Marriage

Court Battle Over $10,000-per-Month Alimony Payments as Ex-Wife Remarries in Church Ceremony

May 30, 2019 by Mike Nason Leave a Comment

Alimony, also known as spousal support, is one of the most controversial topics in many divorce cases. If a partner makes sacrifices to support the other person’s career or gives up their own career to raise children, they may be entitled to support after the termination of the marriage. However, a growing number of states have started to phase out long-term alimony, choosing instead to award alimony for a set period of time that gives the lower-earning spouse time to advance their education and get to a higher earning level. In the case of James Lueck and Karen Lueck, alimony was awarded for a period of 10 years.

The End of a 29-Year Marriage

After 29 years of marriage, James and Karen Lueck divorced in 2014. Their original divorce degree required James to pay his ex-wife $10,000 per month for a period of 10 years—unless she remarried. If Karen was to remarry, James could terminate his alimony payments.

In 2017, Karen Lueck had a religious ceremony with her partner. The pastor at First Congregational church in Traverse City united the couple in a religious marriage ceremony. There was no marriage license. Though Karen and her partner said vows and exchanged rings, they did not legalize the marriage.

James Lueck took issue with this. He called his ex-wife’s actions manipulative and fraudulent, claiming that she intentionally chose to avoid a legal ceremony to maintain alimony payments. He alleged that she was trying to present herself as married to the community. James took the dispute to court.

The Court’s Initial Decision

Initially, Judge Lisa Gorcyca agreed with James Lueck’s interpretation of his alimony obligations. She terminated alimony payments because Karen Lueck’s actions appeared “to defraud the court and circumvent the parties’ consent judgment of divorce.” James subsequently stopped making alimony payments to his ex-wife.

The Legal Definition of “Marriage”

This entire court battle comes down to one question: what is the legal definition of marriage? Karen Lueck clearly believed that only a legally-binding marriage could end her ex-husband’s alimony payments, while James Lueck and Judge Gorcyca felt that a religious ceremony met the court’s definition of “remarriage.” After Judge Gorcyca’s initial decision to end James Lueck’s alimony payments, Karen Lueck appealed the decision with the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Going Through Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined that Judge Gorcyca made an error in judgment when she decided that Karen Lueck’s religious ceremony met the legal definition of marriage. Per the Court of Appeals, the term “remarriage” is crystal-clear: it refers only to marriages in which the couple gets a marriage license as required by state law. They reinstated James Lueck’s alimony obligations. Assuming Karen Lueck does not legally remarry, alimony payments must now resume for the rest of the 10-year period following their divorce.

What This Means for Others Paying Alimony

Public opinion is divided over this case. Some believe that the decision illuminates the separation of church and state, since a religious ceremony does not meet the requirements for a legal marriage. Others feel that the decision is disrespectful to high-earning spouses who are forced to continue financially supporting their ex-partners long after divorce.

This decision is not a substantial deviation from previous court decisions regarding alimony. In essence, a religious ceremony that isn’t followed by a legal marriage certificate is the same as a long-term relationship that never progresses to marriage. While some alimony agreements allow for the termination of payments when the ex-spouse begins living with another partner, many specify that payments will only be terminated early if the other party remarries. This Michigan Court of Appeals decision simply reaffirms what has been clearly laid out in divorce judgments across the country.

Estate Planning for Same-Sex Couples

May 29, 2019 by Mike Nason Leave a Comment

The 2015 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the legality of same-sex marriage across the United States is still fairly recent in the country’s history, leaving many same-sex couples without the estate planning documents they need to protect themselves in the event of their partner’s death. It’s important for same-sex couples to set aside time to get familiar with the laws of their state and get the proper estate planning documents in order.

Legal Adoption Papers

One issue that may exist for some same-sex couples is the need for legal adoption papers. If couples use assisted reproductive technology, one partner may be the biological parent of a child. In some states, both parents immediately become the legal parents of a child when it is born. In others, the non-biological parent must go through additional steps to become the child’s legal guardian. Ensure that all of this paperwork is in order. If the biological parent of the child passes, their spouse may have an uphill battle trying to get custody of the child if they haven’t gone through the proper legal avenues—even if they’re the only other parent the child has ever known.

Healthcare Proxy and Power of Attorney

Ensure that you and your spouse have paperwork in place that allows you to make decisions for the other person—if that’s how you choose to set up your estate plan. In many states, the right to make healthcare decisions for your spouse, visit them in the hospital, and receive updates regarding their condition is automatic. However, discrimination still happens, and same-sex spouses may come up against intolerance while trying to exercise these rights. Make sure you have copies of essential documents on hand. Doing so can save precious minutes when your spouse is in critical condition.

In addition to protecting you and your spouse from discrimination by healthcare professionals or administrative staff, these documents are often essential if one or both families do not accept the marriage. There have been cases where one spouse dies and the decedent’s parents attempt to take control of the estate, ignoring the surviving spouse’s rights.

Look Into State Laws

Some states recognize common law marriages. In these situations, couples are considered legally married after living together for a set period of time. However, few states still recognize common law marriages, so some couples do not have the protections they believe they do. Look into your state’s laws regarding marriage as you begin exploring your estate planning needs.

Benefits of Marriage Over Civil Unions

Some same-sex couples choose civil unions in lieu of marriage. Rights vary between states. While civil unions may grant some of the same rights and protections of marriage, a legal marriage definitely has some advantages over a civil union.

Social Security: If one spouse is at a lower SS level than their spouse and their spouse passes away, they may be able to claim their deceased spouse’s larger SS benefits. This benefit does not exist for couples in civil unions.
Estate taxes: A surviving spouse does not have to pay taxes on their deceased spouse’s estate if the decedent names them as their beneficiary. Those in civil unions do have to pay taxes if the estate is worth more than $11.2 million.
Mortgage payoff: If only one spouse is named on the mortgage, the other person may not be asked to repay the remaining balance if the named spouse passes away. In a civil union, the other partner may have to refinance or pay off the mortgage to keep the home.
Retirement accounts: When a spouse passes away with money in their IRA, the remaining spouse can roll it over into their own IRA without paying penalties. The surviving partner in a civil union must go through extra steps to avoid a lump sum payment that triggers penalties and taxation.

There is one key benefit that civil unions have over marriage: when one partner dies, the other partner is not expected to pay the decedent’s medical bills. In a marriage, the surviving spouse is expected to pay the deceased spouse’s remaining medical bills.

Estate planning should be a priority for all adults. Choosing an estate planning attorney with experience in your specific situation can streamline the process.

New York State Bans Child Marriage

June 22, 2017 by Steven Kinnunen Leave a Comment

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill to prohibit marriage involving minors under age 17. Seventeen-year-olds can still marry with parental consent and judicial approval, but there will be no more marriages in New York state for younger teens. The new statute went into effect July 20, 2017.

Under the previous 1929 statute, teens as young as 14 could marry with parental consent and a judge’s approval, but they couldn’t divorce until they reached the age of 18. A similar bill to raise the marriage age was introduced in the New York legislature in 2016, but failed to pass the lower house’s Judiciary Committee.

State records indicate that 3,850 minors were married in New York State in 2000-10. Girls represented more than 80 percent of the young newlyweds, with many marrying significantly older men. According to New York Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, Democrat from Scarsdale, who sponsored the bill in the lower house, “Child marriage is just not a problem that occurs in countries on the other side of the globe, but it happens right here in our very own back yard. Child marriage is forced marriage. It is driven by poverty, deeply embedded beliefs and signifies a pervasive discrimination against young girls.”

New Jersey Governor Refuses to Sign Similar Minor Marriage Ban

Meanwhile, in neighboring New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie recently refused to sign a bill that would have barred marriage outright for anyone under 18. The governor’s conditional veto message explained that “the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, the religious customs, of the people of this state.” If the New Jersey Legislature amends the bill to provide for exceptions covering 16- and 17-year-olds, the governor indicated a willingness to sign the bill into law.

Advocates of legislation raising the marriage age are skeptical of parental and judicial consent provisions that allow persons aged 16, 17 or even younger to marry. They claim that parental consent can simply present a respectable front for parental coercion, and that teen girls are pressured to say the right things to obtain a judge’s approval where court permission is necessary to marry below a certain age.

Fraidy Reiss, an activist opposed to coerced child marriage, told the New York Times: “The judicial review process is evil because it puts the onus on a 17-year-old girl to find a way out of this situation. If she tells the judge she does not want to marry, her parents will know she said that. We have seen parents retaliate in many ways — locking a girl in her room or taking her overseas and forcing her to marry there.”

The legislative movement to raise marriage ages around the country is gaining momentum, with similar bills pending in Texas, Connecticut, Missouri, and other states. Virginia raised its marriage age to 18 last year, with exceptions for minors 16 or older who have been emancipated by court order.