New Hampshire Family Law Blog : New Hampshire Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Crusco Law Firm : Family Law, Custody, Child Support : Manchester, New Hampshire, Massachusetts

Yesterday Maine voters repealed the state’s same-sex marriage law, six months after the law was passed by the legislature. In doing so, Maine became the thirty first state to oppose same-sex unions in a popular vote. Five states, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont are performing same-sex marriages, with the District of Columbia and New York recognizing the marriages but not performing them. New Jersey and California allow for civil unions.

Question 1, brought forward pursuant to the “people’s veto” process in Maine’s constitution, asked voters “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" 53% of voters approved Question 1, about the same margin of victory as California’s Prop 8. Maine’s same-sex marriage law was put on hold after the proponents of Question 1 collected the required signatures to put the question to a popular vote.

What does this mean for Maine residents? Same-sex partners are still vulnerable without the financial and legal protections that a civil union or marriage offers. Maine’s same-sex couples must be very detailed in their estate planning, partnership agreements, and legal status as parents of any children of the relationship. Additionally, Maine residents must carefully consider the ramifications of seeking a civil union or marriage in other states. Although New Hampshire and Massachusetts are just quick drives across the Piscataqua River, entering into a legal relationship that cannot be dissolved in your own state can have very dire consequences.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was reading a blog post today by photographer Samantha Warren at Samantha Warren Weddings in which she mused on a tweet by Dita Von Teese that pondered "Did you all know that I only tell you the fun & glamorous things that I do, not the boring & unpleasant things?"  Sam writes in response:

Ms. Teese's tweet summed up one of the significant snags I see with social media, and that is that while you may put your life out there through Facebook, Twitter and blogging, it's life filtered, often for a particular purpose. In musical terms, while social media claims to be a jam session, the control we have over our image through its technology makes it a best of collection.

So true! Most of us using social media from Facebook to Twitter chat and tweet about the happy goings on from our beach vacations to a new job.  However, mix a stressful divorce or parenting rights and responsibilities matter with social media and our emotions can often get the best of us. Instead of the happy face usually broadcast to the world, the anger and hurt rises up and reaches out through our fingertips, sendind out status updates or tweets best kept to ourselves.

Time Magazine's recent article, Facebook and Divorce: Airing the Dirty Laundry, warns domestic relations litigants over the dangers of social media during litigation. Post a picture of your new BMW motorcycle after claiming the poorhouse? Tweeting about your crazy Saturday night party when you were supposed to be caring for the children? Updating your status about your date night with your new girlfriend, before you have separated from your wife? While you are posting about these things, opposing counsel is downloading your personal information from Facebook and Twitter and preparing to use it in court.

The moral of the story? Think before you post. Refrain from commenting about your spouse, his lawyer, the judge, the guardian ad litem. Do not post pictures of any content that can be used against you in court, including partying, gifts to or from new signifcant others or places you should not be. You'll be better off for it, and your lawyer will thank you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the New Hampshire House voted to approve HB 0436, which would legalize gay marriage in New Hampshire, by a vote of 186 to 179. The bill also includes provisions allowing clergy the freedom to determine whether or not to marry a gay couple. The bill will now move to the Senate for debate and vote.

Governor Lynch is opposed to gay marriage, and it is expected that he will veto the legislation. The Union Leader reports that his press secretary Colin Manning said:

The civil unions bill he signed into law prevents discrimination and provides the same legal protections to all New Hampshire families to the extent that is possible under federal law.

Source: Union Leader "NH House endorses gay marriage"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I read a post today that got me thinking from Attorney Ryan McKeen at his A Connecticut Law Blog titled Is CT's civil union statute constitutional? Attorney McKeen ponders whether the civil union statute in Connecticut is unconstituional because it does not allow opposite sex couples to enter into a civil union. It is an interesting question that may never be answered. It also begs the question, should there be some form of civil union for opposite sex couples?

If an unmarried, homeowning couple with a child breaks up, the complexity of disentangling after the relationship ends can be frustrating. If the couple cannot agree on how to separate their property and how to parent their child, they would have to go to three different courts to resolve all the issues. The couple would head to Superior Court or the Family Division for parenting and child support, to Probate Court to resolve the home issue, and file an equity action in Superior Court regarding any disputed personal property such as a family pet.

Wouldn't some kind of legal relationship the couple could enter into make the breakup easier on the family? At the same time, opposite sex couples do have the option to marry and benefit from the rights that marriage entails, but they choose not to. What do you think?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although the country’s attention was, for the most part, focused upon the presidential election on November 4^th, there were several ballot questions across the country regarding same-sex marriage. The most high profile was Proposition 8 in California, a ballot measure that passed and  amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The passage of Prop 8 reverses In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage in the state this past June. Arizona and Florida also passed similar measures on November 4th, defining marriage as between one man and one woman with Prop 102 and Prop 2 respectively.

The election results highlight the vast divide throughout the country over same-sex marriage, with over twenty five states now banning same-sex marriage, two states allowing same-sex marriage and several states, including New Hampshire, allowing some form of civil union or domestic partnership. Additionally on a national level, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as it pertains to any Act of Congress or administrative rulings and regulations as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” With the wide disparity of laws from state to state, the inconsistency can leave families in legal limbo without a way to dissolve a legal relationship.

New Hampshire residents, thanks to the civil union statute, will not be left in legal limbo. If you have been married in another jurisdiction, or entered into a civil union, you may dissolve the relationship as though it were a civil union in New Hampshire.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in Kerrigan v. Commisioner of Public Health. Four years ago, eight same-sex couples sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage violated their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court held that because the state allowed civil unions, the plaintiffs had not suffered a "constitutionally cognizable harm", and therefore found for the state.

In finding for the plaintiffs on appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that:

in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

 The Kerrigan ruling makes Connecticut the third state in the country, after Massachusetts (Goodridge) and California (In Re Marriage Cases) to allow same-sex marriage. Here in New Hampshire, the state has allowed for civil unions since January 1, 2008, and is one of nine states to offer some degree of domestic partnership or civil union.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My health insurance coverage is through my spouse’s employer. Will I be able to stay on the health insurance plan after I am divorced?

You may be able to continue coverage through a new law (RSA 415:18, VII b) that became effective on January 1, 2008 that allows a former spouse to continue coverage on the subscriber employee’s group health insurance policy for up to three years following the final decree of divorce. The law applies to both medical and dental coverage. Under the provisions, of the new law, a former spouse remains eligible for coverage until one of the following events occurs, whichever is earliest:

1)      Three (3) years from the final decree of divorce or legal separation;

2)      Remarriage of either the covered employee of the former spouse;

3)      Death of the covered employee; or

4)      Such earlier time as provided in the final decree.

The former spouse has the right to continue coverage under this law only for so long as the employee subscriber maintains coverage under the same group health insurance plan. If the employee is terminated or leaves employment, the former spouse’s eligibility is not transferrable to the new employer.

Unlike COBRA and New Hampshire’s continuation coverage statute which allows additional premiums to be charged, the insurers are required to make the health insurance coverage available without additional premiums as if the divorce had not occurred. This is a key aspect of the law, since often times COBRA premiums are cost prohibitive and unaffordable to the family member who needs to continue coverage. Additionally, the employer is required to continue to contribute to the former spouse’s coverage as if the divorce had not occurred. The court may assign or the parties may agree as to how the employee’s portion of the premiums will be paid, either by the employee, by the former spouse, or shared by the parties.

As a caveat, the law applies only to group health insurance policies, and employer plans that are self-insured are not subject to the law’s continuation requirements. Several large private and state and federal government employers, such as Wal-Mart, Fidelity, and the State of New Hampshire, are self-insured and so those with former spouses who work for these self-insured employers will not be able to continue coverage under RSA 458:18, VII.

This new law supplements the COBRA benefits and continuing coverage statute that are all ready in place. If a former spouse is not eligible, e.g. remarriage of either party or the court has not allowed coverage under this statute, COBRA benefits may still be available to provide health insurance coverage.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During a divorce, the tax consquences of a settlement often take a backseat to heated issues such as parenting rights and asset division. However, tax consquences can have a very big impact on the outcome of a case and are an important factor to consider.  Attorney Jason C. Brown of Brown Law Offices, P.A. posted an informative piece on his Minnesota Divorce and Family Law Blog with tax tips for divorcing couples. Attorney Brown suggested the following issues to consider during a divorce:

1. Child Support. Child support is not income to the recipient and is not deductible for the payer. Keep this in mind if your spouse is seeking alimony. Child support payments that they receive are not taxable and, as a result, increase their net income each month dollar for dollar. As a result, the "need" of your spouse will be diminished and you may be able to argue that their imputed gross income exceeds their gross pay coupled with untaxed child support.
2. Alimony. Alimony is income to the recipient and is deductible for the payer. High income earners can reduce their taxable income by paying alimony. If your spouse's tax bracket is low, the government winds up picking up the tab for a good share of the alimony obligation.
3. Sale of Homestead. The sale of the marital homestead usually does not involve a taxable event. Capital gains (up to $500,000) from the sale of your marital homestead are not taxable if you've lived there for two of the last five years. Nor is a transfer of title to the residence, allowing your spouse to keep some or all of the equity. Many couples opt to forego alimony payments in, instead, pay a disproportionate property settlement to their spouse. In other words, they "buy off" alimony by giving a larger share of home sale proceeds, or equity, to their spouse. The result? No tax implications for either. Ideal for alimony recipients in a high tax bracket.
4. Filing Status. The status of your marriage on December 31 of the relevant year determines whether you file as single or married. If you are divorced by that date, you file as single for the entire year. If your case appears to be coming to a close near the end of the year, best to speak with a tax preparer about the consequence of holding up at bit or expediting matters. We find that courts are usually willing to facilitate bringing matters to a close by the end of the year if tax implications in doing so are substantial.
5. Dependents. While the law provides that the custodial parent is entitled to claim the relevant dependency exemptions, most couples agree to share them. Offering a non-custodial parent the right to claim the dependency exemption under the condition that their child support is current at the end of the relevant tax year provides them with incentive to keep current with payments.
6. Child Care Credit. Custodial parents who incur work-related child care costs can deduct up to 30% of the cost. It is for that reason that the child support guidelines usually require a custodial parent to assume responsibility for a greater share of daycare expense.
7. Liabilities and Refunds. Taxes owed, or refunds received, are usually treated as "marital" and are, therefore, split equally among the parties. In the heat of the moment, some spouses will intercept a tax refund and cash it without the other's knowledge. All funds must be accounted for and it is likely that if they do so their share of the final property settlement will be reduced proportionately. Because income is "marital," a tax liability is a shared responsibility.
8. Attorney Fees. Any fees paid to a lawyer for tax advice are deductible. Ask your attorney for to break out all billable time devoted to tax issues and you can save big.

A good family law attorney will point out these and other issues to consider during your divorce. It is also important to discuss your divorce and the tax consquences of any settlement with a knowledgeable accountant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued the Goodridge decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth, many people inside and outside the state became concerned about couples coming from other states to marry in Massachusetts. In the first few days of same-sex marriage, marriage licenses were issued to non-residents, and have resulted in decisions such as Chambers v. Ormiston which held that Rhode Island courts did not have jurisdiction to hear a divorce case between two people of the same-sex because the state did not recognize the marriage.   

However, Governor Mitt Romney quickly dusted off the Marriage Evasion Act M.G.L.A. 207 § 11. This law was enacted in 1913 and prohibits the marriage of a non-resident in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state. Governor Romney ordered town clerks to strictly enforce the law when handing out marriage licenses.

The original intent of the law is unknown for there is no record of the legislative history. However, the law was enacted during a time when the majority of states (30 out of 48) outlawed interracial marriage, and it is commonly believed that this law was meant to smooth relations between Massachusetts, which has allowed interracial marriage since 1843, and those states that banned such marriages. Massachusetts State Senator Harry Ney Stearns sponsored the 1913 Law on March 7, 1913 and the bill was signed three weeks later by Governor Eugene N. Foss

On July 15, 2008 the Massachusetts Senate voted to approve a bill that will repeal the 1913 law and the House is expected to vote in the near future. Repealing the law paves the way for out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts. Opponents argue that repealing the law meddles in the internal affairs of other states, forcing them to recognize gay marriage, and creates a legal limbo for families. On the other hand, proponents argue that the law should be repealed as a “vile and antiquated remnant of prejudice and bigotry.”

How will the repeal of this bill affect New Hampshire residents? As previously discussed on this blog, New Hampshire allows civil unions and recognizes out-of-state marriages as civil unions. If the Massachusetts house votes to repeal the law, New Hampshire residents may marry in Massachusetts, and return home to have their marriage recognized as a civil union.

There are many in-depth articles chronicling the path of Massachusetts in repealing this law and its effect on same-sex marriage. Some of these articles are below:

·         A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages

·         Will the State of Massachusetts Ever Permit Same Sex Out-of-Staters to Marry?

·         Massachusetts Senate Votes to Repeal Law Barring Out-of-State Couples From Marrying

·         Senate Votes to Repeal 1913 Law

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in the case of Charron v. Amaral that held that marriage benefits for same-sex couples do not apply retroactively to the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health  decision.

The case involves a couple, Michelle Charron and Cynthia Kalish, who began dating in 1990, moved in together in 1992 and subsequently bought a house together and had a child that both partners adopted. The couple also exchanged rings in a private ceremony in 1994 and obtained a marriage license in 2004 on the first day such licenses were available to same-sex couples. Charron sought treatment for a lump in her breast in 2002, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 and died in 2006. The claim arose as a malpractice case for loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs argued that, but for the ban on gay marriage, they would have been married at the time the malpractice claim arose in 2002, and therefore the loss of consortium claim should be applied retroactive to the Goodridge decision. The SJC disagreed, and held that it was clear that Goodridge was intended to apply prospectively because it was such a radical change in the law that it required time for the legislature to act. Furthermore, the court found that:

to allow Kalish to recover for a loss of consortium if she can prove she would have been married but for the ban on same-sex marriage could open numbers of cases in all areas of law to the same argument.

Although this case involves a malpractice/loss of consortium claim, the opinion has ramifications for divorce matters in Massachusetts. It is likely that, as a result of the Charron decision, same-sex couples who are divorcing will be barred from arguing that but for the ban on same-sex marriage, the couple would have had a long term marriage retroactive to Goodridge. The difference between a long term marriage and a short term marriage can have ramifications on the property division and alimony awards.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Alimony, also called maintenance or spousal support, is payments made to a spouse or former spouse under a court order. Alimony in New Hampshire is "rehabilitative' and is based on the theory that both spouse should be able to provide for their own financial needs. Therefore, when alimony is awarded, it is designed to encourage the supported spouse to establish an independent source of income. However, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled  that this theory is not controlling when the alimony recipient "suffers from ill health and is not capable of establishing an individual source of income, or where the supported spouse in a long-term marriage lacks the requisite job skills to independently approximate the standard of living established during the marriage."

In order to award alimony, the court must find that the supported party lacks sufficient income, property, or both to meet their reasonable needs and be self-supporting and that the paying party can provide for their own reasonable needs and those of the other spouse. The court should also consider the style of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage in determining their reasonable needs.

How much will the court award in alimony? The court relies on several factors to determine the amount of alimony to be awarded, including:

•  the length of the marriage;
• the age, health, social or economic status, occupation, amount and sources of income, the property awarded in the divorce decree, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties;
• the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income;
• the fault of either party;
• the federal tax consequences of the divorce order. 
• the economic contribution of each party to the value of their respective estates
• the non-economic contributions to the family unit.

To read New Hampshire's law on alimony, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Today the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in a 4-3 ruling. The court’s ruling stated that “the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes.” Instead, the question the Court answered was whether the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage instead of the state recognized domestic partnership violates the California Constitution. The Court found that it did.

The decision and its dissents is 172 pages, so there is a lot to digest. I will post more after I have been able to  read through it in full. In the meantime, to read the opinion yourself, you can find it here. There are also posts through the blogosphere today on the issue, including here at Steven Ballard's Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Blog, here at Family Law Prof Blog, and here at Jeffrey Lalloway's California Divorce and Family Law Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As tax season is now behind us, many same-sex couples may have discovered that same-sex couples often pay higher taxes because they are not entitled to federal tax benefits regularly given to married couples. Additionally, same-sex couples must file separate federal returns and in most states, separate state returns. States that recognize civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples, such as Massachusetts, may file joint state returns. Here in the Live Free or Die state where we do not have an income tax, couples do not file state tax returns. 

Kevin R. McMurdy's recent post on Tax Implications and Civil Unions on the Employee Benefits Law Blog reviews various tax implications and employee benefits for same-sex couples.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A civil union is a domestic relationship that provides state-based legal rights, responsibilities and benefits to couples of the same sex. On January 1, 2008, New Hampshire became the fourth state enact laws that recognize civil unions. A civil union entitles the parties to “all the rights and subject to all the obligations and responsibilities provided for in state law that apply to parties who are joined together [in a marriage] pursuant to RSA 457." Some of these rights and obligations include:
· inheritance rights and intestate succession;
· wills, survivorships, or other incidents of the acquisition;
· access to courts under family and divorce law;
· health and auto insurance benefits;
· state family medical and bereavement leave benefits;
· protection against discrimination based on marital status;
· medical decision making powers and hospital visitation rights;
· workers’ compensation dependency benefits;
· standing for wrongful death and loss of consortium claims
· crime victims’ rights;
· marital privileges in court proceedings; and
· vital records

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (4)
• Share Link