Collin County Lawyer Appointed Divorce Judge

Collin County Lawyer Scott Becker, who ran successfully for the 219th District Court judgeship, has been appointed to start his term early.  He will take the bench on October 5, 2010, as a Perry appointee and will serve until his elected term begins in January.  The 219th Court is a general jurisdiction court, which means it hears divorce and family law matters, but it also hears criminal and civil cases. Mr. Becker is an assistant district attorney in the Collin County District Attorney’s Office. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas, Collin County Bar Association and Collin County Young Lawyers Association. Becker received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas and a law degree from Southern Methodist University School of Law.

Judge Curt Henderson has been the judge of that court for 22 years and is a widely respected and trusted jurist. 

Hire the Right Attorney for Your Dallas Divorce

Client Testimonial Tuesday: 

Divorces are very difficult and painful. Don't make matters worse by hiring the wrong attorney. My "donkey was in a ditch" and Michelle May O'Neil not only got me out, but put me back on track to obtain my desired results. She is well respected in her field, very knowledgeable , and will fight for your rights. If you want things done right, do them right the first time, have Michelle May O'neil represent you.

A.Y.

New Law Puts Credit Card Debt Before Single Moms

In July, Congress approved the overhaul of financial regulations protecting borrowers against abuses in credit card, mortgage, and other types of lending. However, the new law failed to reform a 2005 bankruptcy law that hurts single mothers and benefits the credit card industry. This law makes it easier for delinquent dads to avoid paying child support and alimony.

Until 2005, bankruptcy wiped out credit card debts while leaving child support and alimony obligations intact. This helped women because their ex-husbands had more funds available to fulfill their support obligations after bankruptcy. Now the credit card debts can't be discharged, so women find themselves competing with Visa and MasterCard for a share of their ex-husband's paychecks. And, women don't have the sophisticated collection departments credit card companies do.

The bankruptcy law provides a means test to determine how much income a debtor has available to pay creditors after they pay their basic living expenses. People who earn more than the median income in their states and can pay their creditors at least $6,000 spread out over 5 years are put in Chapter 13 bankruptcy rather than the traditional Chapter 7 category. Chapter 7 allows full discharge of all debts. On the other hand, Chapter 13 requires debtors to pay a portion of their credit card balances, medical bills, and other debts for 3-5 years.

The result is that divorced women are getting hit two ways by the new law -- by the new hurdles it places in the way of collecting their child support payments and by their own exposure to the provisions that make it harder to completely discharge their debts.

Special hat tip to Scott David Stewart for the lead on this important issue.

Even Non-Primary Custody Prevents International Kidnapping

Case Law Friday -- US Supreme Court interprets child custody order in terms of international kidnapping:

The United State Supreme Court has held that an order prohibiting a parent from taking a child out of the country without the other parent's consent is enforceable under international child abduction laws.

In Abbott v. Abbott, the parents divorced in Chile where the mother was granted custody of the son and the father had visitation rights. The Chilean court granted the mother a ne exeat order which prohibited either parent from removing the child from Chile without the agreement of the other parent. The mother then moved from Chile to the United States. When the father located the mother and child in Texas, the father moved to enforce the ne exeat order.

The United States Supreme Court held that the Chilean order conferred a right of custody on the noncustodial father under the international laws pertaining to child abduction (Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction), permitting enforcement by the father to compel return of the child to Chile.  The Court compared the custody order to that of "joint custody".

Moreover, the Court explained, the only remedy for the violation of a ne exeat right is an order of return. Any other result, it emphasized, would “render the Convention meaningless in many cases where it is most needed.” In the Court ‘s eyes, its conclusion was further bolstered by the persuasive views of the State Department “that ne exeat rights are rights of custody” – which, the Court continued, are significant under the longstanding rule “that the Executive Branch’s interpretation of a treaty ‘is entitled to great weight.’”

Despite this ruling, the United States Supreme Court did not order the child automatically returned. Instead, the Court remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether any of the exceptions to return would apply. For example, the international child abduction laws provide exceptions for return based on a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child.

Hat tip to SCOTUS Wiki for their analysis of the Abbott opinion.

Read the full opinion in Abbott or read the transcript of the Abbott oral arguments.

 

 

Dallas Family Lawyer Will Fight For You!

Client Testimonial Tuesday:

Client says Michelle May O'Neil is a Dallas Family Law Attorney who cannot be intimidated!

A lot of people say "they saved my life" but this is a true statement in regards to Ms. O'Neil. Thanks to her and her firm, my daughter is now enjoying college. She handled my case from the Texas Supreme Court (which we won) back to the District Court where we won again. She can't be intimidated by opposing counsel, she didn't back down. You can count on her and the firm to stand by you no matter what, she will fight for you.

Yvette Dobbins

Our Choice for Dallas Family Law Attorney

Client Testimonial Tuesday:

“I hired Michelle May O'Neil to represent our daughter in a custody/divorce suit in Dallas Texas. We had our choice of Dallas family law attorneys. Michelle's "leave no stone unturned" approach was all we needed. We won  full custody and we are grateful for a job that was done as it should have been done. INCREDIBLE results." 

Tom Ermish

Why do we have to value my business to get divorced?

Frequently clients ask about their Dallas Texas divorce why we have to get a forensic CPA expert to value their closely-held business to get them divorced.

In Texas, there are three parts to dividing property in a divorce:

  1. Characterization -- is the asset community property (property obtained during the marriage) or separate property (property owned before the marriage or through gift or inheritance)
  2. Valuation -- assessing the value or net worth of each asset to assist in determining what is a fair division of property
  3. Division -- the physical aspects of sorting assets to each party

In order to dispense a "just and right division" of community property in a Texas divorce, the judge has to know how much each asset is worth.  In other words, until each asset has a dollar value, neither the judge nor the parties can know whether the division awards 50% of the assets to each party or some other figure. 

In a divorce with a business interest, the first step is to decide whether the business entity is community property.  This can be more complicated than just whether the business was started during the marriage.  Important questions include what was the source of funds used to start the business, did the business change formations during the marriage, and whether any community funds were put into the business during the marriage if the business was started before the marriage.  Also, consider whether the customers of the business come to the business due to the reputation of the business or the reputation of the spouse/owner.

Then the business must be valued according to appropriate principles to be used during a divorce.   In the market valuation approach, the CPA estimates your business’s value by comparing it to a similar business that has been sold recently. The income approach estimates the value of the business by converting profits or cash flows into value. The asset approach estimates the value based on the values of the assets and liabilities of the business. Note: the "book value" of a business, which is the assets minus the liabilities on the balance sheet, is not a valuation method used by professional business valuators.

Not just any CPA is qualified to conduct a business valuation in a Texas divorce.  The expert should be certified by the American Institute of CPAs in Business Valuations.  The letters after the CPA's name should read "ABV".  This accreditaion assures the divorcing spouse that the CPA has a minimum level of expertise in the relevant principles of valuation. If an expert is under-qualified to give an opinion on valuation of a business, the expert may not be allowed to testify at trial.

Every Dog Has Its Day -- In Divorce Court

Case Law Friday:

The Austin Texas Court of Appeals clarified the law related to possession of pooches after a divorce in case of Calder v. Calder. The question was who had the right to the dog after the divorce. The dog was bought before the marriage, but by who, asked the Chief Austin Appellate Judge “Woodie” Jones?

Wife Brooke  emailed with the dog owner about buying the dog, Chihuahua Clementine, and negotiated the purchase price of $500. Husband Daniel admitted there was never any question that the dog was being purchased by Wife Brookee and for  Wife Brooke. Wife Brooke routinely gave Husband Daniel her paychecks to be deposited in Husband Daniel’s bank account and Husband Daniel gave her money when she needed it. Wife Brooke gave Husband Daniel money a few days before Chihuahua Clementine was purchased totaling $948. Around the same time, he withdrew $600 in cash, paying $400 of it to the dog owner. The Austin Court reviewed the law that puppies are items of property in Texas. Because the funds used to purchase Chihuahua Clementine were Wife Brooke’s money before the marriage, the dog belongs to her.

Separate property in Texas is that which was owned before the date of the marriage, or received during the marriage through gift or inheritance.

When asked how much money the husband spent appealing the issues regarding ownership of the dog, the husband’s attorney replied, “Too much.”  Um... No kidding.

My grandmother always said, "You know the best way to get over losing a puppy? Get a new puppy!" Of course, she meant that in the context of dating advice, not actually puppies, but still….

See the full opinion in Calder v. Calder.