I am pleased to announce that the firm has expanded its practice to include consumer bankruptcy. Divorce can be one of the most financially devastating events in your life. We have found over the years that many clients file or consider filing for bankruptcy at some time after their divorce. As a result, we are now able to counsel our clients on whether or not bankruptcy is right for them, and if it is, help guide them thru that difficult time in their lives.
Check out our new bankruptcy website at www.phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyers.com.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Facebook is a Divorce Lawyer's Best Friend
Here is an interesting (and somewhat comical) article that follows up on one of my earlier posts regarding beware what you post on social media as it can and will be used against you in divorce and family law proceedings:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37986320/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
The body of the article is as follows:
Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.
Oversharing on social networks has led to an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years.
"Oh, I've had some fun ones," said Linda Lea Viken, president-elect of the 1,600-member group. "It's very, very common in my new cases."
Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama, Viken said. Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed cited Facebook foibles as the source of online evidence, she said. MySpace followed with 15 percent, followed by Twitter at 5 percent.
About one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, according to a 2008 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. But it's not just kissy pix with the manstress or mistress that show up as evidence. Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.
"This sort of evidence has gone from nothing to a large percentage of my cases coming in, and it's pretty darn easy," Viken said. "It's like, 'Are you kidding me?'"
Neither Viken, in Rapid City, S.D., nor other divorce attorneys would besmirch the attorney-client privilege by revealing the identities of clients, but they spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:
— Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.
— Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."
— Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.
— Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
The disconnect between real life and online is hardly unique to partners de-coupling in the United States. A DIY divorce site in the United Kingdom, Divorce-Online, reported the word "Facebook" appeared late last year in about one in five of the petitions it was handling. (The company's caseload now amounts to about 7,000.)
Divorce attorneys Ken and Leslie Matthews, a husband and wife team in Denver, Colo., don't see quite as many online gems. They estimated 1 in 10 of their cases involves such evidence, compared to a rare case or no cases at all in each of the last three years. Regardless, it's powerful evidence to plunk down before a judge, they said.
"You're finding information that you just never get in the normal discovery process — ever," Leslie Matthews said. "People are just blabbing things all over Facebook. People don't yet quite connect what they're saying in their divorce cases is completely different from what they're saying on Facebook. It doesn't even occur to them that they'd be found out."
Social networks are also ripe for divorce-related hate and smear campaigns among battling spousal camps, sometimes spawning legal cases of their own.
"It's all pretty good evidence," Viken said. "You can't really fake a page off of Facebook. The judges don't really have any problems letting it in."
The attorneys offer these tips for making sure your out-loud personal life online doesn't wind up in divorce court:
What you say can and will be held against you
If you plan on lying under oath, don't load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
"We tell our clients when they come in, 'I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear,'" Viken said.
Beware your frenemies
Going through a divorce is about as emotional as it gets for many couples. The desire to talk trash is great, but so is the pull for friends to take sides.
"They think these people can help get them through it," said Marlene Eskind Moses, a family law expert in Nashville, Tenn., and current president of the elite academy of divorce attorneys. "It's the worst possible time to share your feelings online."
A picture may be worth ... big bucks
Grown-ups on a good day should know better than to post boozy, carousing or sexually explicit photos of themselves online, but in the middle of a contentious divorce? Ken Matthews recalls photos of a client's partially naked estranged wife alongside pictures of their kids on Facebook.
"He was hearing bizarre stories from his kids. Guys around the house all the time. Men running in and out. And there were these pictures," Matthews said.
Privacy, privacy, privacy
They're called privacy settings for a reason. Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.
Viken tells a familiar story: A client accused her spouse of adultery and he denied it in court. "The guy testified he didn't have a relationship with this woman. They were just friends. The girlfriend hadn't put security on her page and there they were. 'Gee judge, who lied to you?'"
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37986320/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
The body of the article is as follows:
Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.
Oversharing on social networks has led to an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years.
"Oh, I've had some fun ones," said Linda Lea Viken, president-elect of the 1,600-member group. "It's very, very common in my new cases."
Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama, Viken said. Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed cited Facebook foibles as the source of online evidence, she said. MySpace followed with 15 percent, followed by Twitter at 5 percent.
About one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, according to a 2008 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. But it's not just kissy pix with the manstress or mistress that show up as evidence. Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.
"This sort of evidence has gone from nothing to a large percentage of my cases coming in, and it's pretty darn easy," Viken said. "It's like, 'Are you kidding me?'"
Neither Viken, in Rapid City, S.D., nor other divorce attorneys would besmirch the attorney-client privilege by revealing the identities of clients, but they spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:
— Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.
— Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."
— Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.
— Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
The disconnect between real life and online is hardly unique to partners de-coupling in the United States. A DIY divorce site in the United Kingdom, Divorce-Online, reported the word "Facebook" appeared late last year in about one in five of the petitions it was handling. (The company's caseload now amounts to about 7,000.)
Divorce attorneys Ken and Leslie Matthews, a husband and wife team in Denver, Colo., don't see quite as many online gems. They estimated 1 in 10 of their cases involves such evidence, compared to a rare case or no cases at all in each of the last three years. Regardless, it's powerful evidence to plunk down before a judge, they said.
"You're finding information that you just never get in the normal discovery process — ever," Leslie Matthews said. "People are just blabbing things all over Facebook. People don't yet quite connect what they're saying in their divorce cases is completely different from what they're saying on Facebook. It doesn't even occur to them that they'd be found out."
Social networks are also ripe for divorce-related hate and smear campaigns among battling spousal camps, sometimes spawning legal cases of their own.
"It's all pretty good evidence," Viken said. "You can't really fake a page off of Facebook. The judges don't really have any problems letting it in."
The attorneys offer these tips for making sure your out-loud personal life online doesn't wind up in divorce court:
What you say can and will be held against you
If you plan on lying under oath, don't load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
"We tell our clients when they come in, 'I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear,'" Viken said.
Beware your frenemies
Going through a divorce is about as emotional as it gets for many couples. The desire to talk trash is great, but so is the pull for friends to take sides.
"They think these people can help get them through it," said Marlene Eskind Moses, a family law expert in Nashville, Tenn., and current president of the elite academy of divorce attorneys. "It's the worst possible time to share your feelings online."
A picture may be worth ... big bucks
Grown-ups on a good day should know better than to post boozy, carousing or sexually explicit photos of themselves online, but in the middle of a contentious divorce? Ken Matthews recalls photos of a client's partially naked estranged wife alongside pictures of their kids on Facebook.
"He was hearing bizarre stories from his kids. Guys around the house all the time. Men running in and out. And there were these pictures," Matthews said.
Privacy, privacy, privacy
They're called privacy settings for a reason. Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.
Viken tells a familiar story: A client accused her spouse of adultery and he denied it in court. "The guy testified he didn't have a relationship with this woman. They were just friends. The girlfriend hadn't put security on her page and there they were. 'Gee judge, who lied to you?'"
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Monday, June 21, 2010
Medical Marijuana and Child Custody Cases
Here is an interesting article discussing how the use of medical marijuana can negatively impact your child custody case.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37822194/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37822194/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Legal Separation vs. Divorce
Many times I have been asked what is the difference between getting a legal separation and getting a divorce. The quick answer is, very little.
Generally speaking a legal separation is going to deal with all of the same issues that are dealt with in a divorce, that being division of assets and debts, child custody, child support, parenting time and spousal maintenance.
The big difference is that if you reconcile with your spouse you don't need to get remarried again if you are only legally separated, whereas if you are divorced you would have to remarry your ex-wife (I actually know someone who has done this).
There are a couple of advantages to a legal separation to some couples though.
These advantages include:
1) It allows a cooling off period where people can spend time apart and figure out what they really want;
2) It allows some people to not violate their religious convictions that might prohibit divorce;
3) There may be certain social security benefits that you would remain or become eligible for as a spouse;
4) You may be able to remain on your spouse's health insurance;
5) If you are a military spouse, if you stay married for ten years you can take advantage of benefits set up by the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Generally speaking a legal separation is going to deal with all of the same issues that are dealt with in a divorce, that being division of assets and debts, child custody, child support, parenting time and spousal maintenance.
The big difference is that if you reconcile with your spouse you don't need to get remarried again if you are only legally separated, whereas if you are divorced you would have to remarry your ex-wife (I actually know someone who has done this).
There are a couple of advantages to a legal separation to some couples though.
These advantages include:
1) It allows a cooling off period where people can spend time apart and figure out what they really want;
2) It allows some people to not violate their religious convictions that might prohibit divorce;
3) There may be certain social security benefits that you would remain or become eligible for as a spouse;
4) You may be able to remain on your spouse's health insurance;
5) If you are a military spouse, if you stay married for ten years you can take advantage of benefits set up by the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tax Implication Differences between Child Support & Spousal Maintenance
There are differences in the tax implications between child support and spousal maintenance.
Child support is not considered income to the payee for tax purposes, nor is it deducted from the gross income of the payor.
However, spousal maintenance (many times referred to as alimony), is taxable income to the payee, and is deducted from the taxable income of the payor.
A knowledge of this helps in guiding clients as to what is the most financially advantageous resolution to their matter. Receiving or paying $1500.00 in total (meaning spousal maintenance and child support combined) a month can have dramatically different tax ramifications depending upon how much of the total is made up spousal maintenance and how much is made up of child support.
If you have questions regarding a potential divorce please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Child support is not considered income to the payee for tax purposes, nor is it deducted from the gross income of the payor.
However, spousal maintenance (many times referred to as alimony), is taxable income to the payee, and is deducted from the taxable income of the payor.
A knowledge of this helps in guiding clients as to what is the most financially advantageous resolution to their matter. Receiving or paying $1500.00 in total (meaning spousal maintenance and child support combined) a month can have dramatically different tax ramifications depending upon how much of the total is made up spousal maintenance and how much is made up of child support.
If you have questions regarding a potential divorce please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Religion and Divorce Update
I recently made a post entitled "Religion and Divorce", and I found this article on Huffingtonpost.com that is a follow-up:
A high-profile divorce case was resolved by a Cook County judge Tuesday, as a man who claims he returned to his Catholic roots after divorcing a Jewish woman was granted permission to take his 3-year-old daughter to Catholic church, despite his ex-wife's wishes.
Joseph Reyes, who baptized his 3-year-old daughter without her mother's permission, faced jail time after a Cook County judge granted his ex a temporary restraining order barring him from exposing the child to any religion other than Judaism.
But on Tuesday, Cook County Judge Renee Goldfarb said Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses," she wrote in the divorce decree. "This court will also order that Joseph have visitation with Ela every year on Christmas and Easter." The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child."
The judge said she found "no evidence . . . that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph's visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible."
The problems started after Rebecca Reyes, the child's mother, became upset that Joseph started taking their daughter to church despite an agreement they reportedly made to raise the child in the Jewish faith. The Sun-Times reported in February:
While Joseph Reyes said he converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, he insists they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to services a few times together with the child.
Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:
"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."
Story continues below
Though Rebecca Reyes has been publicly silent throughout the ordeal, her lawyer Stephen Lake spoke to Good Morning America a few months back:
"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A high-profile divorce case was resolved by a Cook County judge Tuesday, as a man who claims he returned to his Catholic roots after divorcing a Jewish woman was granted permission to take his 3-year-old daughter to Catholic church, despite his ex-wife's wishes.
Joseph Reyes, who baptized his 3-year-old daughter without her mother's permission, faced jail time after a Cook County judge granted his ex a temporary restraining order barring him from exposing the child to any religion other than Judaism.
But on Tuesday, Cook County Judge Renee Goldfarb said Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses," she wrote in the divorce decree. "This court will also order that Joseph have visitation with Ela every year on Christmas and Easter." The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child."
The judge said she found "no evidence . . . that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph's visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible."
The problems started after Rebecca Reyes, the child's mother, became upset that Joseph started taking their daughter to church despite an agreement they reportedly made to raise the child in the Jewish faith. The Sun-Times reported in February:
While Joseph Reyes said he converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, he insists they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to services a few times together with the child.
Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:
"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."
Story continues below
Though Rebecca Reyes has been publicly silent throughout the ordeal, her lawyer Stephen Lake spoke to Good Morning America a few months back:
"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
What is ADR and is it Useful?
ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Rule 66 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states that parties in family court have a duty to confer about utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution.
There are several types of ADR processes, including but not limited to arbitration, appointment of a parenting coordinator, mediation and a settlement conference.
The most common type of ADR is a settlement conference. A settlement conference is a confidential process, in which parties to a dispute meet with a judge, commissioner, or judge pro tempore (lawyer filling in as a judge for purposes of a settlement conference) acting as a neutral third party to engage in settlement discussions.
In my experience, settlement conferences result in complete resolution of a case over 50% of the time. As such, I encourage that my clients agree to participate in a settlement conference.
It is almost always better to settle a case than to take it all the way to trial. First, there is a substantial cost to preparing and attending a trial. Secondly, agreeing to a settlement means you had control over the final disposition of your case as opposed to leaving it in the hands of a Judge who you may have seen once or twice before in your life, and who has wide latitude in how they rule.
The ADR division of the Maricopa County Superior Court lists the following as benefits of ADR:
* ADR can save participants time and money. It allows the courts to wisely conserve trial resources for those cases where there is truly a need for litigation.
* Often, parties are able to preserve their relationships after ADR; in trial there is a winner and a loser.
* ADR provides more open, flexible, and responsive processes that are tailored to the unique needs of the parties.
* ADR outcomes address the real needs of each party in an informal process that offers customized solutions and enhances community involvement in dispute resolution.
* Using ADR instead of litigation often results in greater participant satisfaction.
Overall, ADR is a very useful service offered by the Courts and one that I highly recommend to all of my clients.
If you have questions regarding ADR please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Rule 66 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states that parties in family court have a duty to confer about utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution.
There are several types of ADR processes, including but not limited to arbitration, appointment of a parenting coordinator, mediation and a settlement conference.
The most common type of ADR is a settlement conference. A settlement conference is a confidential process, in which parties to a dispute meet with a judge, commissioner, or judge pro tempore (lawyer filling in as a judge for purposes of a settlement conference) acting as a neutral third party to engage in settlement discussions.
In my experience, settlement conferences result in complete resolution of a case over 50% of the time. As such, I encourage that my clients agree to participate in a settlement conference.
It is almost always better to settle a case than to take it all the way to trial. First, there is a substantial cost to preparing and attending a trial. Secondly, agreeing to a settlement means you had control over the final disposition of your case as opposed to leaving it in the hands of a Judge who you may have seen once or twice before in your life, and who has wide latitude in how they rule.
The ADR division of the Maricopa County Superior Court lists the following as benefits of ADR:
* ADR can save participants time and money. It allows the courts to wisely conserve trial resources for those cases where there is truly a need for litigation.
* Often, parties are able to preserve their relationships after ADR; in trial there is a winner and a loser.
* ADR provides more open, flexible, and responsive processes that are tailored to the unique needs of the parties.
* ADR outcomes address the real needs of each party in an informal process that offers customized solutions and enhances community involvement in dispute resolution.
* Using ADR instead of litigation often results in greater participant satisfaction.
Overall, ADR is a very useful service offered by the Courts and one that I highly recommend to all of my clients.
If you have questions regarding ADR please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)