CHICAGO, April 21 /PRNewswire/ — An overwhelming 79% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys reported an increase in the frequency of Internet browser histories being used as evidence in divorce cases during the past five years, according to a recent survey of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) members. In addition, 44% of the respondents also cited a noticeable increase in evidence taken from Spyware programs.
“Many spouses will use the Internet in order to act anonymously, but in many ways it’s the most public thing someone can do,” said James Hennenhoefer, president of the AAML. “Internet activity can provide valuable glimpses into the kinds of hidden activities that a husband or wife might be trying to conceal and Spyware programs can help to make this kind of monitoring extremely easy to conduct.”
Link
Have you ever wondered why a divorce case takes so long? How often have you heard the term “continuance”? The reality is that too many divorce cases take way too long to complete. The reasons are many. The most common reasons are as follows:
1) Attorneys who are paid by the hour have no incentive to resolve cases quickly;
2) One or both of the parties are too angry and too unwilling to be reasonable;
3) The court system is overcrowded with cases and the judges are unwilling to force quick trial dates;
4) Custody may be an issue which sets off additional procedures, court dates and delays;
5) The parties’ assets many be substantial to the point where significant discovery and evaluations have to take place.
Absent the above reasons, a divorce case should never exceed more than six months. I believe that if parties were reasonable, a case could be settled in a conference after forty-five to ninety minutes. The above example assumes that the parties are well counseled by attorneys who are experienced in settling cases. Attorneys who practice divorce and family law know the range of decisions that occur in their courtrooms from the divorce judges. If counsel can successfully translate that information to their client, the matter can be resolved. Realistic expectations are the key to settling cases. If a client wrongfully believes that he or she is entitled to more than what the court would allow, the case can stall. Knowledge of the law and the ability to translate that to a client is the true art form.
See Also: Divorce New York
Although the general rule is there is no statutory or case authority to temporarily abate a portion of a support order that the supporting parent is without present means to pay, there are limits to that general rule; if a payor of child support sacrifices $10,000 of income this year in exchange for receiving $20,000 of income in future years, the court should not allow him to impose the burden of child support on the custodian based on his current sacrifice and ignore his future benefit (which may not be reachable for child support at the time it is received). The rejection of abatement is no longer applicable to situations which, by their very nature, are inherently temporary. In re Horn.
The fact that the child’s custodial parent received public assistance was no reason to deprive the child of support from the noncustodial parent who certainly had the financial ability to meet the payments. People ex rel. Stokely v. Goodenow.
For a case discussing valuation methodology used in assessing business assets to determine a parent’s ability to make court ordered child support payments. In re Perlmutter.
Wife had monthly expenses of $875 a month and an assured income of $527 a month which evinced an inability by her to properly care for the children without additional support while the children were in her custody. In re Pitts.
750 ILCS 5/413(a) and 750 ILCS 5/504(c) do not create a substantive right to post-death maintenance pending appeal; they apply when a right to maintenance already exists and therefore, must be read in conjunction with the prohibition of subsection (c) of this section. Stacke v. Bates
___Reduction
Where respondent presented evidence that his income had decreased by 70%, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing petitioner’s temporary maintenance by approximately 66%. In re Borg
The petitioner sought modification of a divorce decree to compel her ex-spouse to support the parties’ mentally disabled child after that child had attained the age of majority; her petition adequately asserted a “change in circumstances” based on the child’s continuing handicap after attaining majority;
Interestingly, it was not necessary to plead a “change in circumstances” under this section of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act since there may be a substantive obligation to support to a mentally disabled child in 750 ILCS 5/513. This fact is unrelated to the terms of any prior divorce decree. In re Winters
Thus, a special needs child may remain dependent upon the obligor for support beyond the age of majority in Illinois.
Property rights created by a judgment of dissolution become vested when the judgment is final, and a trial court lacks general jurisdiction to modify an order affecting these rights. In re Hubbard
Where modification of decree of dissolution is an agreed order, not contrary to public policy and not shown to have resulted from fraud or coercion, respondent can challenge it on appeal only if the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to enter it. In re Steel
The same factors considered under 750 ILCS 5/504(b)(2) in making an initial award of maintenance are used in determining whether and to what degree a maintenance award shall be modified under subsection (a) of this section. Rice v. Rice
If a source of income, no matter how certain the probability it will continue, should cease, this matter then becomes an appropriate fact to support a petition to modify an order of maintenance. In re Mittra
In determining whether and to what degree a maintenance award shall be modified, the circuit court is to consider the same factors to be assessed in making the initial award. In re Chalkley
Section 510(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/510(a), imposes conditions for modifying an order of support and, on its face, makes no exception for extending the period during which the parent must pay support; there was no change in circumstances within the meaning of 750 ILCS 5/510(a)(1) in a child’s eighteenth birthday coming birthday coming before his graduation from high school where the parties must have know, from the child’s birth date, that he would reach the age of majority before graduating from high school. Waller v. Waller
Minor child was not emancipated prior to her reaching age 18 where she earned approximately $41 per week from her part-time job, she did not seek to be financially independent and she had not abandoned her mother’s home despite the fact that she quit school against her father’s wishes. In re Donahoe
The modification of a divorce decree was not arbitrary or capricious where the reduction of child support payments was justified by the substantial change in circumstances consisting of the fact that two of the plaintiff’s children had reached majority and ceased to be under plaintiff’s care and custody. Thomas v. Thomas
Where by stipulation at the time of divorce, a former husband agreed to pay child support only during the minority of his children, appellant’s legal obligation to support his daughter ceased on her eighteenth birthday. Stecher v. Stecher
See Also: Divorce Lawyers New York
Leveling the playing field is an effort to allocate the cost of attorney’s fees among the parties. For example, in the case of a husband who is the breadwinner, and the wife as a homemaker who has no income, there is a great disparity in the income of the parties. The Legislature thought that the husband in this particular case, had an unfair advantage over the wife in terms of receiving counsel. What the legislature did, is provide a means for the wife to petition the court, to have her attorneys fees or a portion of her attorneys fees paid by her spouse. The significant factor here is the incredible difference in income between the parties. Prior to the leveling the playing field law, the wife in this particular case would be at an extreme disadvantage in terms of hiring and keeping counsel on her case. In determining what is fair, the court will look at the entire financial package of the parties when determining whether they should make an order for one spouse to contribute or pay all the attorneys fees of the other spouse.
Link
One can file a separate action for an order of protection and then file an action for divorce. The order of protection case can be heard in one courthouse and the dissolution action can be heard in another courthouse. For example, an individual can file an order of protection in Rolling Meadows and follow that action with a petition for dissolution in the Daley Center.
Divorce Videos