurate. This is because CMAs do not take into account the specific condition of your house, something that can lead to large fluctuations in value.

New York Case Reveals How Far Legal System Has To Come To Reflect Modern Families :: Child Custody Lawyers and Attorneys in Charlotte, N.C.

Published on: February 28, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Though a quick scroll through the TV guide tells us how much American family life has changed over the decades, less “Brady Bunch” and more “Modern Family,” our family law system has failed to keep pace. The idea of what a family is supposed to look like has changed enormously as gay parenting and single mothers have become vastly more commonplace, yet the courts haven’t been as quick to adapt.

A clear instance of this gap is occurring today in New York State. A New York Times article recently discussed the complicated case of a pharmaceuticals executive named Jonathan Sporn. Dr. Sporn filed a motion in a New York court late last month saying that he and his then girlfriend, law firm partner Leann Leutner, had a baby boy last year. The couple had fertility issues and relied on an anonymous sperm donor. The two had been together for several years, living together in a committed, monogamous relationship. Two failed marriages had convinced them both not to get married again and they were instead going to raise their child as a non-married couple.

The problem with their plan arose in December when Leutner took the young boy and left Sporn for a new apartment in New Jersey. After a few days out of the city she killed herself. Though the turn of events was a surprise, it was not completely unexpected. Leutner had a history of psychological problems and was suffering from an especially serious case of postpartum depression.

Since Leutner’s death, the child has been in protective care and is now in a foster home in New York City, this despite repeated attempts by Sporn to get custody of his son. Leutner’s sister has also tried to get custody of the boy. So far a judge has agreed that either home would be acceptable for the child, yet despite this seal of approval Sporn still does not have his child who has been given the label “destitute” since, legally, he has no known parents.

Complicated Custody Case Raises Questions About Surrogacy :: Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Lawyers and Attorneys in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: February 26, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

CNN recently discussed a tragic case involving a fight between biological parents who discovered the child their surrogate was carrying would have a serious health defect and the woman carrying the child. The couple wanted the woman to have an abortion, something the surrogate fought, saying she felt protective over the baby. So protective in fact that she fled to another state that does not recognize surrogacy laws and found an adoptive mother to raise the handicapped child. The parents, who, it turns out, used an egg donor and thus are not both biologically related to the child, filed suit to claim legal rights to the child.

This convoluted tale is not a law school hypothetical, but the real case involving a woman named Crystal Kelley from Connecticut. The case began when a Connecticut couple who already had three children of their own decided they wanted a fourth but discovered the wife would not be able to carry the child. They then selected Kelley as their surrogate and, after using an egg donor, implanted the embryo. Not long after that they learned that the fetus their surrogate was carrying had developmental disabilities. Doctors said the child had a cleft lip and palate, a brain cyst and heart defects. The baby would need to have multiple heart surgeries after birth and was given only a 25% chance of leading a normal life.

The couple, worried about the child’s ultimate quality of life after having several premature children of their own, offered to pay the woman $10,000 to abort the baby. The woman, who initially claimed the procedure went against her religious beliefs, later admitted to demanding $15,000, but since says that was only in a moment of weakness. The couple refused the additional amount and launched a protracted campaign to enforce the surrogacy contract.

The original agreement the surrogate signed said specifically that she would agree to an abortion if the fetus had a severe abnormality. The woman said that she did not want to follow the agreement when confronted with the reality of what she would have to do. She then chose to leave Connecticut for Michigan where state laws disregard surrogacy contacts and where she would be deemed the child’s legal guardian.

Since then Kelley has given birth to a child with even worse medical problems then were expected. The child’s internal organs are in the wrong places, some don’t function properly, her ear is misshapen, she has an abnormally small head and has a brain that failed to completely divide into two hemispheres.

Bizarre Argument Becomes Focus Of Gay Marriage Case Before Supreme Court

Published on: February 21, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In a recent amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama administration attacked a legal argument that some see as key to the movement against gay marriage: that gay couples cannot accidentally become pregnant and thus do not require access to marriage. The argument is central to two major gay marriage cases before the nation’s highest court: Hollingsworth v. Perry about California’s gay marriage ban and U.S. v. Windsor which is challenging DOMA.

The attorney representing those supporting DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act) wrote that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unintended offspring. The attorney, Paul Clement, went on to say that because same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children, the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing those marriages between men and women because this can encourage them to form stable family units to raise children. Those opposed to gay marriage also argue that by allowing gay couples to marry it may discourage other straight couples from marrying, thus harming a legitimate government interest in encourage procreation.

The Obama administration said it was ridiculous to pretend that marriage is merely society’s way of dealing with unintended pregnancies. The brief also said that gay marriage would neither help nor hurt straight couples who might want to marry.

Native American Adoption Case Goes Before Supreme Court :: Adoption Lawyers and Attorneys in Charlotte, NC

Published on: February 19, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The Supreme Court announced its upcoming schedule and revealed that it will hear oral arguments in an important case known as Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. The case, more commonly known as the Baby Veronica case, involves a 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court decision about the parental rights of a 2-year-old girl of mixed race, half white and half Native American.

The case began in 2008 when Christina Maldonado, a white woman, got engaged to Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation. A month later Maldonado became pregnant and Brown pushed her to move up their wedding date. Maldonado, feeling uncomfortable with the pressure broke off their engagement and eventually decided to put the child up for adoption.

In 2009, Maldonado met a couple interested in adopting the child though Brown was never involved in the adoption process. Oklahoma law requires that all Indian tribes be notified of any adoptions that involve children of Indian heritage.

In January of 2010 Brown, who was about to deploy to Iraq, heard about the adoption. He got ahold of legal papers which indicated he was not contesting the relinquishment of his parental rights and had waived the standard waiting period for the adoption. With the help of a military attorney he was able to request a stay of the adoption proceedings.

More than a year later a family court in Charleston, SC ruled in favor of Brown holding that state law was trumped by the federal Indian Child Welfare Act which protects the rights of Indian parents involved in adoption proceedings. South Carolina law would have worked against Brown as it says that a father’s parental rights are terminated if he fails to provide pre-birth support and does not become involved in the child’s life shortly after birth.

The Truth Behind Several Common Divorce Myths :: Part II :: Family and Divorce Lawyers and Attorneys in Charlotte and Concord, NC

Published on: February 14, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

See Our Related Video From Our YouTube Channel:

As a continuation of our first post explaining some of the most common myths surrounding the divorce process, we’ll dive into another batch of divorce misconceptions provided by Yahoo!.

Another common marriage misunderstanding is that those who live together before getting hitched have a lower risk of divorcing. This myth makes some sense given that you’d think those couples who lived together before marriage would be better able to survive the rigors of marriage. Unfortunately for those shacking up that just isn’t the case. Instead, the reasons for living together often determine whether it will provide a benefit later in a marriage. If a couple chooses to get together after lots of thought and careful consideration, it can sometimes result in lower risk of divorce. If, on the other hand, a couple lives together out of economic necessity, because one person lost a job or can’t afford rent, the experience actually increases the risk of divorce.

Those preparing for divorce, especially husbands with a few extra dollars in their bank account, might want to pay special attention to this next one. Thankfully, not all wives walk away with alimony. There’s a popular belief that almost all divorce cases end with one party walking away with spousal support payments, but the fact is that today that is much less likely. It’s common to have cases where women earn the same or even more than their husbands and even in cases where they don’t work, if the woman has a skill set or education that allows her to find work, many judges will demand that she do so. This is especially true in short marriages, as the less time a couple has been together the less likely any alimony will be awarded.

The Truth Behind Several Common Divorce Myths :: Divorce Lawyers and Attorneys in Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina

Published on: February 12, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According a recent article on Yahoo!, several of the most commonly repeated factoids about divorce have actually been either tragically misconstrued or are instead completely false. Rather than allow urban legends to perpetuate, it’s important to clear a few of the big ones up.

First off, one out of every two marriages do not end in divorce. This is one of the most commonly bandied about statistics, often used as an example of the terrible state of morality in the country and a dire warning to those considering getting married. The fact is that the divorce rate is actually somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Even this number is artificially high given that it includes those habitual users who rack up multiple divorces and drive the rate higher. Take the number with a grain of salt and remember that statistics do not have to determine the success of your marriage.

Second, the idea that second marriages are more likely to last than first marriages is, sadly, untrue. Though the idea makes sense, given that those going down the aisle a second time would be more mature and likely more hesitant to plunge into a marriage, the numbers tell a different story. According to experts, between 67 and 80 percent of second marriages end in divorce. Even more shocking is that third marriages continue the trend and have even higher divorce rates. The reality is that once you’ve been divorced you are more likely to see divorce as an option and go through it again.

Another commonly misunderstood aspect of the divorce process has to do with its supposed expense. The popular belief is that divorce is an incredibly expensive process that drains the bank accounts of even those with money to spare. While it’s certainly true that some celebrities or wealthy couples can be involved in lengthy and costly legal battles, it’s almost never the case.

Young Girl Sues Parents For Trying To Force Her Into Abortion :: Family Law Firms in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Published on: February 7, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

It’s no secret that there are times when parents and their children are not on the same page regarding important life choices. In some of the most extreme cases, a resolution is only reached with the help of the family law system. This seems to be the case involving a teenage mother-to-be in Texas who is fighting for her right to determine the fate of her unborn child.

The case involves a pregnant teenager in Texas who was embroiled in a lawsuit against her parents, claiming that they were trying to force her to have an abortion. Attorneys for the girl say that they were granted a long-term injunction against the girl’s parents by a family court judge earlier this week.

The girl, who was represented by the Texas Center for Defense of Life, filed a lawsuit arguing that her parents were violating her federal constitutional rights to carry her child to term. The suit claimed the parents were coercing her into having an abortion through harassment along with verbal and physical threats. When her parents found out about her pregnancy, her father became extremely angry and insisted that the decision was not up to her and that she would be having an abortion, end of story. They then took away her cellphone, removed her from school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car to try and force the girl to get the abortion.

The girl is currently 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction is scheduled to last for the remainder of her pregnancy. The order goes on to say that the 16-year-old is entitled to use her car to go to school, work and doctor appointments. The family court judge also ordered that the parents be responsible for half of the hospital bills when the girl gives birth. The only way the parents will be excused from the expenses is if she marries the child’s father.

Post-Valentine’s Day Period Sees Rise In Divorce Filings :: Child Custody Lawyers and Attorneys in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC North Carolina

Published on: February 5, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Though it’s sad to imagine, the truth is the post-Valentine’s Day time period is a busy one for many family law attorneys, even those here in North Carolina. A recent study discussed in a Yahoo News article, found that divorce filings rose by as much as 40% after the lover’s holiday.

Lawyers interviewed in the Yahoo piece say that their experience is similar, that the supposedly romantic holiday is often a time where many couples whose relationships have been on the rocks stop and take a hard look at their marriage. The problem is that the holiday is so often associated with wildly unrealistic expectations that when things fail to turn around after one lovey-dovey day it can really hit them hard and serve as the final straw.

Many of the experts interviewed said that couples that have been questioning their relationship often first approach divorce attorneys in January after the holidays are over, usually with questions and concerns. If they aren’t ready to pull the trigger quite yet, many will say they want to wait and see how Valentine’s Day goes and when the day fails to live up to expectations, many decided to go ahead and file.

Another interesting statistic comes from the legal referral site, Avvo, which says each year it sees a huge spike in the number of inquiries for divorce attorneys in the days immediately following Valentine’s Day. The company announced that over the past several years the site sees an average 40% increase in the number of requests for divorce attorneys in the time surrounding Valentine’s Day.

Another trend observed by some family law attorneys is to use the holiday to send an especially pointed message. Some clients request that important depositions be scheduled on Valentine’s Day or that the divorce petition be held over to file on the 14th.

Re-Adopted Child Successfully Sues First Family For Share Of Inheritance :: Adoption Lawyers and Attorneys in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC

Published on: January 31, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent Yahoo! article, an appeals court in New York ruled in favor of a Chinese girl who was adopted by a wealthy couple and then subsequently given up for adoption a second time. The family court judge ruled that the girl was owed a portion of her first family’s $250 million estate despite being given up for adoption by the couple back in 2003.

In 1996 a couple from Westchester County, NY adopted a baby from China, naming her Emily. The couple already had four biological children and, before Emily’s adoption was finalized, had a fifth biological child. Around the same time the husband was diagnosed with cancer.

When the adoption was finalized the family signed a contract stating the girl would legally be treated as if she were their biological offspring and that they would never abandon or have the girl readopted. The agreement also clearly stated that Emily would have a right to inherit the estate of her parents who had already established a trust in her name.

Tragically, the husband died only a year later. Years later, when Emily was taken to a school for children with special-needs, the surviving mother had her attorneys float the idea of having the girl adopted. The school’s assistant director and her husband expressed interest and agreed to adopt the girl.

The new parents had no knowledge of the family’s wealth or of the trust fund set up to care for the girl. Several years later the parents saw a filing that listed the family’s net worth at more than a quarter of a billion dollars and then filed suit claiming that Emily was entitled to a share of the estate. The mother responded saying that Emily had no rights to the estate since she had been readopted.