|
|
Family law attorneys have to have thick skins. Think about it – in virtually every case, one of the parties doesn't like you very much. In contested cases, it can sometimes reach the level of hatred. Recall that I was called "the devil" by a party in open court several years ago. However, in light of what has happened to Randall Kessler, I don't feel too bad.
In case you aren't familiar with Mr. Kessler, he is a very well-known family law attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, and he is generally regarded as an outstanding lawyer. Unfortunately, one of his celebrity divorce clients recently posted the following to her 19,305 followers on Twitter: "My lawyer = horrible. Need the name/number of a good one in Atlanta."
What makes this even worse is that the tweet was sent just days after Mr. Kessler publicly praised his client as a "faithful wife and loving mother. The client claims that she did not intend for the tweet to be read by all of her followers, and she later posted a comment on her page with an apology. When asked whether he still represents this particular client, Mr. Kessler (to his credit) responded "we represent her, and will not comment on attorney-client relationship beyond that,"
The moral to this story is that you should not write (or especially post online) anything that you would not feel comfortable being read in open Court in front of the trial judge. Folliwing this "common sense" rule should minimize the chances of embarrassing yourself or even damaging your case.
Sources: "Client Trashes Her Celebrity Lawyer on Twitter" by Molly McDonough, published at ABA Journal.comLaw News Now; and "Client Dumps Divorce Lawyer on Twitter" by Carolyn Elefant, published at the Law.comLegal Blog Watch.
I have published several articles recently on the subject of cheating, affairs, and marital infidelity. I recently found the following list of "tell-tale signs" that your significant other is cheating on you. The list is written with the idea that the male is the cheater, but of course the logic applies in both directions:
Source: "Nine Signs He’s A Cheater" by Simcha Whitehill, published at The Frisky.
If you are interested in hearing my interview from the South Carolina Business Review about the effect the economic downturn has on families, you can CLICK HERE.
This interview was broacast on eight NPR radio stations across South Carolina on June 18, 2009. Thanks again to Mike Switzer for having me as a guest on his show.
I was in a settlement conference recently in which the husband's attorney tried to argue that his client's adultery "was really o.k " because my client had suffered from depression and therefore wasn't a great wife. Of course, I pointed out that was baloney and reminded him of the actual defenses to adultery. However, his argument begged the question of whether cheating is ever justified or deserved.
CNN.com recently published an article on this very subject, citing to such well-publicized adultery allegations as those against John Edwards and Jon Gosselin. At the time that article was published, news of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's affair had not yet broken.
The article questions whether the conduct rendered by "bad spouses" justify the "innocent spouse" seeking romantic companionship elsewhere. It concludes "cheating isn't right, but neither is emotional abuse and neglect." What do you think -- is cheating ever justified? Submit your comments below.
Source: "Is Cheating Ever Deserved?" by Wendy Alterberry, published at CNN.com.
Lawyers USA featured an article late last week about the types of information that can be found in social networking sites, such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn. The article correctly states that these sites have opened up a potential treasure trove of legal evidence, especially in divorce cases where a person’s whereabouts, “friends” and employment status are often relevant.
Lee Rosen, Melissa Brown, and I were all quoted in this article about the ways that family law attorneys are effectively using these sources of information on their client's behalf – and also the ways that other attorneys are not. If you are facing a divorce or child custody case, or if you are an attorney who handles these types of cases, you should read this article.
My quotes are listed below:
“In divorce or child custody cases, what we look for is confessions - things they’ve done, places they’ve been [and] people they’ve had their child around,” said J. Benjamin Stevens of Stevens - MacPhail in Spartanburg, S.C.
For example, a parent who is restrained from taking a child out-of-state might post photos of visiting Disney World or other vacation destinations with the child.
Or, in a custody case that Stevens handled, a father denied drug use but the background of his MySpace page featured marijuana leaves.
A person’s LinkedIn profile can contain evidence of earning capacity or job prospects that can be useful in disputes over support payments.
Source: "Divorce Attorneys Are Missing Evidence on Social Media Sites" by Sylvia Hsieh, published at Lawyers USA.
Earlier this week, we examined the issue of who owns the engagement ring prior to marriage if an engagement is broken. In this second part, we look at the issue of who owns the engagement ring after marriage, if the marriage is later dissolved.
In South Carolina, “marital” property can be allocated or divided by the Family Court. “Non-marital” property cannot be allocated by the Family Court, and it therefore belongs to the spouse independent of the marital estate.
By statute, South Carolina has defined non-marital property as “property acquired by either party by inheritance, devise, bequest, or gift from a party other than the spouse.” Thus, a gift from a third party is non-marital, but a gift from a spouse is marital. So where do engagement rings fall under this analysis?
As previously discussed, most courts appear to view an engagement ring as a conditional gift that becomes final when the marriage is consummated. This would appear to make the gift irrevocable exactly at the moment when a non-spouse is becoming a spouse.
In South Carolina, the courts have decided that an engagement ring, at least one given prior to the wedding ceremony, is a pre-marital gift, and therefore is non-marital property belonging to the recipient of the ring upon dissolution of the marriage.
For further reference, see S.C. Code 20-3-630(A)(1) and McClerin v. McClerin, 310 S.C. 99, 425 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1992).
"Who Owns the Engagement Ring? (Part Two)" by Paul C. MacPhail.
After he gained national headlines by being "missing" for five days, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford reappeared today and admitted at a press conference that he's been having an affair with an Argentinan woman for about a year. As part of his statement given at a press conference, Gov. Sanford admitted "I have been unfaithful to my wife," and he said that his wife has been aware of the affair for the last five months.
Gov. Sanford announced that he is resigning as Chair of the the Republican Governors Association, but it is unclear at this time whether he intends to resign as the Governor of South Carolina. When asked that question at the news conference, he walked away from the podium without answering. Also, he may face an investigation, as it appears that he willfully misled his staff, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, and the citizens of South Carolina about his whereabouts.
My thoughts are with Mrs. Sanford and the Sanford children as they deal with these difficult issues in a very public forum. You can read more about this developing story by clicking the "Continue Reading" link below.
Continue Reading...When spouses get divorced, they usually end their relationship with their former in-laws. However, if there are children involved, it is not always easy (or advisable) to do so. Under normal circumstances, children benefit from relationships with both sides of their family. So what's the best way to go about encouraging and fostering their relationship with your former spouse's family? Consider the following suggestions:
Source: "Single-Parenting Challenge: Dealing with Former In-Laws" published at Dummies.com.
Prior to marriage, an engagement ring is generally treated as a conditional gift, rather than an absolute gift. In other words, the ring was given conditioned upon the subsequent ceremonial marriage. Under Roman Law, if the parties jointly decided to call off the engagement, the ring was to be returned to the donor. If one of the parties unjustifiably called off the engagement, then that person forfeited any rights to the ring.
This approach has been the prevailing one in the United States, and under this rationale, the donor is not entitled to the return of an engagement ring if he is at fault for calling off the engagement. However, there is a minority rule that utilizes a “no-fault” approach, whereby if the engagement is broken, the ring is returned to the donor – no matter who is at fault. This approach is intended to limit litigation.
Because of the (relatively) small amount of money at stake, however, these cases rarely make it to the highest court in the state. For example, in South Carolina there are no Supreme Court cases on point, so there is still a fair amount of confusion as to which approach to take at the trial level, and it is often difficult to predict the results.
For information about who owns the engagement ring after marriage, see “Who Owns the Engagement Ring? (Part Two)” – to be published later this week.
"Who Owns the Engagement Ring? (Part One)" by Paul C. MacPhail.
Enter keywords:
How can we help? Any information you provide is considered confidential and will not be shared outside of our firm.
