Ozzie and Harriet would faint dead away at the living arrangements practiced by both young and old in this new century. But for divorce attorneys, the question often becomes whether a client’s pairing with another individual has crossed the line into “cohabitation,” jeopardizing hard-won alimony.
Last week, one state high court ruled that a retiree could lose her alimony, notwithstanding that fact that she and her boyfriend maintain separate residences and independent lives.
Amounts that an employer reimbursed a divorced employee for his health insurance should not have been used to increase his child support obligation, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
A life insurance policy taken out during a marriage that named the spouse as beneficiary is not automatically revoked upon the divorce of the parties, the Utah Court of Appeals has ruled.
A wife who secreted away almost $350,000 from the couple’s business committed egregious fault obviating a mandatory alimony award, the New Jersey Appellate Division has ruled.
A woman didn’t violate the Stored Communications Act when she hacked into her brother-in-law’s personal e-mail in the course of a domestic dispute, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a summary judgment.
The valuation of a husband’s professional goodwill in his divorce should not have been limited to the redemption value of the stock he had in his law firm, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
Less than one year after Frank and Jamie McCourt reached a settlement in their contentious divorce proceedings, the couple is back in court.
An Arizona court has decided that the valuation of a lawyer’s professional goodwill is not limited to his stock redemption value in his law firm.
A husband in a divorce case could not be ordered to cooperate with his wife in obtaining life insurance on his own life in order to secure his child support payments, the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.