Author: Ron Kauffman

International Divorce and Jurisdiction

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

If Britain has the biggest pay-outs for divorcing spouses, can anyone file for divorce there? The ex-wife of a Russian oligarch, who was denied permission to pursue her international divorce claims against her husband’s $19 billion fortune, just found out about jurisdiction the hard way.

International Divorce and Jurisdiction

To Russia With Love

Natalia Potanina, 58 was attempting to secure an increased pay out through English courts from her former husband, Vladimir Potanin – Russia’s second richest man, claiming that the initial amount she received left her facing ‘hardship’ and did not meet her ‘reasonable needs.’

Ms Potanina claimed that she was only given $41.5 million when the couple divorced in 2014 but deserved considerably more because of the role she played in helping to build her husband’s extensive business empire.

She was attempting to launch a case in the English courts, where divorce pay outs are notoriously high, protesting that when she tried in Russia she got considerably less because of her husband’s ‘wealth, power and influence,’ which denied her a fair settlement.

She also alleged that he had secreted his vast wealth out of her reach in a complex web of offshore companies while pleading to judges in Moscow that he had virtually no assets.

International Divorce Issues

International divorce often brings up the issue of jurisdiction. Who sues whom, how do you sue for divorce, and in what country are problems in an international divorce case. The answers are more difficult than people think as I have written before.

A British divorce might give more money because British courts can disregard prenuptial agreements, and the cost of living is high in London. However, in Florida, the outcome could be different still.

Rules about children and hiding assets is a problem in every divorce, especially in international cases. The problem of discovery of hidden wealth is even bigger in an international divorce because multiple countries, and multiple rules on discovery, can be involved. The problems in an international divorce are more complicated because hiding assets from a spouse is much easier in some countries than in others.

Florida, at one extreme, requires complete disclosure of assets and liabilities. In fact, in Florida certain financial disclosure is mandatory. At the other extreme, are countries which require very little disclosure from people going through divorce.

Choosing possible countries to file your divorce in can be construed as “forum shopping”. The European Union introduced a reform called Brussels II, which prevents “forum shopping”, with a rule that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. But the stakes are high: ending up in the wrong legal system, or with the wrong approach, may mean not just poverty but misery.

Residency for divorce is a very important jurisdictional requirement in every case. Generally, the non-filing party need not be a resident in the state in order for the court to divorce the parties under the divisible divorce doctrine. The court’s personal jurisdiction over the non-filing spouse is necessary only if the court enters personal orders regarding the spouse.

The durational domicile or residency requirement goes to the heart of the court’s ability to divorce the parties, because the residency of a party to a divorce creates a relationship with the state to justify its exercise of power over the marriage.

Back in the USSR

Lawyers acting for her husband took the matter to the High Court in London, asking for her English legal bid to be thrown out during a three-day hearing which took place last month. Delivering his judgment, Mr. Justice Cohen said that the claim that Mrs. Potanina received $41.5 million was ‘untrue and that the real figure was actually over $84 million. In addition to this, she also received $7.3 million in child maintenance. She also purchased a home in Long Island, New York, soon after the divorce, which is worth $6.5 million.

To most people it would seem inconceivable that someone who has received an award of $40-80 million could argue that reasonable needs have not been met, but each case is fact-specific and I accept that the wife could argue that her reasonable needs have not been met. However, the other 16 factors mitigate strongly against her claim proceeding.

If this claim is allowed to proceed then there is effectively no limit to divorce tourism”

Potanina is “very disappointed” and plans to appeal, the judge said. Lawyers for both sides declined to comment. Potanin, Russia’s richest tycoon with $27 billion fortune, is considered to be one of the few “oligarchs,” who became rich under first Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He also plays hockey at the so-called Night Hockey league, sometimes against President Vladimir Putin.

The judge dismissed arguments from Potanina that she couldn’t obtain justice in Russia, saying the local courts properly applied the law. Potanina said that her husband was “too powerful.”

“I do not believe that there is anything more I could have done to obtain justice in Russia. It was an impossible task,” she said in a written submission cited by the judge.

The couple lived in Russia for the length of their marriage, before Potanina moved to England in 2014, the judge said. Her first contact after her arrival appears to have been to obtain advice from London divorce lawyers, the judge said in his ruling.

The Bloomberg article is here.

 

The Art of Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Dividing assets in a divorce is not only a requirement, it can be a difficult aspect of a divorce. If so, valuing an art collection is singularly one of the most disputed parts of a divorce. Not only is valuation a problem, but people are emotionally attached to their artwork as one billionaire couple in New York has found out.

art of divorce

Billionaire’s Row

The ex-husband is Harry Macklowe, a real estate developer. The ex-wife is Linda Macklowe, an honorary trustee of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, who is passionate about collecting modern art.

Together they have accumulated a $72 million apartment, so large it runs the full length of one side of the Plaza Hotel, with windows overlooking Central Park. A second Manhattan apartment is high up in one of the tallest buildings in the Western Hemisphere, along the so-called Billionaires’ Row.

Their $19 million house in the Hamptons on Long Island has neighbors with boldface names, including Martha Stewart and Steven Spielberg. The $23.5 million yacht is a 150-foot-long prizewinner.

And then there is the art collection, an enormous trove of masterpieces that the judge presiding over the divorce described as “extraordinary” and “internationally renowned” and that has become the latest chapter in the exes’ rancorous unraveling. Among the more than 150 pieces are multiple works by Pablo Picasso, Jeff Koons, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko.

The exes’ lawyers have fought about what most of them were worth — one rare moment of agreement came when two art experts hired separately by the exes both valued an Andy Warhol creation filled with images of Marilyn Monroe at $50 million — and who should get them.

Florida Property Division

I have written about property division before. Florida is an equitable distribution state when it comes to dividing art in divorce. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, a court must set apart to each spouse that spouse’s nonmarital assets and liabilities.

In distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution.

Whenever an agreement cannot be made between the spouses, the court’s distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities must be supported by factual findings and be based on competent evidence. Whether the court distributes artwork equally or not, the court must make specific written findings of fact as to each marital asset and the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset.

Because an effective valuation is important, most attorneys will hire an expert appraiser to provide the appropriate report and testimony to the court.

It’s Up to You New York, New York

The Macklowes’ divorce comes with the twist of an impressive art collection that has been valued at as much as nearly $1 billion. In 2016, Mr. Macklowe told Ms. Macklowe that the marriage was over. By the end of last year, the Macklowes’ divorce had been granted. Mr. Macklowe then put giant images of himself and Patricia Landeau, his new wife, on the side of a luxury condominium building in Manhattan that he built.

But the wrangling continued over how to divide an art collection that David N. Redden, a former vice chairman of Sotheby’s, called “fairly staggering” and “one of the great prizes.” In the Macklowes’ divorce, the former spouses had to unload the art “to sustain their lifestyle. They don’t have the cash.” About 60 to 75 percent of their assets were tied up in the art collection.

As for the value of the art, during the lower-court proceeding, each side hired an expert to appraise the art. Mr. Macklowe’s expert estimated the value at $788 million; Ms. Macklowe’s expert said $625 million.

“If this had been a case with one or two fewer zeros, it would be an ordinary kind of dispute. Because of the prominence of the parties and the amount of money involved, this is a case that attracts natural attention.”

Ms. Macklowe did not want to let anything go. “She stated that she wished to enjoy the collection and sell individual pieces only as necessary to support her standard of living.” That would have posed tax problems for Mr. Macklowe. The wife wanted all the major pieces of art to go to her, and she would decide what to sell and when to sell it. The husband would have to pay taxes on what would be sold, because the value that would be attributed to the works would be the after-tax value. She would keep the art, the art would get sold and he would pay the taxes.

The New York Times article is here.

 

Speaking on Halloween and Daubert

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

This Halloween I will be co-presenting a webinar with the Hon. Samantha Ruiz Cohen. The presentation is sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section. The webinar will discuss Florida’s dark, lonely road to a new standard for admitting expert testimony: Daubert Returns.

Daubert

The presentation addresses the changes to §90.702 and §90.704; how the new Daubert standard differs from Florida’s old Frye rule; the Constitutional problem, appellate cases applying the new standard; how the judge’s role has changed; and the new Rules’ impact on the admissibility of expert testimony in family law cases.

The webinar will take place tomorrow, October 31, 2019 beginning at noon.

Did I mention the witches?

There is still time to register by clicking here.

 

Upcoming Webinar

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

For any interested readers, I will be speaking with the Hon. Samantha Ruiz Cohen at a webinar hosted by the Florida Bar Family Law Section. The webinar will discuss Florida’s twisting road to the current standard for admitting expert testimony in family law and divorce cases.

fla-supreme-ct

The presentation addresses the statutory changes to §90.702 and §90.704; how the new Daubert standard differs from Florida’s old Frye rule; the now-settled Constitutional problem, some appellate cases applying the new standard; how the judge’s role in admitting expert testimony has changed; and the new Rules’ impact on the admissibility of expert testimony in Family Law cases.

You can register by clicking here.

 

Divorce and the Engagement Ring

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Kim Kardashian reportedly refused to give back her engagement ring to estranged husband, former basketball player, Kris Humphries. Is a spouse obligated to return an engagement ring after a divorce has been filed – whether the ring is worth $2mm or not?

engagement ring

Keeping Up with the Kardashians

A source close to the Kardashian situation reports that her husband Kris contends that the marriage was a total sham and that Kim only wed him for publicity so therefore she has no right to keep such an expensive gift.

This is the latest battle in the drawn-out Kardashian-Humphries divorce proceedings. The reality star filed for divorce from Humphries in October 2011 after just 72-days of marriage. He responded a month later by filing for an annulment on the basis of fraud and a legal separation.

Florida Engagement Rings

I’ve written about some of the history and law about engagement rings before. Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiancé could sue for financial compensation for “damage” to her reputation under what was known as the “Breach of Promise to Marry” action.

As courts began to abolish such actions, diamond ring sales rose in response to a need for a symbol of financial commitment from the groom. Florida abolished the appropriately termed “heart balm statutes”. Heart balm statutes were laws allowing couples to sue each other to recover money for the alienation of affections and breaches of contract to marry.

As one court poetically noted:

[A] gift given by a man to a woman on condition that she embark on the sea of matrimony with him is no different from a gift based on the condition that the donee sail on any other sea. If, after receiving the provisional gift, the donee refuses to leave the harbor – if the anchor of contractual performance sticks in the sands of irresolution and procrastination – the gift must be restored to the donor. A fortiori would this be true when the donee not only refuses to sail with the donor, but, on the contrary, walks up the gangplank of another ship arm in arm with the donor’s rival?

After an engagement ring is given, and if the couple doesn’t marry, in New York the law deems a broken engagement as no one’s fault. Accordingly, the ring should be given back to the giver, with few exceptions. Most states have adopted that approach.

This is true in Florida. Lawsuits to recover an engagement ring by disappointed donors usually are resolved by courts looking to see if the engagement was terminated by the donee or by mutual consent of the parties. The rationale is that rings are given on the implied condition that a marriage ensue.

Once a marriage proposal is extended and accepted — once the promise is made — no matter what day of the year, that ring is no longer considered a gift. It’s a contract to enter into marriage.

The general rule in Florida is that an engagement ring given before the marriage, becomes a non-marital gift if the marriage is completed. If so, the ring becomes the non-marital property of the Wife.

If the engagement ring is viewed by the court as a non-marital asset, it is not subject to equitable distribution in divorce proceedings, and the spouse keeps it as their own.

Reality TV

Relying on real attorneys and not Judge Judy, both sides of the Kardashian case have accused each other in court and in the media of deliberately slowing down the divorce process, which has lasted five times longer than their marriage.

Recently, Kardashian’s attorney told the judge that her client is “handcuffed to Mr. Humphries” because his team is still not ready for trial. The estranged couple is set to return to court in mid-February to determine a trial date.

The Huffington Post article is here.

 

International Divorce Problems

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The housewife in the middle of one of Britain’s biggest international divorce cases has finally succeeded in serving her billionaire ex-husband legal papers after an attempt to serve them via the messaging app WhatsApp failed, a British court has ruled.

international divorce

Russian Meddling

Tatiana Akhmedova, who is in her 40s, was awarded a 41.5 per cent share of Russian businessman Farkhad Akhmedov’s estate by a British divorce court judge in December 2016. His fortune is estimated to be worth more than £1bn and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said Ms Akhmedova, who is British, should walk away with £453m.

However, Mrs. Justice Gwynneth Knowles, sitting in the High Court’s family division, said Mr Akhmedov, 64, had “regrettably” not “voluntarily paid a penny” of the money owed and that around £5m had been paid after enforcement.

The judge said she had been trying to serve the application by WhatsApp. That had not worked, ‘probably’ because Mr Akhmedov had blocked the number. An attempt at delivering documents to Mr Akhmedov’s office in Moscow had been ‘refused’.

Mrs. Justice Gwynneth Knowles says Ms Akhmedova has succeeded in serving legal papers relating to an application for asset freezing orders on Mr Akhmedov.

The judge heard that Farkhad Akhmedov had not voluntarily paid a penny to his ex-wife. The judge heard that Farkhad Akhmedov had not voluntarily paid a penny to his ex-wife. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave has ruled that Mr Akhmedov’s £346million yacht, the MV Luna, should be transferred into her name.

International Divorce Issues

Who sues whom, how do you sue for divorce, and in what country are problems in an international divorce? The answers are more difficult than people think. A British divorce might give more money because British courts can disregard prenuptial agreements, and the cost of living is high in London.

In France, things could be very different. Adultery can be penalized, but in the typical French divorce, any alimony could be less and for eight years at most; and prenuptial agreements are binding.

However, in Florida, the outcome could be different still. Under Florida law, alimony is constantly under threat of a major revision by the legislature, and child support is governed by a formula. Courts may award attorneys’ fees, and prenuptial agreements are generally enforceable.

Rules about children can differ too. I’ve written on international divorces, especially as they relate to child custody issues and The Hague Convention on abduction.

The Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by The Hague Conference on Private International Law to provide for the prompt return of a child internationally abducted by a parent from one-member country to another.

There are three essential elements to every Hague Convention case:

  1. The child must be under the age of 16 years of age;
  2. The wrongful removal must be a violation of the left behind parent’s “rights of custody;”
  3. The left behind parent’s rights of custody “were actually being exercised or would have been exercised but for the removal.”

So, if a child under the age of sixteen has been wrongfully removed, the child must be promptly returned to the child’s country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply. Even signatory countries may be bad at abiding by the convention, especially when it means enforcing the return of children to a parent alleged to have been abusive.

Hiding assets is a problem in every divorce, especially the British case. The problem of discovery of hidden wealth is even bigger in an international divorce because multiple countries, and multiple rules on discovery, can be involved. The problems in an international divorce are more complicated because hiding assets from a spouse is much easier in some countries than in others.

Florida, at one extreme, requires complete disclosure of assets and liabilities. In fact, in Florida certain financial disclosure is mandatory. At the other extreme, are countries which require very little disclosure from people going through divorce.

Choosing possible countries to file your divorce in can be construed as “forum shopping”. The European Union introduced a reform called Brussels II, which prevents “forum shopping”, with a rule that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. But the stakes are high: ending up in the wrong legal system, or with the wrong approach, may mean not just poverty but misery.

Back in Britain

Ms Akhmedova had begun legal action in Britain and abroad, taking steps to freeze his assets. Analyzing the latest stage of litigation, a judge said Ms Akhmedova has at last succeeded in serving legal papers to her ex-husband in relation to an application to freeze assets.

But the judge said the papers were successfully served on August 22 after an email was sent to Mr Akhmedov’s personal email address without a bounce back. The judge has given details of the hearing in a ruling summarizing the latest developments in the case. Neither of the respondents attended the hearing.

A spokesman for Mr Akhmedov has said his ex-wife’s attempts to seize his assets were “as misguided as the original English High Court” ruling.

The Telegraph article is here.

 

Speaking Engagement on Family Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

It was an honor to speak today in front of a ‘standing room only’ audience at the Family Division Courthouse. The presentation was hosted by the 11th Judicial Circuit’s Family Court Services, as part of their Lunch & Learn Series. I co-presented with my colleague Evan Marks, on Florida’s twisting road to the correct standard for admitting expert testimony in family law and divorce cases called: “Daubert Returns.”

Family Law Speech

The presentation was based, in part, on an article to be published this Fall in the Florida Bar Commentator, “Daubert House.” The presentation addressed the statutory changes to §90.702 and §90.704; how the new Daubert standard differs from the old Frye rule; the now-settled Constitutional problem, Florida appellate cases applying the new standard; how the judge’s role in admitting expert testimony has changed; and the new Rules’ impact on the admissibility of expert testimony in Family Law cases.

 

Divorce and the Date of Marriage

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The date of your marriage should be an easy question to answer. But, for one same-sex couple in the midst of a messy divorce – who made national headlines fighting to have their same-sex relationship recognized – the answer is anything but easy.

Divorce and Date of marrage

Divorce in Hot Lanta

Lawrie Demorest, an Atlanta attorney and Lee Kyser, a retired psychologist, are making headlines again, but this time over how to end their more than 20-year relationship.

The couple fought very publicly to have their relationship recognized by the Druid Hills Golf Club in Atlanta as the same as heterosexual couples, giving them the same rights and benefits as others.

Demorest, who has fought for LGBTQ equality, in response to a divorce brought by her lesbian partner, the former co-chair of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign has tried to legally nullify a relationship she once said should be treated the same as a marriage.

The two officially broke up in December 2017, and Demorest wanted the couple to walk away with what was titled in their own names. Kyser said no because in part she said she gave up her job to raise the twins the couple adopted in 1999, and her only source of income right now is Social Security. She accused Demorest of “setting her up for an undignified retirement.”

Kyser is suing Demorest for a divorce using the unusual argument that Georgia’s common law marriage, which was banned in 1997, coupled with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision “retroactively date the start of Kyser and Demorest’s marriage to July 1996, when Kyser moved into Demorest’s home. [Kyser] shows that, but for the unconstitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage, the parties would have been married by common law in July 1996.

DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Mark Anthony Scott denied Demorest’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Sept. 4. This means Kyser can further argue her claim that the couple should be considered common-law married due to the Obergefell ruling between July 1996, when they moved in together and January 1997, when the state banned common law marriage.

Florida Divorce

I have written about same-sex marriage and divorce issues before. Georgia, like Florida is among the states that do not recognize common law marriage. The Georgia case is important because same sex marriages were not recognized until 2014 and left an entire group of people “out in the cold” without the protections the law provides to heterosexual couples.

Florida law is similar in that no common-law marriage entered into after January 1, 1968, is valid in Florida. The generally established principle is that the validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where the marriage occurred. So, while Florida no longer recognizes common law marriages, nevertheless, it may to recognize the validity of common law marriages in other states.

Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to recognize same sex marriage, everything else from the marriage follows including rights of the parties, including marital property, alimony, divorce, and anything else. The rights and duties of marriage now apply to same sex couples.

This divorce is unusual, because one spouse is arguing they were never legally married under Georgia law.

Wisdom, Justice, Moderation

Kyser said her shock with Demorest seemingly so willing to write off nothing close to a legal marriage led to the divorce filings. She said Demorest’s longtime advocacy for marriage equality is counter to what she is doing with her own family as part of the couple’s split.

For example, Demorest served 13 years on the national Human Rights Campaign board of directors, including as co-chair between 2002-2005 during its heyday in the fight for marriage equality. She also formerly served on the board of directors of the National LGBT Bar Foundation.

However, now that her 20-year relationship with Kyser has ended, Demorest has argued in court filings that their extended union was never a marriage, was never intended to be a marriage, and that Demorest, a national leader for LGBTQ rights, “did not anticipate or have any expectation that marriage would ever become available to same-sex couples in Georgia.”

“I just can’t get over her blindness. How did she get to where she really talked herself into believing that she can advocate for equality and have this tremendous reputation, and then turn around and try to exit our relationship in this way, which is totally contradictory to fairness and equity. To have built up such a reputation professionally and politically, and to then turn and handle her own relationship and family like this just tears it down.”

In court documents, Demorest said although she and Kyser were together for two decades, including holding a commitment ceremony in 1998 and adopting and raising twins together, they never were legally married even as marriage became legal for same-sex couples.

“Up until recently when I decided that I could not wait any longer to end our relationship, I had always considered my relationship with Lee to be as my ‘significant other’ or domestic partner and co-parent of our two children, but never at any time as a legally wedded spouse,” Demorest said in an affidavit.

Demorest’s attorney said that “it’s a very murky thing to dive into and talk about the spirit of the relationship because each relationship has its own milieu. They had the opportunity to get married in 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and they did not.

In ’15 [when Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage nationwide], they could’ve marched over to the probate court in DeKalb County like a thousand other people did and get a marriage license, but they chose not to do that.

The article is here.

 

Upcoming Speaking Engagement

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

I will be speaking at the Family Court Services Lunch & Learn Series with my colleague Evan Marks, on Florida’s twisting road to the correct standard for admitting expert testimony in family law and divorce cases called: “Daubert Returns.”

speaking engagement

The Lunch & Learn Series consists of fantastic presentations hosted monthly by Family Court Services at the Family Division Courthouse, and this one will take place on:

 October 16, 2019, from 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm at the Family Division Courthouse located at 175 NW 1st Avenue 11th Floor Miami, Florida 33128.

The presentation is based, in part, on an article to be published this Fall in the Florida Bar Commentator, “Daubert House.” The Florida Legislature amended Sections 90.702 and 90.704 of the Florida Statutes to bind Florida courts to the Daubert standard for the admission of expert testimony and the basis for an expert’s opinion. Since then, the Daubert standard has been constantly attacked.

My co-presenter, Evan Marks, Esq. and myself, will answer the questions: What was the Frye Rule? What did the Daubert standard do to change it? And how it impacts experts in your marital and family law cases.

This presentation addresses the statutory changes to §90.702 and §90.704; how the new Daubert standard differs from the old Frye rule; the now-settled Constitutional problem, Florida appellate cases applying the new standard; how the judge’s role in admitting expert testimony has changed; and the new Rules’ impact on the admissibility of expert testimony in Family Division cases.

The event is sponsored by Family Court Services. Family Court Services was developed to assist family law judges and general magistrates with some of the Court’s most difficult family cases, reducing case delays while tending to the unique needs of divorcing parents and their children.

CLE and continuing education credit for judiciary, attorneys, mental health professionals, mediators and professional interpreters are also available.

You can register here.

 

Divorce and Infidelity in Congress

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Rep. Ilhan Omar is divorcing her husband. The Minnesota Democrat filed for divorce from Ahmed Hirsi last week. This news follows earlier reports that the Representative’s political consultant is facing his own divorce because of his infidelity with Rep. Omar.

Sex and No Fault Divorce

The Candidate

Omar and Hirsi became engaged in 2002 but never legally married. The pair had two children together before separating in 2008. Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 and later said the two obtained a divorce in their Muslim faith tradition — albeit not a legal one — in 2011.

Beth Mynett, wife of Omar’s political consultant, alleged in court documents that her husband, Tim Mynett, confessed his “devastating and shocking declaration of love” for Omar this past April, which led to the divorce.

Tim Mynett’s company, the political consulting firm E Street Group, has worked with Omar’s campaign. Federal campaign finance records show that Omar’s campaign paid Tim Mynett $7,000 in July 2018 and E Street Group roughly $222,000 from 2018 to 2019.

The E Street Group and lawyers issue a statement saying “E Street Group does not comment on the personal life of either our staff or clients. As with all marriages, this is intensely personal and a difficult time for their family.

Florida Divorce and Infidelity

I’ve written about the impact of cheating and divorce before. In practical terms, adultery as a crime poses very little threat of prosecution, but it could have other consequences.

Cheating on your spouse can even be grounds for losing your job. This is particularly true in the military, where adultery has a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge.

Chapter 61 discusses the “the moral fitness of the parents” as one of the factors the court considers in determining the best interests of a child. Adultery may impact the division of property. Proof that one spouse intentionally wasted marital assets could be seen as dissipation of assets. Adultery of either spouse could be a factor in determining the amount of alimony, if any, to be awarded.

There are times when evidence of adultery comes into evidence. Most often it doesn’t. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual activity between consenting adults is legal.

Ms. Omar Goes to Washington

Omar and Hirsi reconciled after that and had a third child together in 2012. The lawmaker officially filed to divorce Elmi in 2017, and legally married Hirsi in 2018.

Earlier this year, a Minnesota campaign finance board’s investigation found that the 38-year-old freshman congresswoman and Hirsi filed joint tax returns in 2014 and 2015, while she was still legally married to Elmi.

“For years, Ilhan and Ahmed have been the object of speculation and innuendo from political opponents and the media. This has taken a significant toll on Ilhan, Ahmed, and their three children.”

The divorce documents allege there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship. Omar said neither partner is seeking an order of protection and she asks the court to grant them “joint legal and physical custody” of their three minor children. She also asked the court to determine child support to “serve the minor children’s best interest” and award the “marital property” as the court “may deem just and equitable.”

The Hill article is here.