The Gilmer Law Firm, PLLC
Friday, September 13, 2013
So the joint business is thriving, but the marriage? Not so much.
Our Brooklyn uncontested divorce lawyers know that just because one element of your relationship has proven impossible to maintain doesn't mean you have to scrap all of it.
If you have a business with your soon-to-be-ex, it's important that each of you carefully weigh whether this is something that you can both handle. Realize that it's going to be a learning curve that will include developing new ways of relating to one another. But it's by no means impossible.
Think of it like this: Many people who divorce with children go on to continue providing stability and love in the form of cooperative, effective co-parenting that often requires day-to-day interaction. It can in some ways be the same with business.
However, just as you wouldn't leave custody arrangements and support payments to chance, neither do you want to enter into this new phase of your business relationship without careful legal review that will help you draw clear boundaries and contingencies.
An example of making it work was recently given by Bloomberg: The co-owners of a Boston bakery had grown their firm into a 30-employee, $2.5-million-a-yeear operation with four locations. Although it seems light years ago, the pair actually started as husband and wife, back in 1979. That union lasted just two years. The business, however, is now going on 35 years. It's a testament to what is possible.
Scenarios like this are more common than you think. Some 65 percent of all U.S. businesses are family-owned, with about half of those owned by husband-and-wife teams. When you consider that somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of all first marriages end in divorce, according to the National Center for Health Statistics - we begin to see that this type of situation is quite common.
While many spouse-owned firms may be sold or fold in the wake of a split, those aren't the only options. In some cases, the couple may decide that one will buy out the other and continue to run the enterprise while the other moves on.
And then increasingly, we are seeing cases where couples are choosing to continue working together as business partners. They may decide that while they can't get along at home, they have a good business model, a profitable operation and employees that rely on them. They may also not have the resources to buy one another out or they recognize they don't want to split the property.
These kinds of arrangements tend to require that couples quickly get on the same page. When a divorce is contested, it might easily fray the good will required to maintain the business. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be assertive in asking for what is rightfully yours, but having an attorney who can help you maintain the peace is going to be especially important in these cases. Having a joint financial stake in a thriving company can be a powerful incentive to keep working toward an amicable resolution. We are committed to helping you reach it.
If you are contemplating an uncontested divorce in Brooklyn call our offices at (718) 864-2011.
Divorced, but Still in Business Together, Feb. 26, 2013, By Karen E. Klein, Bloomberg Businessweek
More Blog Entries:
How Do I Get an Uncontested Divorce in Brooklyn? Oct. 31, 2011, Brooklyn Uncontested Divorce Lawyer Blog
Friday, September 6, 2013
On the surface, it may seem as if your New York City divorce has little in common with that of billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, aside perhaps from the court in which it is being handled.
He owns a media empire. You probably don't. You may be on your first or second divorce, while he's on his third. And it's likely that issues of custody, child support, alimony and asset division will be slightly more complex in his case than it is for yours.
However, there is probably much that is similar, as well as much you might be able to learn from this case. While your bank account may not boast the same balance, chances are you are likely to be faced with a lot of the same issues as Murdoch.
To begin with, there is the aspect of agreements, both prenuptial and postnuptial. There was a time when a scant few, like Murdoch, would ever be considering such an agreement. (It is said that the Murdochs had one prenuptial agreement and two postnuptial agreements.) However, we are finding today that more and more couples made this consideration before tying the knot.
For the most part in New York, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are routinely enforced, even if it appears one party got the short end of the stick. Still, there have been a rising number of cases wherein an agreement is successfully challenged on the basis of inadequate legal representation of one party at the time the agreement. In addition to fundamental unfairness, the older the document is, the tougher it might be to enforce. (That's why postnuptial agreements can be quite valuable.)
Another aspect of the Murdoch's divorce that you're likely to see crop up in your own is that of asset division. New York is an equitable distribution state. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that assets will be divided 50-50 or even 60-40.
Prior to the passage of equitable distribution laws, New York was a common law property state, meaning that property went to the spouse whose name appeared on the title. So if the house, the business and retirement accounts were in your name, they were yours. However, in equitable distribution, the court will divide marital property in a way that is deemed to be fair.
Generally, what the courts will consider are things like:
- The amount of each spouse's income and property at the time they married versus at the time they filed for divorce;
- The length of the marriage;
- The age and health of each spouse;
- The needs of the custodial parent, relative to the care of the children (i.e., home, furniture, vehicle, etc.);
- The potential losses of inheritance rights, health insurance pension and other benefits to each spouse;
- Alimony payments;
- Probable financial future of each spouse;
- Tax consequences to each spouse;
- Any wasteful dissipation of marital assets by either spouse.
Making a strong case for retention of each asset in a contested New York divorce is going to require the help of a strong legal advocate.
And lastly, there will be the issue of children. Typically, the younger the children, the more contentious this issue can become. In Murdoch's case, his twin girls with his third wife are now 7-years-old, the youngest of his six children, the others from previous marriages. Blended families being increasingly common these days, issues like child custody, child support and alimony often now have the added consideration of children from previous marriages.
In some ways, the more money one has, the easier such decisions can be as there is simply more to go around. Still, the spouse with less is going to want to make sure that their children are provided for and receive equal treatment relative to children from previous and potentially future marriages.
Here again, having an experienced New York City divorce lawyer will be key.
If you are contemplating a divorce in New York City, call our offices at (718) 864-2011.
From a Prominent Divorce in the Affluent Class, Lessons for All, Aug. 9, 2013, By Paul Sullivan, The New York Times
More Blog Entries:
Can I relocate with my children? Oct. 26, 2011, New York City Contested Divorce Lawyer Blog
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
My name is George M. Gilmer, Esq. I am a Custody and Visitation Attorney who represents parents in Family Court. My office is in Brooklyn Heights. I offer free phone consultations at 718-864-2011. I am an experienced Family Court Lawyer with an Law Office in New York City. I have successfully represented clients in Family Law matters for the past ten years and have made thousands of court appearance. I charge reasonable fees for my services and offer flexible payment plans.Read more . . .
Saturday, August 17, 2013
I am a New York City ACS Attorney that defends the rights of parents in New York City that have been accused of Abuse or Neglect by the Administration of Children’s Services (hereinafter referred as ACS). I have done so over the past ten years. I represent people in ACS Administrative proceedings (where court is not involved) and in Court. I am a privately retained counsel. This article describes the process in which a child can temporarily be removed from their home pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act. If you are currently being investigated by ACS and if you believe that there is a possibility that ACS will remove your child from your home, give me a call immediately, 24 hours a day, at 718 864 2011.Read more . . .
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The Law Office if George M. Gilmer, Esq. has been providing low cost Divorce solutions for his Clients for over ten years. His $399 divorce special (now Mr. Gilmer charges $499) has often been imitated but never duplciated. Give Mr. Gilmer a call if you have any questions about his services. Read more . . .
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
My name is George M. Gilmer, Esq. and I have my Law Office at 26 Court Street, Brooklyn. Is your bank account currently frozen? Do you have a legal judgment against you by default? Are your wages being garnished? Do you want to legally and legitimately clean your credit (known as “credit repair) because of an improperly obtained judgment? I am a Brooklyn Credit Repair Lawyer. My office is a Debt Relief Agency under Federal Law.Read more . . .
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
I am a Brooklyn, New York City Matrimonial Lawyer. 1-718-864-2011. A number of my LGBT clients currently in same sex relationships ask me this question, now that I can get married in New York, will I have equal protection under the law?Read more . . .
Monday, October 31, 2011
I am a Brooklyn, New York City based lawyer that provides low cost divorce solutions for those who are ellgible to file for divorce in New York State. My low fee from $499 plus filing fees for an uncontested no fault divorce is one of the lowest rates in the legal community. This is the true cheap fast divorce! Please contact me at 718 864 2011.Read more . . .
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
As a Custodial Parent can I relocate with my children out of state?
Imagine this scenario. You are living with your child, have very poor economic circumstances and are offered a job out of state. The parent of your child(ren) is a good one, he or she visits with them quite frequently and plays a big role. You want to move because of the opportunity that is offered to you and your family. What will the court do?
In Tropea v. Tropea, a New York decision, the Court decided that five factors must be determined before a person is granted that ability to relocate with their child.
REASON FOR THE MOVE
The Court will first look at the parent’s reasons for seeking the move. Let’s assume here that you have hired a lawyer. Your lawyer will argue that you have a new job and thus the move is necessary. The non-custodial parent’s lawyer will question whether the type of job (i.e. pay scale) you are moving to is one that cannot be obtained here in New York.
QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTODIAL AND NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS
Secondly the court will consider the quality of the relationship between the custodial and the non custodial parents. If there is a poor relationship between the parents and it appears that the custodial parent would not make an effort to maintain the relationship between the child (or alienate the child) and the non custodial parent after relocation, then the family court might may not allow the relocation. The attorney representing the non custodial parent would argue that the move would harm the child(ren) because parenting time with the child and the non custodial parent will decrease and in the custodial parent will not make best efforts to maintain your relationship with the child because of this poor relationship.
IMPACT THE MOVE WILL HAVE ON THE QUANTITYAND QUALITY OF FUTURE VISITS
Thirdly, the court would look at the impact of the move on the quantity and quality if the child’s future visits with the non custodial parent. Here the custodial parent’s attorney might advise his or her client to offer to the non custodial father expansive visitation rights during times (this mainly involves school age children) that the child is on vacation, i.e. winter, spring and summer breaks. The attorney for the non custodial parent might say that this type of arrangement might be harmful to the child because the visits need to be more frequent and consistent. I think that the court would agree with this opinion.
DEGREE TO WHICH THE CUSTODIAL PARENT’S AND CHILD’S LIFE WILL BE ENHANCED
Fourthly the court is also required to look at the degree to which the custodial parent’s and child’s life will be enhanced, economically, emotionally and educationally by the move. Here, let’s assume that there was domestic violence in the home that the custodial parent and the child witnessed, perpetrated by the non custodial parent, that the job would give the custodial parent a significant pay increase and that the family is moving to a better school district. Here the custodial parent’s attorney would argue that the move is justified because economically the family benefits from the pay increase, emotionally because they are away from an abusive household and educationally because they live in a better school district.
FEASIBILITY OF PRESERVING THE RELATIONSHIP
Finally the fifth and final factor is the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the custodial and non custodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements. Here let’s assume that the custodial parent moved wants to move from New York to Hawaii. Let’s also assume that the non- custodial parent works a minimum wage job and could hardly afford rent let alone plane tickets to Hawaii. Here, the non custodial parent’s attorney would agree that visitation between the child and he or she would be virtually impossible and thus it is very unfeasible that any suitable visitation arrangements can be made.
ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD
The attorney for the child represents the child and thus weighs in with the child’s opinion concerning the move. It is the attorney for the child’s job to consult and advise the child consistent with the child’s capacities and have thorough knowledge of the child’s circumstances. If child is able to be a knowing, voluntary and considered decision about relocation, then child’s lawyer is supposed to advocate for this position even if she does not agree with the child. If the child can’t make such a decision then the child’s lawyer can argue a position he or she believes is in the best interest of the child.
One final note. Relocation is a very complicated issue and courts do not look kindly on parents that just pick up and leave without either getting the other parent’s permission or court permission.
If you have any further questions about relocation, please contact me, George M. Gilmer, Esq. a Brooklyn, New York City Family Court attorney.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Many clients want to know how they can "win" their Family Court case. I often tell my clients that there are often on clear winners in these papers. Abraham Lincoln said "discsourage litigation, persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."
I am a firm believer that most cases can be settled so long as both sides have competant represenation that is familar with all of the issues involved in the case. Don't get me wrong, some case must go to trial, but I always encourage my clients to hear the other parent's fully before making a decision.
Some people are of the position that custody proceedings are corrosive to parents and toxic for chidren and that a custody case should not be tried.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Should I file for bankruptcy if my house was foreclosed on and there is a deficiency judgment against me in New York City? 1-718-864-2011
The answer to this question is maybe. The bank, even after a foreclosure sale occurs in New York State has to go through a certain procedure before obtaining a deficiency judgment against you. Thus it might be wise to wait it out and see if the bank is actually going to pursue the money owed to it after your home was sold.
If you were unable to pay your mortgage due to job loss, Wall Street fluctuations or rise in interest rates and a foreclosure action takes away your home then the bank may be able collect on a deficiency judgment against you.
A deficiency judgment is a money judgment against a borrower whose home at a mortgage foreclosure sale did not sell for enough to pay the underlying loan on the property. Thus if the total amount due on your mortgage is $300,000 but your house only sells for $150,000 then a lender can seek a judgment against you for $150,000.
To reiterate a Defendant in a foreclosure action, if found to be liable for payment on a debt secured by a mortgage, and this Defendant has appeared and be personally served with the Summons, the Court has the ability to enter a Judgment against this defendant on the debt remaining unsatisfied after a sale of the mortgaged property.
After the sale, the lender, within 90 days of the sale must make a motion to confirm the sale and simultaneously, after Notice of Motion is given to the purchaser or his or her attorney, may also make a motion in the action for leave to confirm a deficiency judgment. When this motion is heard, the court will determine the deficiency judgment amount by ascertaining the fair market value of the property and deducting the total mortgage amount owed plus the amount owing on all prior liens and encumbrances with interest, plus costs and disbursements of the action including the referee's fee and disbursements. If no motion for deficiency judgment is made in the above referenced time period, then the lender will be prevented from collecting on the judgment.
Furthermore there is a difference between a deficiency judgment and a short sale. A short sale occurs when the lender, after negotiation between the lender and the property owner, takes the property back from the property owner as full payment of the loan. Thus the loan is wiped out. In some cases the owner may get an additional cash payment from the bank as an incentive to close the deal.
If the lender has followed proper procdeduresand haqs obtained a deficiency judgment then it would be a good idea to file for a bankruptcy. If you file for bankruptcy the bank, unless the bank has a legal basis for objecting to the discharge and you do not have any assets in the property of the bankruptcy estate, wlll not be able to collect on the debt. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy will wipe out all of this debt and sihce the property has been sold, the debt is unsecured.
Please see my previous blogs on bankruptcy filings for more information.
If you have any further questions about deficiency judgments, bankruptcies or short sales, please contact me, George M. Gilmer, Esq., your Brooklyn, New York City Bankruptcy Lawyer for a free phone consultation.