Tag: divorce property division

Equitable Distribution of Human Organs

If you promise to love someone with all your heart, can you ask a court for an equitable distribution of your donated human organs back? One very upset New York organ donor spouse is asking the court to be made whole again.

equitable distribution organs

Kidney Pains

Richard Batista, a 49-year-old doctor from Ronkonkoma who graduated from Cornell University Medical School in 1995, married Dawnell Batista on August 31 1990. The couple had three children, then ages 14, 11 and 8.

After Dawnell had two failed kidney transplants, her husband donated one of his kidneys to his wife in an operation that took place at the University of Minnesota Medical Centre on June 18 2001. Richard Batista said his marriage at the time was on the rocks because of the strain of his wife’s medical issues.

“My first priority was to save her life. The second bonus was to turn the marriage around.”

Four years later, Dawnell sued her husband for divorce, alleging domestic violence and infidelity.  One week before the divorce trial was scheduled to begin, Richard announced he was seeking a stay of the case until his retained “expert” could give an opinion to the court estimating how much his kidney was worth.

After Dawnell filed for a divorce, Richard wanted the court to either award him his kidney back as part of his settlement demand, or credit him in the equitable distribution the fair market value of his donated kidney – an estimated cool $1.5m.

Florida Equitable Distribution

I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. 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 non-marital assets and liabilities.

However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

In Florida, nonmarital assets include things such as assets acquired before the marriage; assets acquired separately by either party by will or by devise, income from nonmarital assets, and assets acquired separately by either party by non-interspousal gift. Importantly for this doctor’s divorce, will the donation of his pre-marital body part be construed as an interspousal gift?

Kidney Failure

In a 10-page decision, the Nassau County Supreme Court rejected the ex-husband’s request that it should consider his donated kidney as an item of property to be valued in the divorce suit, according to Dawnell Batista’s lawyer.

The court said “marital property” covers a lot of things, but human tissues or organs aren’t any of them. It also said that not only was Richard Batista’s attempt to extort money from his wife for the kidney he donated legally unsound:

“The defendant’s effort to pursue and extract monetary compensation therefore not only runs afoul of the statutory prescription, but conceivably may expose the defendant to criminal prosecution.”

Medical ethicists agreed that the case is a non-starter. Asked how likely it would be for the doctor to either get his kidney back or get money for it, Arthur Caplan at the University of Pennsylvania’s Centre for Bioethics, put it as:

“somewhere between impossible and completely impossible”.

What’s more, no reputable surgeon would perform such a transplant and no court could compel a person to undergo an operation, he said.

The NBC New York article is here.

Adultery and Property Division at the Yellowstone

Is it 1883 at the Yellowstone Ranch? Recently, a Montana legislator proposed a new bill that would turn the clock back on no-fault divorce by allowing family courts to consider adultery when deciding on a property division. The bill would also allow the court to award attorneys’ fees and costs of a divorce in cases of adultery.

Adultery Property Divorce

Dividing the ‘Oro y Plata’

The bill says in considering how to divide up assets and property during a couple’s divorce, a court “shall” consider “physical abuse or adultery that substantially contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” along with a host of other things, like how long they were married, their income levels, health and more.

Under House Bill 237, which saw its first hearing Friday, if a court finds the abuse or cheating “substantially” contributed to the deterioration of the marriage, it “may” order the abuser or cheater to pay “a reasonable amount” of the other spouse’s attorney’s fees.

The bill further adds that “physical abuse or adultery alone” could allow the court to split the couple’s assets disproportionately. The measure would also apply to orders in which one spouse has to cover ongoing living costs for the other.

Current law says courts have to make that decision “without regard to marital misconduct.” Under the new bill proposed:

In a case in which the court finds physical abuse or adultery substantially contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court may order the offending party to pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of maintaining and defending any proceeding under this chapter and for professional fees, including sums for legal and professional services rendered and costs incurred prior to the commencement of the proceedings or after entry of judgment. The court may order that the amount be paid directly to the professional, who may enforce the order in the professional’s name.

One of the proponents who testified was a woman who said she ran a domestic violence program on the Hi-Line. She said perhaps adultery and physical abuse needed to be defined, though she said she believed physical abuse included adultery.

The sponsor said he was open to a possible amendment defining each.

Florida Adultery and Property Division

I’ve written about property and adultery before. Adultery can be the cause of a divorce, but can it impact the outcome? Since Florida became a no-fault state, the fact that Beth may have cheated on Rip would not be a drama played out in court.

Interestingly, while anyone can file for divorce in Florida without proving grounds, there is still a Florida statutory basis for adultery to be an issue in your divorce proceedings. But not in the way most people think.

Florida is an equitable distribution state, and it is presumed that property should be evenly divided. This presumption may be overcome by proof that one spouse intentionally wasted marital assets. This waste is sometimes known as dissipation. Paying for expensive jewelry, foreign trips, rent, car payments, and dinners for girlfriends and boyfriends is considered wasting marital assets. The court has the power to reduce an adulterer’s equitable distribution to credit the marital estate for waste.

Adultery alone would not really be grounds for an unequal distribution if there was no dissipation. The rationale is that dealing with allegations of marital misconduct, such as adultery, would be a step back to 1923: before our no-fault system was enacted.

Big Problems in Big Sky Country

Many are opposing the bill: “This bill is giving abusive partners a legal tool to use allegations of adultery in a public forum against their spouse to harass, humiliate and intimidate them into staying in a violent relationship,” said a Missoula family law attorney who testified in opposition to House Bill 237.

An attorney who said 90% of their caseload involves survivors of domestic violence, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill, if passed, “would be devastating for survivors.”

Abusers often accuse their spouses of adultery to “exercise power and control” over them and the bill would help them utilize the justice system to continue the cycle.

The attorney also said the measure would encourage parties to litigate who is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, which would exacerbate already costly divorce proceedings. It would also further overburden courts where half of the cases involved family law\.

A domestic violence prosecutor for the City of Billings, said he was concerned judges might believe:

“The question we always get is why doesn’t she just leave? Well, this bill will help answer that question if it passes.”

The prosecutor also explained how domestic abusers – who are usually men, he said – see their wives as property and expendable resources and themselves “almost always (as) the victim.” He said the bill treats violence and adultery as the “exact same thing. Leveling accusations of domestic violence requires some sort of proof, and remember, one of these things is illegal; the other is not.”

The Daily Montanan article is here.

Equitable Distribution of Boudoir Photos in Divorce

How a family court decides the equitable distribution of boudoir photos, complete with intimate inscriptions and nude photographs, is never easy. A Utah family court recently ordered a woman to hand over her most intimate photographs to her ex-husband and a third-party photographer he chose.

Equitable distribution Boudoir

‘Utah: Life Elevated’

A former wife was married for 25 years and together for 27. As expected, the process of splitting their assets would be complex in a long marriage. The issue became so complex, negotiations failed and a one-day bench trial had to be held.

After the trial, the family judge ordered the former wife to surrender her most intimate photographs of herself to a third-party photographer for editing, and then ordered that the edited photos be given to her ex-husband for his viewing pleasure.

“You don’t know where to turn because you don’t know the law and you have not only your ex-husband who you were married to for years (thinking) that forcing you to distribute basically porn is OK … you have his attorney that also thinks that’s OK. And then you bring it in front of a judge, and he thinks it’s OK.”

The family court’s finding of facts dated July 7th — the day the divorce was finalized — found that the nude photos were given as gifts to the former husband earlier in their marriage, and therefore he “has the right to retain them and the memories they provide.”

The court also found the former wife has a right for her intimate photos to not be in her ex-husband’s possession. So how did the family judge decide the steamy issue? The judge ordered her to turn the images over to the original photographer for editing.

That person is then to do whatever it takes to modify the pages of the pictures so that any photographs of the former wife in lingerie or that sort of thing or even without clothing are obscured and taken out, but the (photo inscriptions) are maintained for the memory’s sake.

Florida Equitable Distribution

I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. 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 non-marital assets and liabilities.

However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

In Florida, nonmarital assets which are not divided include things such as assets acquired before the marriage; assets you acquired separately by non-interspousal gift, and assets excluded as marital in a valid written agreement.

Conversely, marital assets which are subject to division, generally include things like assets and liabilities acquired during the marriage, the enhancement in value of some nonmarital assets – and for anyone giving their spouse a gift of sensual boudoir photographs – interspousal gifts during the marriage.

Wisdom of Solomon

Despite the ruling, the original photographer refused to edit the images over a concern about ethics and legal repercussions to her photography business. Being a boudoir photographer, her clients trust her with their images and privacy, and the photographer took that responsibility seriously.

The judge then made a second ruling, and ordered the former wife to give the images to a different photographer for editing. She was also ordered to retain the original photos for 90-days before destroying them, in case her ex-husband wasn’t satisfied with the edits.

The former wife said her ex-husband isn’t happy with the edited photos, though she feels that she has complied with the court’s order, and she feels that her ex-husband’s demand for the photos was an attempt to control and hurt her.

“If all he was truly interested in was the inscriptions, he got those. I’ve complied with the court’s order, even though I believe strongly that (the) order (is) violating on many levels and has affected my emotional and mental health. I can’t imagine doing this to someone else.”

The ex-husband said his former wife’s description of the situation is her perspective. This is not my perspective nor the perspective of an impartial judge. It appears that she has intentionally misrepresented and sensationalized several aspects of a fair proceeding to manipulate the opinions of others for attention and validation of victimhood.

One attorney was quoted as saying equitable distribution in a divorce always involves a balancing of interests but the judge here has just made a mistake in the balancing of interests and has tipped things much too far in one direction.

The Salt Lake Tribune article is here.

Equitable Distribution of Google Stock

Scott Hassan, known by some as the third Google founder, is finally headed to his divorce trial after nearly seven years battling over the equitable distribution of Google stock, real estate, and other technology stock – estimated to be worth billions of dollars.

Equitable Distribution Google

“I’m Feeling Lucky”

As the divorces of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos show, technology billionaires are trying to divorce quietly, behind closed doors. For example, when Google co-founder, Sergey Brin divorced his ex-wife, he hired a private judge to hash out the details.

A quick Google search shows that Hassan and Huynh’s divorce is anything but quiet. Huynh accuses her husband of engaging in “divorce terrorism,” such as creating a negative website called AllisonHuynh.com.

The site contains documents posted of sexual allegations related to Huynh’s wrongful termination suit against her former employer. They claim that Huynh threatened to “kill [her former employer] and then herself” if he ever left her and “kept track of when [her former employer] was out with a new girlfriend,” according to the cross complaint filed by [her former employer] and his attorney in response to Huynh’s suit.

After being accused of creating it, Hassan admitted to launching the site, seeding it with links to articles written about his ex — and links to court documents from three embarrassing lawsuits that involve her.

When confronted, he purportedly admitted to The Post:

“I did, but I have taken it down. It came together in a moment of frustration, when I felt Allison and her attorney were telling one-sided stories to the press. I thought aggregating publicly available information without commenting or editorializing would help … It only ended up making our dispute more public and tense, which was never what I intended.”

According to sources, in 2018, their estate was valued at $1.8 billion and he wants to give her a minuscule fraction.

Florida Equitable Distribution

I have written about equitable distribution in Florida before. 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 non-marital assets and liabilities.

However, when distributing the marital assets between spouses, a family court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.

In Florida, nonmarital assets include things such as assets acquired separately by either party by will or by devise, income from nonmarital assets, and assets excluded as marital in a valid written agreement.

Importantly for this hi-tech divorce, non-marital assets would include assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either party before the marriage, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities.

“I’m Feeling Wonderful”

Mr. Hassan was a research assistant at Stanford’s computer science department when he met Larry Page, then a Ph.D. candidate. When Larry and Sergey Brin founded Google in 1998, Hassan bought 160,000 shares for $800. In 2004, the shares were worth more than $200 million. The shares, now in Google’s parent company, Alphabet, would be valued at more than $13 billion today.

In 2001 they married in Las Vegas and there was no prenuptial agreement, and they barely discussed finances. Ms. Huynh says she supported the family financially in the early years but her husband denies that.

In 2006, during the marriage, the husband formed a limited liability company called Greenheart Investments. Greenheart was valued at more than $1 billion in 2015.

Huynh wants Greenheart to be considered community property because Hassan repeatedly muddied the line between his separate assets and their community property. But Hassan argues that the company should be considered his separate property because it was started with his pre-marital assets.

Hassan acknowledged during court proceedings that he had set up Greenheart as his own company to keep certain assets ‘completely separate’ from Allison.” She insists it is community property — which partners must, typically, divide equally under California law.

Hassan maintains “that the disputed assets are properly characterized as my separate property — this does not necessarily mean that the community, or Allison, will not be compensated,” Hassan said. “I already agreed to provide her with a significant amount of money every month.”

But Huynh purportedly told The New York Post:

“His miserly position is ludicrous. I pray that a Big Tech billionaire will not get away with his attempt to cheat his children and me while he walks away with everything.”

The New York Times article is here.