Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Yet Another Reason to Pay Your Taxes…

July 30, 2010 by jkirshner

Don’t mess with the IRS, or your ex-wife either, for that matter. A Long Island contractor decided to unilaterally file marital tax returns for the years 2004 through 2007 and report $1.6 million of income just days before his divorce trial was set to take place. He hoped to prevent his wife from recovering marital assets by apportioning $500,000 to $1.2 million of new tax liability to her as a result of the unpaid taxes.

Slimy? Scummy? Sleezy? The Suffolk County judge called the husband’s act “despicable.” “It is well settled that expenses (including unpaid taxes) incurred prior to the commencement of a divorce action constitute marital debt which, under normal circumstances, should be equally shared by the parties. However, in those rare instances where a party’s conduct in creating a debt is so egregious, shocking, fraudulent or malicious, the Court can exercise its discretion and refuse to apportion the debt,” Acting Supreme Court Justice Andrew A. Crecca wrote in Maria C. v. Dominick C.

Judge Crecca decided that this was one such instance as he refused to apportion the couple’s outstanding tax liability to the wife. He concluded that the husband’s conduct was “based solely on malice and revenge, with no other goal than to prevent his wife from any recovery in equitable distribution.”

The IRS, however, is not bound by the court’s ruling, but the wife’s attorney believes that “they will give it the appropriate weight.”

Just another reason to pay your taxes. If you don’t, you could end up paying double, like this guy.

**This is not legal advice. If you or someone you know is considering getting divorced, contact The Mandel Law Firm today for a free consultation to review your options.

Posted in Divorce, Equitable Distribution | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

Facebook’s Privacy Settings Could Save Your Life

July 23, 2010 by jkirshner

Over the last decade, an increasing number of divorce litigants have turned to Facebook and other social networking sites in gathering evidence to use against their former spouses in court.  And judges, for the most part, have no qualms with admitting it.

According to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence taken from Facebook or similar websites over the last five years. A 2008 study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project showed that around one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, but it isn’t just incriminating wall-posts and scandalous photos of married folks with other men and women that’s making their way into the courtroom.

How about Dad forcing his son to “de-friend” Mom? Pretty easy way for Mom to bolster her child alienation claim.

Or Mom denying under oath that she smokes marijuana, but posting photos of herself smoking on Facebook. Not exactly too difficult for Dad’s lawyers to prove that it’s in the child’s best interests to live with Dad rather than Mom in the custody battle.

So what advice is there for people going through a divorce or thinking about getting divorced? Here are some commonsense tips if you insist upon maintaining your Facebook account:

  1. Don’t post incriminating photos of yourself on your account, and make sure your friends don’t either.
  2. Make sure your mistress doesn’t post incriminating pictures of you on her account.
  3. Don’t talk trash to your “friends” about your spouse — it’s funny how quickly friends can become enemies.
  4. PRIVACY SETTINGS! Use them. Check them often and make sure they’re still on, because Facebook likes to change things up sometimes and your once-private-profile suddenly becomes not-so-private.

**This is not legal advice. If you or someone you know is considering getting divorced, contact The Mandel Law Firm today for a free consultation to review your options.

Posted in Adultery, Child Alienation, Divorce, Parental Rights | Leave a Comment »

Man Sues “Wife” for $100K Engagement Ring Back

July 14, 2010 by jkirshner

Ever wonder if you could get the ring back that you gave your wife or fiance if things don’t work out? Well, real estate mogul Larry Lipschutz is suing to get his $100,000 diamond ring back from Nadia Kiderman, a Park Avenue dentist he tied the knot with in 2006.

It turns out though, that Kiderman wasn’t legally divorced from her previous husband when she married Lipschutz, which has Lipschutz claiming their marriage a legal nullity, entitling him to the ring back (or it’s fair value, which he claims is $150,000).

A Rockland judge ordered Kiderman to return the ring to Lipschutz last year, but the appellate division overturned that ruling last week when it decided that there were still issues of fact that needed to be resolved — particularly whether Lipschutz was aware that Kiderman was still legally married when he gave her the ring.

Lipschutz claims he did not know his bride-to-be was still legally married when he proposed to her or when they had an Orthodox-Jewish ceremony in 2006 and is thus entitled to the ring back, however the appellate court concluded that he was “well aware” of their existing marriage, and the court is now holding the ring until this case is settled.

Kiderman claims that Lipschutz only insisted on her getting a Get, a Jewish divorce (which is not a legal divorce in the eyes of New York State), which she got in 2002. The two then married in 2006, and in 2007, she obtained a legal divorce from her previous husband. But things have since soured between Kiderman and Lipschutz, and now he wants the ring back.

While New York is still moving toward a no-fault divorce law, it does have a no-fault provision in terms of returning engagement rings. Under Civil Rights Law §80-b,  ”a person, not under any impediment to marry, will no longer be denied the right to recover property given in contemplation of a marriage which has not occurred.” This means that if you give an engagement ring to someone (in contemplation of marriage), you are entitled to the ring back if either if you call the wedding off; it does not matter who is responsible for the failure to consummate the marriage.

However, one who gives property (such as an engagement ring) and knows that an impediment to a lawful marriage exists, will be precluded from such recovery. Here, the question whether Lipschutz knew Kiderman was still legally married remains disputed; if he knew of the marriage (an impediment to marry), then the ring would be deemed an irrevocable gift, but if he did not know, then it would be a conditional gift that vested when they married. Since their marriage happened while she was still married to another man, the marriage would be deemed a nullity, and in terms of the law, would never have happened, and she would have to return the ring.

As a side note, if you’re thinking about getting engaged, it’s probably best to do it on a day that’s not a holiday or birthday, otherwise it can likely be argued that the ring was an irrevocable gift, rather than a conditional gift as part of a binding contract, conditioned upon a valid marriage taking place in the future.

***This Web Site does not provide any legal advice. This blog is NOT a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.  Contact The Mandel Law Firm for all your matrimonial needs by clicking here.

Posted in Divorce | Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment »

Will LeBron James’ Daddy Please Stand Up?

July 8, 2010 by jkirshner

With the entire world awaiting LeBron James’ announcement on ESPN tonight regarding his future in professional basketball, one man has more important business to take care: proving that LeBron is his son.

TMZ broke the news yesterday that 55-year-old Leicester Bryce Stovell is suing LeBron and his mother, Gloria, claiming $4 million in damages for fraud, defamation, and misrepresentation in an elaborate DNA cover-up. Stovell claims that a few days after reconnecting with LeBron’s mother via telephone in 2007, LeBron agreed to take a DNA paternity test. The tests were returned to Stovell — and appeared to come back negative — but Stovell claims LeBron and his mother tampered with the tests.

Gold-diggers come out of the woodwork all the time, but Stovell doesn’t exactly fit the traditional mold. He’s a Princeton graduate with a law degree from the University of Chicago, who then went on to become a Senior Legal Advisor for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. An impressive resume, which makes one wonder if this is in fact a frivolous lawsuit, or if there might actually be some merit to it.

Stovell filed the lawsuit in federal court, and is claiming that LeBron’s mother has been shielding LeBron from the truth for his entire life. He also points out in the documents that LeBron named his second son “Bryce,” Stovell’s middle name…which is “no coincidence.”

If you have paternity issues of your own, contact The Mandel Law Firm for a free consultation today.

Posted in DNA Testing, Parental Rights, Paternity | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Love Your House and Hate Your Spouse? Build a Wall

July 7, 2010 by jkirshner

After 21 years of marriage, an Orthodox Jewish couple in Brooklyn has had it with each other. She banished him from the bedroom two years ago, forcing him to sleep in the dining room. She says he spitefully blows out her Shabbos candles. He says she hides his heart medication.

But they have five children and a 3,000 square foot house that neither wants to leave. So what’s this divorcing couple to do?

Last Thursday, Superior Court Judge Eric Prus came up with an answer: build a wall, and split the house in half.

The couple has two weeks to decide where to put this wall, which will serve as a physical barrier until their divorce proceedings conclude. The wife will get about 700 more square feet than the husband, since the children are supposed to live with her. And if they can’t agree on where to put the wall, the court will decide for them.

The husband’s brother, Rabbi Mendel Gold, has coined this “The Divorce Wall,” noting that “it could probably even help healthy couples.”

Posted in Divorce | Tagged , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Chess Champion’s Body Exhumed to Prove Paternity

July 6, 2010 by jkirshner

His life began in Brooklyn, NY, and ended 64 years later in Reykjavík, Iceland. Bobby Fischer, former champion of the chess world, lived a life mired in controversy, and post mortem has proved no different.

Fischer died in January, 2008, with a $2 million estate, two nephews, an alleged Japanese wife, an alleged six-year-old-Filipino-love-child named Jinky, and no will.

Miyoko Watai, Fischer’s supposed widow, is the head of the Japanese Chess Association, and claims to have married Fischer while he was in a Japanese jail in 2004. The 9-year-old-Jinky was allegedly conceived after Fischer met Marilyn Young, a woman more than 30 years his former, at a tennis club in the Philippines in 2000. According to the NY Post, under Icelandic law, “Fischer’s nephews would have the best claim if he died without a wife or child. If he died with a wife, she would get everything. But if there was both a wife and child, the widow would get one third and the child two thirds.”

In order to settle this paternity dispute, the Icelandic Supreme Court granted Young’s petition to exhume Fischer’s body in order to retrieve a DNA sample to match up with Jinky’s. The former chess champion’s remains were dug up at an Iceland cemetery, and buried once the sample was taken.

Stay tuned for more news on the paternity saga.

Posted in Inheritance, Parental Rights, Paternity | Leave a Comment »

Marry Tiger, Get Cheated On, Settle for $750 Million

July 1, 2010 by jkirshner

Not exactly the simplest get-rich-quick-scheme ever invented, but it’ll do. Elin Nordegren appears poised to add a whole new definition to the term “settlement.” Tiger Woods’ soon-to-be-ex-wife has reportedly reached an agreement that will have the golf star paying her $750 million, but it doesn’t come without strings.

The largest celebrity divorce settlement in history would require Elin to refrain from ever speaking about what happened with Tiger. This means no Larry King Live, no book-deals, no Oprah; even when Tiger dies, she still may not speak about their marital troubles. $750 million is allegedly the price Tiger agreed upon to keep his newly-built reputation in tact.

While this isn’t exactly New York news, it’s too good to ignore, and involves settlement issues that can come up anywhere.

In addition to forking over a few bucks (three-quarters of a billion dollars, to be exact), Tiger will be prohibited from gallivanting any of his lady-friends around his children, at least until he’s married…as if that’s going to result in them leading normal lives.

Elin is rumored to be getting full physical custody of the kids, while she and Tiger will have joint legal custody. This would mean she cannot take the children to live with her in Sweden as some rumors have reported.

It’s incredibly hard though to feel bad for Tiger Woods considering his unreal ability to hit a golf ball, his massive bank account, and beautiful Swedish wife, right?

Well, not-quite-as-massive bank account, and former-beautiful-Swedish-wife, now.

Posted in Adultery, Celebrity Divorce, Divorce, Parental Rights | Leave a Comment »

Is Honesty Really the Best Policy with Your Family?

June 28, 2010 by jkirshner

Everyone lies a little (except lawyers, of course, all of whom hold themselves to the highest ethical standards). But could being honest with family members actually benefit you in court one day? An appeals panel in Albany said yes in a 3-2 ruling earlier this month. The panel decided that an extended family can be considered a “community” for the purpose of introducing evidence of a witness’ reputation for truthfulness in a criminal trial, according to the New York Law Journal.

This means a new trial for Marcos A. Fernandez in People v. Fernandez, 102633. Fernandez was accused of raping his eight-year-old niece when he was 17, but a jury acquitted him on the rape charge and convicted him of sexual abuse after the judge refused to admit reputation testimony from his adoptive parents related to their grandniece’s reputation for truthfulness. Such testimony is crucial since this case hinges upon the girl’s testimony.

The reputation testimony rule states that character testimony concerning a key witness’ reputation for truthfulness in a community may be admitted if the community is large enough to permit the witness to have been observed by enough people to provide a reasonable assurance of reliability.

The defendant’s attorney argues that the concept of “community” is “very elastic” in regard to accepting reputation testimony in New York, citing one New York judge who found that a bartender was able to testify to the truthfulness of a witness who frequented his neighborhood bar. The prosecution, however, is arguing that this ruling “threatens to open the floodgates to biased reputation testimony from family members.”

While this question of whether one’s extended family may qualify as a “community” from which reputation testimony could be admitted is one of first impression in New York, one thing is for certain: lying to your family can come back to bite you.

Posted in Sexual Abuse | Leave a Comment »

NY Sports Stars Cheat on Their Wives…So What?

June 25, 2010 by jkirshner

Believe it or not, Tiger Woods isn’t the only athlete who is unfaithful to his wife.  Two of New York’s biggest sports stars, one current and one former, have been donning the back pages of newspapers this week, and like Tiger, it hasn’t been for their freakishly superior athletic prowess.

A TMZ report surfaced on Wednesday that New York Mets’ Ace pitcher Johan Santana was accused of sexual battery in Florida last October for allegedly raping a woman on a golf course. DNA evidence proved that intercourse took place, and Santana apparently admitted to having consensual sex, however, according to a Sheriff’s Document, “There was not enough evidence to prove lack of consent, the alleged victim’s statement is not consistent with other witnesses.” The case was closed out on December 8, 2009.

Sports stars committing acts of infidelity certainly isn’t a novel occurrence, but it does lead to some interesting issues regarding divorce in the state of New York. In order to get divorced in NY, a couple must satisfy both grounds and residency requirements. There are five ways to satisfy residency, and in Santana’s case, it would suffice that he and his wife live together in NY and at least one of them is a NY resident at the time the action would be commenced, living in NY continuously for one year prior to the action. Remember, this is purely speculative and hypothetical; there is no indication anywhere that Santana’s wife is seeking or will seek a divorce.

As for grounds, Santana is an admitted adulterer. It is not enough for the spouse at fault to just admit unfaithfulness though; in order for a court to grant a divorce, it requires corroborating evidence from a third party. Here, such evidence appears to exist with Santana’s accuser in Florida.

In addition to the civil implications of cheating on your spouse, adultery is also a criminal offense in NY. Although the government has not prosecuted this offense in an extremely long time, it remains a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The other star athlete facing accusations of sexual misconduct this week is Hall of Famer and former New York Giant, Lawrence Taylor. Taylor was indicted Wednesday by a Rockland County grand jury on charges of third-degree rape and patronizing a prostitute.

Taylor married his third wife, Lynette Gordon, in July 2007, but unlike Santana, Taylor has denied having intercourse with his accuser.

** Neither Taylor’s nor Santana’s wife has publicly indicated any desire to seek a divorce based on their husbands’ alleged acts of infidelity, and this post is purely intended to examine potential legal issues surrounding adultery in NY in general.

If you or someone you know is considering getting divorced, contact The Mandel Law Firm today for a free consultation to review your options.

Posted in Adultery, Divorce, Grounds | Tagged | Leave a Comment »

Bad-Mouthing Your Baby’s Daddy Could Land You in Jail

June 24, 2010 by jkirshner

While many New Yorkers look forward to summer-weekends at the beach, a Long Island mother of two is awaiting an appeal of her six weekend jail sentence handed down last month for alienating her children from her ex-husband.  Lauren R. was sentenced to serve every other weekend in jail this summer, from 6:00 pm Friday night until 6:00 pm Sunday night, beginning on June 11th.

A Nassau County Supreme Court Justice determined last month that Lauren R. willfully violated the Stipulation of Settlement between her and her ex-husband by deliberately alienating her two elementary school-age children from their father.

So what did she do or say about her ex that landed her in jail?  Here are some of the highlights from the judge’s eight-page decision:

  1. Ms R. prevented Mr. R from seeing his daughters for six weeks.
  2. Ms R. would routinely schedule theater outings and other fun activities for her kids during their father’s visitation times, leaving him no choice but to consent to missed visits or to risk upsetting his daughters.
  3. Ms R. made false accusations that Mr. R. sexually abused one of their children, “needlessly subjecting the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child.”

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child are paramount. This case is a reminder to keep whatever anger and bitterness exists between you and your Ex exactly that way: between you and your ex. Don’t put the kids in the middle of it; it could land you in jail.

Posted in Child Alienation, Divorce | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »