Truyện Ma Có Thật Lời nói đầu tiên gửi đến các bạn . Đây là trang web truyện ma có thật được sưu tầm từ nhiều nguồn trên mạng . Tại TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn có thể Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma cực kỳ rùng rợn. Được những nhân chứng sống kẻ lại mang đậm tính ma quái Việt Nam. buc anh ky quai 2 Truyen ma Co That Ma là một khái niệm trừu tượng, một phần phi vật chất của một người đã chết (hay hiếm hơn là một động vật đã chết). Theo quan niệm của một số tôn giáo và nền văn hóa, con người gồm thể xác (mang tính vật chất) và linh hồn (mang tính phi vật chất). Khi thể xác chết, linh hồn xuất khỏi thể xác. Nếu linh hồn đó không có cơ hội đầu thai hoặc nơi trú ngụ chung với các linh hồn khác mà tương tác với cõi thực có con người sẽ gọi là “ma”, “hồn ma”, “quỷ”; nhưng nếu các phần phi vật chất đó tương tác với cõi thực của con người theo tình cảm, theo trách nhiệm được giao của các tôn giáo thì lại gọi là “hồn”, “linh hồn”, “thánh”, “thần”, “thiên sứ” . Và khi Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma của TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn nhớ là nó chỉ mang tính chất giải trí thôi nhé các bạn đừng nên tín quá nhiều cũng như cố gắng tìm mọi cách để nhìn thấy ma nhé thật không tốt chút nào ??? . Chúc các bạn có những phút giây giải trí thật sử thoải mái cùng với TruyenMaCoThat.Net Truyen Ma Co That – Doc Truyen Ma Co That – Nghe Truyen Ma Co That miễn phí tại TruyenMaCoThat.net truyen ma nguyen ngoc ngan truyen ma kinh di mystoningtongarden.com

COHABITATION AND SECOND MARRIAGES – NEW STUDY SHEDS LIGHT ON RISKS AND REWARDS

 

Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported on a new study by sociologists Wendy Manning and Jessica Cohen  concerning the relationship between cohabitation prior to marriage and the risk of divorce down the road.

As it turns out, the divorce rates among couples who did cohabit and those who did not are fairly equal.

While the authors of the study looked at factors such as gender, and level of committment — whether or not the couple planned to marry from the start — nothing in the report suggests that the authors considered whether the cohabitation took place before a first marriage or a second or subsequent marriage.

In Connecticut and many other states, the decision to cohabit before a second marriage carries an added risk — the prospect of losing alimony whether or not the new relationship works out.

In most cases, alimony terminates on the remarriage of the recipient. Under the so-called Connecticut cohabitation statute,  things are not so clear-cut.

The Connecticut cohabitation statute uses peculiar language.  Most importantly, it does not include the word ‘cohabit’.  Instead it allows a court to suspend, reduce or terminate alimony if it finds that the recipient is living with another person under circumstances that alter his or her financial needs.

While the language is broad enough to include roommates, relatives, and even long-term guests, the courts have generally interpreted the statute to be focused on couples living together without the benefit of marriage.

As broad as the language of the cohabitation statute is,  cohabitation can be tricky to prove especially when the couple  separates in reaction to a motion by an ex-spouse to terminate alimony.

Still, the cost of cohabitation for anyone receiving alimony can be loss of a stream of income that might otherwise have continued for years.  While courts have the option to suspend or reduce alimony on a finding of cohabitation,  termination is far more common.  Once alimony has been terminated, it cannot be reinstated.

So if the Manning/Cohen study tells us that cohabitation prior to marriage doesn’t reduce the incidence of divorce,  at least for second-timers whose existing alimony is at risk, it might be wise to test a new relationship from a safe distance.

Advertisements

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES IN DIVORCE COURT – HOW NOT TO COMPOUND MISTAKES MADE DURING MARRIAGE

A recent decision of  the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case of Felicia Pierot Brody vs. Cary Brody illustrates what can happen when the focus of a divorce case shifts from the issues in the marriage to the credibility, or lack thereof, of one of the parties to the case.  In the Brody case, one thing that happened was that a lot of personal information became public – e.g., the husband’s awkward excuse for stashing condoms in his travel bag.  Another consequence: Brody was ordered to pay $2.5 million in lump sum alimony even though his prenuptial agreement was meant to prevent that and even though the court  was unable to ascertain his income.  The trial took place in 2010. Recently the Appellate Court has ruled against Brody on all six issues he raised in his appeal.

For all most of us know, Mr. Brody might have told the truth from start to finish. However, the judge found him not to be credible which, as the finder of fact in a civil case, she was privileged to do.

Any judge will tell you that the best way to appear to be truthful is simply to tell the truth.  Still, any divorce lawyer who’s practiced as long as I  have, has encountered more than one client who is shocked to learn that their lawyer expects them to be honest.

What kind of  lawyer wouldn’t help you hide your assets, understate your income or cover up your extramarital affairs?  The answer:  any good one.  Yet, despite our best efforts, there are plenty of folks who remain unconvinced that honesty is the best policy even when the truth isn’t pretty.

The fact is, there isn’t much that happens in a marriage that the judge hasn’t heard before.  Also, there can be two very different sides to every story even when the story is told by honest people.  Your secret spending or infidelity might have led to enormous drama in your household, but in divorce court, might barely cause a ripple.  Unless, that is, you  deny the deed and the judge isn’t buying it.

Brody was not a divorce between members of the 99% although the basic issues were fairly universal. There was an issue of   irresponsible spending — in this case  buying  one too many Ferrari automobiles , a  wine cellar, and an airplane.  There was an issue of suspected infidelity with no proof other than a few unused condoms.  There was a business purportedly in decline — in this case the Defendant’s hedge fund.  There were some  “he-said-she-said” claims of verbal abuse.  All matters divorce judges deal with day in and day out.

No case in Connecticut goes to trial without first going through at least one formal attempt at settlement usually with the assistance of a judge or court-appointed Special Master.   Most cases settle before trial.  Of the small percentage that do not, only a handful are appealed and those few find little success in overturning the decision of the trial judge.

In this case, the Defendant raised a number of issues that might have served him well during settlement  negotiations.  His business really had been embroiled in litigation with the SEC, for example,  and the prenuptial agreement arguably  offered him protection from a lump sum alimony award that would have to be funded by liquidating personal assets.

At trial, however, the judge found him not to be a credible witness.  For one thing, he had admitted testifying falsely under oath in an earlier divorce proceeding that his wife had commenced but later dropped.  Back then he had denied removing his wife’s jewelery from a safe, but had later come clean.   Added to that was the finding that the Defendant had stonewalled during the discovery phase of the trial  pretending that certain documents sought by the Plaintiff didn’t exist.  With those two strikes against him,  the case was pretty much over.  The Plaintiff, whose  personal net worth at the time of the marriage had been 29 million, and whose dividend income from her separate property was approximately $100,000 annually was awarded alimony and, tacitly, the designation of honest litigant.


NEW REPORT SAYS 79% OF SEPARATIONS END IN DIVORCE — CAN POST-MARITAL AGREEMENTS EASE THE PAIN?

According to a recent article published in USA Today,  a study of over 7000 individuals conducted by researchers at the Ohio State University found that 79% of marital separations end in divorce.

The study found that the average length of separations that resulted in reconciliation was two years, while the average of those ending in divorce was three years. Surprisingly, the chances of reconciliation virtually disappeared among this group beyond the three-year mark.   While many couples who  lived apart for three or more years eventually divorced, others simply continued the separation indefinitely.

The study found that women with children under 5 years old were more likely to separate from their husbands rather than to divorce immediately.

All of this means that a great number of couples either delay or forego altogether the protection of laws designed to shield them financially in the event their marriage comes apart.  These include laws governing the division of marital assets  as well as laws regarding spousal and child support.

In  a relatively new trend, some couples seriously contemplating trial separation begin the experiment by  negotiating  a formal  post-marital agreement that sets out their respective financial obligations while still legally married  and also in the event of an eventual divorce.   In this way, they are able to enter into a trial separation — or in some cases even continue living under the same roof — with the security of an agreed-upon set of rules.  This provides each of them with a degree of certainty about their financial future that would not otherwise  be possible absent divorce litigation.  With financial issues resolved, they are better able to understand the choices they face and to focus on other issues in their relationship.

Just like prenuptial agreements, post-marital agreements must meet certain standards in order to be enforceable.  These standards are governed by the laws of individual states, but certain features are universal.  First, they must be accompanied by full mutual disclosure of financial information.  Second, they must be entered into voluntarily and both parties must have had at least  the opportunity to have the agreement reviewed by independent counsel.   All courts reserve the right to review  both prenuptial agreements and post-marital agreements for fairness, but, provided there are no egregious flaws in the contract, courts generally support and enforce them as a matter of public policy.

Impending separation is not the only reason to consider a post-marital agreement.  Events such as the birth of a child, a return to school,  or the launch of a business can be good reason for couples to consider adding a post-marital agreement to their financial plan.


ALMOST DONE WITH ALIMONY? NOT SO FAST

In an opinion scheduled to be officially released on May 29th, 2012,  the Connecticut Appellate Court  has confirmed  the notion that even  time-limited  alimony can be extended unless the decree of dissolution  specifically says it can’t.

In 2001, Faith Whitehead was awarded alimony in the amount of $1500 per month that was to terminate the earlier of her remarriage, cohabitation, death, or her 60th birthday.  In 2010 when she was about to turn 60, Ms Pite went back to court asking for an extension of the term beyond her 60th birthday.   The reason?  Her her interest in her ex-husband’s retirement — something awarded to her in original decree– had shrunk with the economy.  This meant that her income from that source would no longer be what she originally hoped it would be.

While the trial court did reduce the amount she would receive each month,  it nevertheless extended the term alimony indefinitely.  The court  said it did this in order to effectuate the original intent of the judgement.  Otherwise, according to the court, Ms Pite would need to invade her assets in order to maintain her lifestyle, while her husband would not.  The court noted, also, that Ms. Pite had not obtained full-time employment which was also part of the original plan.

At the same time Ms. Pite moved to extend her alimony, Mr. Pite sought to terminate his child support on the grounds  he had been paying  $46,000 in annual tuition for his child at a private boarding school in addition to paying $26,000 in court-ordered child support directly to Ms. Pite.  The court did grant a small reduction in periodic child support but refused to terminate the order saying that the decision to send the child to boarding school had been voluntary and in the nature of a gift.

While the trial court did reduce the child support order, the reduction fell far short of offsetting the extra $46,000 Mr. Pite was reportedly paying in tuition.

As it so often does, the Appellate Court cited the very broad discretion enjoyed by trial judges in family matters and, by contrast, the limited scope of review afforded to the appellate court. On appeal, it is never enough that one or more of the appellate judges would have decided a case differently.  Instead, in order to alter the results, the reviewing court must find either that the lower court did not correctly apply the law or that the court could not reasonably have concluded as it did.

The take-away lesson –especially for the vast majority of  individuals who settle their cases short of trial — is this:  It is not enough to say when alimony will end.  Instead, your agreement, which will eventually become part of a court order, must also state in clear and unambiguous language that the term of alimony is to be non-modifiable.  Otherwise it may someday be up to an individual judge to decide what  you really meant when you scheduled a date for the final alimony check to change hands.

As always, we welcome your comments.

 


DOES CONNECTICUT NEED TO REFORM ITS ALIMONY LAWS?

According to a recent article in USA today,  Connecticut groups have joined  a growing movement  to revamp alimony statutes that some consider out-dated and punitive toward the payors of alimony.

Advocacy groups, such as New Jersey Alimony Reform, cite anecdotal  reports of onerous orders under which individuals have been forced to pay lifetime alimony despite job loss, failing health, or improvements in the financial circumstances of the recipient.

Reform proponents want, above all, to limit the duration and to cap the amounts of alimony  by creating formulas tied to the income of the parties and the length of the marriage.

Opponents  argue that strict formulas are likely to cause more injustice than they cure especially since judges already consider a range of equitable factors when fashioning alimony orders and need to be able to tailor awards to the needs and circumstances of each family.

In September of 2011, Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, signed into law a new act that provides, among other things, specific term limits for alimony.  The Massachusetts law also limits the amount of alimony to  no more than 30% to 35% of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes at the time the order is issued.  Under the statute alimony can be set below these caps especially if the recipient does not establish sufficient need. The new Massachusetts statute also allows the court to terminate, suspend or modify alimony upon a finding that a recipient is cohabiting with another adult — action that has long been permitted under Connecticut law  in any case.

In contrast, rather than capping alimony awards,  the Connecticut alimony statute  mandates a case-by-case analysis of the issue based on a long list of factors including  the length of the marriage or civil union, the causes of the breakdown, the age, health, and occupation of the parties, as well as their respective skills and earning capacities.  This allows the court to project how the parties are likely to fare in the future, relative to one another, depending on the amount of alimony ordered.

In Connecticut, the group at the vanguard of the movement for alimony reform maintains a web site that is surprisingly non-specific about the ways in which members consider the existing Connecticut statutes to be defective. Instead, the group invites members to post so-called  “horror stories” about their own cases.

To the extent that reform groups suggest that non-modifiable lifetime alimony is the norm, at least in Connecticut, they are misleading potential recruits.

Because Connecticut law generally allows for modification of alimony when the financial circumstances of the parties have changed, an agreement or order to the contrary must specifically preclude modification.  While non-modifiable alimony orders are not altogether uncommon, they are most often the product of negotiations between the parties through which the recipient of alimony accepts a lower amount in exchange for a promise that the alimony will continue for a specified period of time.

According to the USA Today article, a bill concerning alimony reform is likely to be presented to the Connecticut General Assembly this year.

Because the issues are not simple, any effort at reform must be carefully considered.  New legislation, if it is to bring positive change, should be thoughtfully drafted in a way that allows courts to address the legitimate concerns of both parties.  Any reforms designed to protect the interests of one group without also safeguarding the rights of another will not satisfy that requirement, nor will changes that merely bring uniformity into the process without balancing the need for certainty with the overriding goal of treating all parties fairly.

As always, we welcome your comments.