Friday, October 05, 2007

Doctor Blows Himself Up Rather Than Give Up House In Divorce



A sad example of the insanity some people allow themselves to fall into in a divorce.

A 66 year only New York physician apparently blew himself up along with the $6million dollar historic Manhattan building that was the source of his bitter divorce case. He had told his wife that he would only leave the house if he was dead. In an email sent to his wife prior to the explosion, he said that she was a "gold digger" but that she would wind up only being a "ash and rubbish digger".

Source: http://www.wnbc.com/news/9490570/detail.html

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 18, 2007

Legislature Passes Attorney Privacy Bill

On Tuesday, Governor Perry signed legislation that allows lawyers to choose to keep their home address, home telephone number, Social Security number, email address, and date of birth confidential. HB 1237 takes effect on September 1, 2007.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Texas Senate Passes Family Law Bills


The Senate passed several bills supported by the State Bar Family Law Section this week. Each measure is authored by Senator Chris Harris (R-Arlington) and will move to the House for consideration:


SB 304 relating to the calculation of child support obligations.
SB 430 relating to a claim for reimbursement in a suit to dissolve a marriage.
SB 432 relating to the consent to and annulment of certain marriages.
SB 433 relating to attorney's fees in certain post-judgment proceedings.

Friday, February 09, 2007

New Proposed Law Schools In Texas

Two bills establishing new Texas law schools have been filed in the Texas Legislature.

Senator Royce West (D-Dallas) filed Senate Bill 105, which establishes a law school in Dallas by the University of North Texas System. For more information, please click here.

House Bill 1099 by Representative Eddie Lucio III (D-Browsnville) would establish the Reynaldo G. Garza School of Law at the University of Texas at Brownsville.For more information, please click here.

Labels:

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Signature Required For Discovery In Texas Family Law Cases

The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 191.3(a) says that if a party is represented by an attorney in a Texas Family Law case, then every request for discovery, every disclosure, every objection, response and notice must include the attorney’s signature. It must also include his or her Texas State Bar number, his or her address, phone number and fax number.
If the party is pro se, it must include the party’s signaure, address, and telephone number and fax number (if any).

The Effect of the Signature

The signature on a disclosure certifies that, to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, which was formed after a reasonable inquiry, the disclosure is complete and correct as of the time it is made. (TRCP 191.3(b)). The signature on discovery request, notice response or objection certifies that, to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief, which was formed after a reasonable inquiry, (1) the item is consistent with the rules and warranted by existing law or good-faith argument for the extension, modifiction , or reversal of existing law; (2) has a good faith factual basis; (3) is not interposed for an improper purpose; and (4) is not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive. (TRCP 191.3(c)).

Effect of Failure to Sign

If a request, notice, response, or objection is not signed, it must be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the party. A party is not required to take any action with respect to a request or notice that is not signed. (TRCP 191.3(d)).

Sanctions

If the certification is false, without substantial justification, the court may, upon motion or its own initiative, impose on the person who made the certification, or the party on whose behalf the request, notice, response, or objection was made, or both, an appropriate sanction as for a frivolous pleading or motion.

Labels:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

No "Man Of The House" Becomes The Norm

From the New York Times today:

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.

In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women.

In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable.

“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,” said Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”

Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery.
William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, described the shift as “a clear tipping point, reflecting the culmination of post-1960 trends associated with greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women.”

“For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,” Dr. Frey said. “Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”

Emily Zuzik, a 32-year-old musician and model who lives in the East Village of Manhattan, said she was not surprised by the trend.

“A lot of my friends are divorced or single or living alone,” Ms. Zuzik said. “I know a lot of people in their 30s who have roommates.”

Ms. Zuzik has lived with a boyfriend twice, once in California where the couple registered as domestic partners to qualify for his health insurance plan. “I don’t plan to live with anyone else again until I am married,” she said, “and I may opt to keep a place of my own even then.”
Linda Barth, a 56-year-old magazine editor in Houston who has never married, said, “I used to divide my women friends into single friends and married friends. Now that doesn’t seem to be an issue.”

Sheila Jamison, who also lives in the East Village and works for a media company, is 45 and single. She says her family believes she would have had a better chance of finding a husband had she attended a historically black college instead of Duke.

“Considering all the weddings I attended in the ’80s that have ended so very, very badly, I consider myself straight up lucky,” Ms. Jamison said. “I have not sworn off marriage, but if I do wed, it will be to have a companion with whom I can travel and play parlor games in my old age.”

Carol Crenshaw, 57, of Roswell, Ga., was divorced in 2005 after 33 years and says she is in no hurry to marry again.

“I’m in a place in my life where I’m comfortable,” said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons. “I can do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. I was a wife and a mother. I don’t feel like I need to do that again.”

Similarly, Shelley Fidler, 59, a public policy adviser at a law firm, has sworn off marriage. She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when her 30-year marriage ended.

“The benefits were completely unforeseen for me,” Ms. Fidler said, “the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.”

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15, according to the marital status category in the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, 63 million are married. Of those, 3.1 million are legally separated and 2.4 million said their husbands were not living at home for one reason or another.

That brings the number of American women actually living with a spouse to 57.5 million, compared with the 59.9 million who are single or whose husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005.

Some of those situations, which the census identifies as “spouse absent” and “other,” are temporary, and, of course, even some people who describe themselves as separated eventually reunite with their spouses.

Over all, a larger share of men are married and living with their spouse — about 53 percent compared with 49 percent among women.

“Since women continue to outlive men, they have reached the nonmarital tipping point — more nonmarried than married,” Dr. Frey said. “This suggests that most girls growing up today can look forward to spending more of their lives outside of a traditional marriage.”

Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, agreed, saying that “changing patterns of courtship, marriage, and that we are living longer lives all play a role.”

“Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce,” Ms. Smock added, “and both are increasingly likely to cohabit rather than remarry after a divorce.”

The proportion of married people, especially among younger age groups, has been declining for decades. Between 1950 and 2000, the share of women 15-to-24 who were married plummeted to 16 percent, from 42 percent. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, the proportion dropped to 58 percent, from 82 percent.

“Although we can help people ‘do’ marriage better, it is simply delusional to construct social policy or make personal life decisions on the basis that you can count on people spending most of their adult lives in marriage,” said Professor Coontz, the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Besse Gardner, 24, said she and her boyfriend met as college freshmen and started living together last April “for all the wrong reasons” — they found a great apartment on the beach in Los Angeles.

“We do not see living together as an end or even for the rest of our lives — it’s just fun right now,” Ms. Gardner said. “My roommate is someone I’d be thrilled to marry one day, but it just doesn’t make sense right now.”

Ms. Crenshaw said that some of the women in her support group for divorced women were miserable, but that she was surprised how happy she was to be single again.

“That’s not how I grew up,” she said. “That’s not how society thinks. It’s a marriage culture.”
Elissa B. Terris, 59, of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, who is now an adult.

“A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no,” she recalled. “I told him, ‘I’m just beginning to fly again, I’m just beginning to be me. Don’t take that away.’ ”

“Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options,” Ms. Terris said. “There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.”

She said she was returning to college to get a master’s degree (her former husband “didn’t want me to do that because I was more educated than he was”), had taken photography classes and was auditioning for a play.

“Once you go through something you think will kill you and it doesn’t,” she said, “every day is like a present.”

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Can a Catholic Attorney Be a Divorce Attorney?

Disclaimer: I have no moral authority in religious matters. The only justification for the following opinion are my many hours of internet research, and soul searching and praying on this topic. I do not evangelize in my practice of law and I respect every person's choice on the topic of religion. I also believe in the necessity of the separation of church and state to allow our government to act for all the people regardless of religion or creed. However, I like everyone, daily struggle to reconcile my vocation with my religion, and I have seen very little about this topic written about from the attorney's perspective. Therefore, in the hope that others may benefit from these thoughts, I have decided to make this post.

In 2002, John Paul II advised Catholic attorneys that they should refuse to take civil cases that promoted divorce. Many people took that to mean that a Catholic attorney could not participate in any divorce actions. This simply is not true, and was not the message of the Pope.Catholic attorneys should not become involved in civil matters that encourage or promote the division of the holy institution of marriage. However, Catholic attorneys, who take cases in which they act in good faith and moral purity, are merely promoting a peaceful and just resolution to disputes. Good Catholic divorce attorneys who allow themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit, will find ways to counsel their clients towards a more Christ-like solution to their clients relationship problems. A good Catholic attorney should first and foremost guide his client toward reconciliation with their spouse and should not take any case in which he or she feels that so engaging will destroy a remaining chance of reconciliation. Furthermore, the faithful Catholic attorney should use every opportunity that presents themselves in the divorce process towards seeking reconciliation.

Beyond that I believe that Catholic attorneys can and should engage in the practice of divorce and family law. These Catholic attorneys may become the only voice of moral wisdom for a client who finds themselves in a confusing secular system of family courts. They may be the factor that will prevent a painful process from becoming descending into a vengeful winner-take-all battle that keeps Christ's love from entering the hearts of the clients. They may be the only rational voice for the best interest of the children of divorce- who are innocent victims caught in the middle and sometimes their welfare is forgotten about by embattled spouses.

It must be remembered that Catholic divorce attorneys are only dissolving the legal civil bonds. They cannot ever destroy the Holy bonds which tie a married couple together. A Catholic attorney can assist a party in ending the civil bonds that have tied them to another if the reasons are just- such as to obtain child support, or effect a just division of property so a spouse who is no longer being financially support can survive. Remember that the Catholic Church does not forbid a married man and woman to live apart if living together becomes destructive to them. The civil divorce only dissolves the legal and financial bonds. It can never dissolve the holy bond.However, A Catholic attorney sins if they knowingly use their powers to obtain a divorce for unjust and sinful reasons such as so a client can marry another person or so they can otherwise commit adultery or other sins.

The following is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia which summarizes the duties of the Catholic Divorce Attorney:

"From the Decree of the Holy Office, 19 December, 1860, in answer to the Bishop of Southwark, it is clear that in England an attorney may undertake a case where there is question of judicial separation between husband and wife. Even in an action for divorce in a civil court he may defend the action against the plaintiff. If the marriage has already been pronounced null and void by competent ecclesiastical authority a Catholic attorney may impugn its validity in the civil courts. Moreover, for just reason, as, for example, to obtain a variation in the marriage settlement, or to prevent the necessity of having to maintain a bastard child, a Catholic lawyer may petition for a divorce in the civil court, not with the intention of enabling his client to marry again while his spouse is still living but with a view to obtaining the civil effects of divorce in the civil tribunal. This opinion at any rate is defended as probable by many good theologians. The reason is because marriage is neither contracted nor dissolved before the civil authority; in the formalities prescribed for marriage by civil law there is only question of the civil authority taking cognizance of who are married, and of the civil effects which now therefrom. "