Paternity and Celebrity
Paternity meets celebrity after rocker, Dave Grohl, announces he is welcoming a child, but his wife of 21 years is not the mother. Dave is rumored to have already retained a divorce lawyer. Besides the couple’s raw emotions, what are some of the family law issues involved when a spouse has a child outside of the marriage?

I have a confession to make
Dave Grohl was the drummer for grunge band Nirvana, and is the founder, lead singer, guitarist, and principal songwriter of the Foo Fighters. Dave is recognized as the father of rock ’n roll these days: he’s talented, family-oriented, and beloved by fans, musicians and divorce attorneys alike. His nickname is “the nicest dude in rock.”
Dave and his wife Jordyn Blum met in 2001 when she was working as a producer at MTV. They married in 2003. They share three kids. His previous marriage ended in 1997. This week Dave’s reputation may have taken a hit after he announced in a post that he was having a child outside his marriage:
“I’ve recently become the father of a new baby daughter, born outside of my marriage. I plan to be a loving and supportive parent to her. I love my wife and my children, and I am doing everything I can to regain their trust and earn their forgiveness. We’re grateful for your consideration toward all the children involved, as we move forward together.”
The decision by Dave to make a pre-emptive announcement may well have been an attempt to control the narrative, something that crisis communications experts say is savvy. But there are also important family law issues when you have an extra-marital relationship which results in the birth of a child.
Florida Paternity Law
I have written about Florida family law matters, such as paternity, before. When a child is born during a marriage, the legal duty to support that child presumptively rests with the married couple. This presumption protects the welfare of the child. In Dave’s case, it is unclear if the natural mother of Dave’s child is married to another man.
Florida has specific laws relating to children born out of wedlock. Right now, Dave would be considered a “putative father”, meaning someone who may be the biological father of a child, whose paternity has not been established, and the child’s mother was unmarried when the child was conceived and born.
Generally, the parents of a child born out of wedlock, after paternity is established, are the natural guardians of the child, and are entitled and subject to the rights and responsibilities of parents.
But until the father has established paternity under Florida law, the mother of a child born out of wedlock is the natural guardian of the child. Before a court determines paternity, the mother is entitled to primary residential care and custody of the child unless the court enters an order stating otherwise.
Monkey wrench
The announcement was met with different reactions. Some fans took it as a personal affront. Mockery and memes of a sad-looking Ben Affleck also proliferated online, even as Dave pleaded for “consideration toward all the children involved, as we move forward together.”
The level of upset by fans speaks to Dave’s place in the music world, where he has reached high levels of adoration and respect. He is one of just a small group of musicians enshrined into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame with two bands.
But Dave is not the only celebrity to have paternity issues. He joins a list that includes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Marley, and Eric Clapton. While Dave’s celebrity paternity announcement may have gotten ahead of the news, it also left several unanswered legal questions.
The Newsweek article is here.
Divorce after Death in Japan and Florida
While rocky marriages in Florida may end in divorce, in Japan, there is a growing trend for couples to divorce after the death of one of the spouses. Many Florida divorce and family lawyers may not be aware of this Japanese concept of a posthumous divorce. Why is divorce after death growing in popularity in Japan and who is behind it?

Lost in Japan
Cases of divorce after death have been skyrocketing in Japan, more than doubling in just a decade. Studies have shown that women are overwhelmingly the ones filing to divorce their husband’s families after death. The reason comes down to cultural expectations toward wives in Japan.
The notion of a meddlesome in-law is a classic in western culture. But in Japan, they have an official process for severing one’s ties with a deceased spouse’s family called 死後離婚 (shigo rikon) in Japanese.
A shigo rikon is not a situation in which a spouse dies during the pendency of an ongoing divorce proceeding. A Japanese shigo rikon – is very different from your basic 離婚 (rikon, “divorce”). A rikon divorce can only be obtained while both spouses are still alive. This allows the surviving partner to inherit the deceased’s legacy and pension.
The technical term for a shigo rikon is “notification of marital relationship termination”, which means one is officially severing ties with the family of a deceased spouse. There are cases where a first-born might specifically leave their inheritance to their spouse in their will, at which time the person seeking the posthumous divorce would have to arrange a successor in the late spouse’s family first.
Even if a spouse is living with the in-laws at the time of the death, they would no longer have a legal obligation to take care of them. It becomes more of an ethical situation whether or not to continue doing so.
Florida Death and Divorce
I have written about divorce and Japan before. There is no similar process for a shigo rikon in Florida. It is the law in Florida that a marriage, being a purely personal relationship, is automatically terminated by the death of either spouse. The reason is simple: a dissolution of marriage action is a purely a personal action, so it cannot survive the death of either person in the marriage.
But, while a Florida divorce court loses jurisdiction if one of the spouses dies, if a final judgment of dissolution has been entered before the death of a spouse, the family court could keep its jurisdiction to determine property rights after the spouse’s death.
If you are involved in a divorce action, it is important to consider your estate planning documents and speak to a specialist in that area of law. While Florida does not prohibit you from amending your will or trust or changing beneficiary designations, some Florida jurisdictions have temporary standing orders impacting amendments to estate documents.
Big in Japan
A shigo rikon has no effect on your legal relationship with your deceased spouse. So, you can still keep your spouse’s surname and are still eligible for all inheritances, pensions, and insurance policies as they were before the posthumous divorce.
According to data from Japan’s Ministry of Justice, the number of posthumous divorces averages around 4,000 per year. Many of these cases use the divorce as a tool when spouses are dragged into inheritance disputes or other problems by order of the deceased’s will.
A shigo rikon shouldn’t be taken lightly though. It may not only impact relationships with in-laws, but could potentially impact relations between children and other relatives. Removing the responsibility for memorial services and grave upkeep may make it more difficult for a widow to participate in those services or visit his grave. And once the documents are filed, the process cannot be undone.
Despite those risks, shigo rikons are viewed as empowering for Japanese women, and an increase in the use of the process may demonstrate a change in family values and mindset in Japan.
The Sora News 24 article is here.
Interstate Alimony Awards
Are interstate alimony awards enforceable and modifiable in Florida after an interstate divorce? An Alabama ex-spouse who moved to Florida discovers the answer is more complex than many family lawyers might think. This recent case shows how a court should treat interstate alimony awards.

Sweet Home Alabama
The parties divorced in 2004 and a Final Judgment of Divorce was entered in Alabama. That judgment adopted the parties’ marital settlement agreement. Under their agreement, the husband agreed to pay the wife $1,000 per month in alimony. But over time, the wife was receiving her ex-husband’s Social Security benefits, and that raises an issue about whether social security benefits reduce a spouse’s obligation to pay alimony and child support.
Later, the husband relocated to Florida. In 2013, the wife filed a Verified Petition to Establish Foreign Decree as Florida Order and for Enforcement of their agreement in Florida. In 2014, that family judge signed an order declaring it would apply Alabama law to resolve the legal issues raised in the wife’s petition in interpreting the agreement. The court also concluded that Social Security benefits may be used to satisfy an alimony obligation, or stated another way, were a credit against alimony due.
Over the years, while her petition remained pending in the family court, the wife challenged whether her former spouse was entitled to a credit against the required alimony payments for the payments she was receiving through his Social Security benefits.
In 2022, a Florida court denied her motions, finding that because she was receiving, through her ex-husband’s Social Security benefits, payments in excess of the alimony obligation, the alimony obligation was “terminated as a matter of law.”
Florida Social Security Benefits and Alimony
Under Alabama law, Social Security is the same as an insurance policy with a private carrier, similar to a parent insuring against death or loss of physical ability to fulfill moral and legal obligations to dependent children. Just as insurance payments may fulfill and discharge alimony, Alabama law reasons, why shouldn’t Social Security benefits apply to child support as well as alimony obligations?.
Florida is different. Court do not allow a spouse to unilaterally use social security disability payments, for example, as a set-off against past due alimony unless there is some compelling equitable criteria and considerations or a settlement agreement provides for it.
Alabama Getaway
The wife appealed. On appeal, the court held that while the agreement adopted under Alabama final judgment requires the husband to pay alimony, the trial court correctly determined that the wife did not establish that her ex-husband failed to meet his alimony obligation.
The trial court applied Alabama law and concluded that the payment of his Social Security benefits satisfied his alimony obligation in full.
However, the Florida family court had also concluded that his alimony and life insurance obligations were “terminated as a matter of law.”
The family court erred in declaring alimony was terminated in two ways. First, a Florida court lacks jurisdiction to terminate an alimony final order of another state under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.
Second, under Alabama law, an alimony obligation is not terminated through the payment of Social Security benefits. Rather, the party required to pay alimony receives a credit against an alimony obligation for Social Security payments or benefits received by the other party.
The opinion is here.
Recognizing International Divorce Decrees
A recent Texas case resolves an important dispute over recognizing international divorce decrees. A couple filed for divorce in Texas. Then, the husband traveled to his home country of Pakistan for a ‘quicky’ divorce. Does the Texas court have to honor the international divorce decree?

Longhorns in Lahore
The parties were married in Pakistan in 2009 and later moved to Texas. Husband filed an original petition for divorce in Dallas County district court in 2021. He asked for a divorce, the division of their property, and for the court to decide child custody.
Eight months later, Husband filed a “Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment.”  He attached a “Divorce Registration Certificate” that was issued in 2022 by the Union Council in his home town of Lahore, Pakistan.
The Pakistani certificate lists addresses in Lahore for both parties. The Husband asked the Texas court to recognize the Pakistani divorce decree, and he also amended his divorce petition. He dropped his demand for a divorce as they were divorced now in Pakistan.
But the Pakistani divorce decree did not “dispose of the parties’ marital interest in various assets” or decide custody so he asked Texas to decide those issues. The Wife objected to recognizing the foreign judgment.
In 2023, after a hearing, the Texas family court sustained Wife’s objection to the recognition of the Pakistani decree, and rendered a final decree of divorce on June 7, 2023. The Husband appealed.
Florida Comity and International Divorce
I have written about international divorce issues before. In Florida, a person must have resided in Florida for 6 months before the filing of the petition for the court to have jurisdiction over your divorce. The term “reside” generally means a legal residence in Florida with an intention to stay there, as opposed to a temporary residence.
However, in our mobile society many couples have multiple residences where they reside. Some of those residences can be in other countries, and more than one country may have jurisdiction. Will a foreign divorce decree be recognized in the U.S.?
Generally, comity is the recognition that a country gives to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another country, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens.
A U.S. state will respect and give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another jurisdiction, provided that they do not conflict with public policy. Comity ensures that international divorce decrees will be recognized and enforced across different countries.
Cowboys, Curry, and Comity
On appeal, the Husband argued the court didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce because they were no longer married. The appellate court noted that states, however, are not required to give full faith and credit to every single foreign divorce decree. Dismissal of a case based on comity is a matter of discretion for a trial court.
In this case, the only evidence the Wife received notice about the Pakistani divorce proceeding was an email from the Husband stating: “I am attaching NADRA divorce certificate for your records” and a one-sentence text message saying: “to fulfill religious obligation, I have pronounced verbal divorce today.”
The Husband argued Pakistan is not required to follow Texas-specific due process laws or rules. The appellate court agreed Pakistan did not have to follow American notions of due process. But, a U.S. court can refuse to recognize judgments obtained without due process. Since there was never notice to Wife of the Pakistani proceedings until after a judgment was rendered, she was deprived of minimum due process, and the international decree was not recognized.
The opinion is available at MKFL International Family Law.
Equitable Distribution Isn’t Always Equitable
Dividing marital property in a divorce is governed by the equitable distribution statute. Sometimes the division is not so equitable. One former husband complained to the appellate court the values of the marital property awarded to his former wife increased so much after the trial, he needed more money to do equity.

What goes up
In 2018, the parties’ marriage was dissolved, and their assets were equitably divided and distributed. The former wife was awarded the marital home, valued at around $138,000. The final judgment required the former husband to sign over a deed of his interest in the home to his former wife, but also obligated the former wife to pay cash to the former husband to equalize the distribution.
Neither party appealed the revised equitable distribution scheme in the amended final judgment, which continued to award the former wife the marital home and continued to value it at $138,413.
In 2022, the former husband filed a motion claiming that value of the home had increased so much, that he was entitled to have the value from any sale equally divided. He did not move to set aside either the final judgment or the amended final judgment as inequitable.
Instead, he argued that the valuation of the home in both judgments was put in place to show if the house had been sold at the current market, what it would be worth. Following a hearing, the family judge disagreed, and the former husband appealed.
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.
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.
However, when dividing up a marital estate, a court can’t always divide it equally to the penny. To ensure a marital estate is equalized, a court may order one spouse to pay the other spouse a lump sum payment. This amount is referred to as an “equalizing payment”.
An equalizing payment is proper only when the distribution schedule justifies it and the payment is in the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.
Must Come Down
On appeal, the court found that when an equalizing payment is ordered by a court to equitably distribute marital assets, they payment becomes vested when the judgment is entered, and is treated as a debt owed.
Here, the former husband had 30 days after entry of the final judgment to challenge the equitable distribution but he didn’t. The equalizing payment vested and could not be challenged because res judicata applies to prevent either party from relitigating the issue.
The court also held that even if the former husband had timely brought a claim under rule 12.540 it would fail. Former husband had to allege “new circumstances.” The fact that the marital home may have appreciated in value is not a new circumstance.
The opinion is here.
Transforming Nonmarital Property Into Marital Property
For many clients going through divorce, there is a concern that their nonmarital property can transform into marital property, and then get distributed by a court. Believe it or not, divorce lawyers know that in certain cases, it is easy for your nonmarital asset to be transformed into a marital one. One couple in north Florida found out how courts look at whether your nonmarital property has been transformed into a marital property during a divorce.

Defining Marital and Nonmarital Property
Understanding a little about Florida’s equitable distribution statute will help you protect your premarital assets from being wrongly divided. In Florida marital assets and liabilities include assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them.
Many people forget that marital assets also include the enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both.
Another area of transforming nonmarital assets into marital one is by gifts. Under Florida law, marital assets include gifts between spouses during the marriage.
Conversely, nonmarital assets and liabilities include things like assets acquired and liabilities incurred before the marriage, and assets acquired separately by either party by non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent. For example, an inheritance may initially be considered nonmarital property absent anything else.
Before a court will classify your assets as either marital or nonmarital, the court will consider numerous factors. One of the factors a court will look at is the title of the property. A court will also consider whether you commingled your marital funds with your nonmarital funds. Were there any increases in the value of your nonmarital stock accounts because of marital efforts, or control of the funds? If so, a court may consider that too. They will also look at the length of the marriage, and your intent concerning the marital or nonmarital status.
Transforming Marital Property
In a recent case in Florida’s panhandle, a husband and wife divorced. During the trial, the family judge added to the equitable distribution schedule one of the husband’s Certificate of Deposit accounts. However, there was no evidence that the CD account, which was acquired ten years before the marriage, had transformed into a marital asset.
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court found that there was no evidence at the trial that there was any enhancement of the CD account through the husband’s efforts. The court also noted that there was no evidence that the husband commingled his nonmarital funds with marital funds. Lastly, there was no evidence that he had given to his wife the CD account as a gift.
Gifts between spouses are an important and frequent way in which a nonmarital asset becomes a marital asset. Believe it or not, there are even cases in Florida where spouses accidentally gifted non-marital homes to their spouse by birthday card, not realizing they would be found to have the proper donative intent.
Florida’s New Anti-Gift Law
This year the law changed in Florida. The revised equitable distribution statute now prohibits interspousal gifts of real estate unless there is written documentation that complies with the provisions for conveyance of real property under the statute governing deeds to property.
The mere inference of a gift of real property will now not meet the threshold required for an interspousal gift unless there was written documentation for a conveyance.
The new law in Florida also makes it clear that when a spouse merely signs a deed for the sole purpose of conveying a homestead property – other than the other spouse or both spouses jointly – the deed does not change the character of the real property from nonmarital property to marital property.
Finally, the new amendment to the equitable distribution statute changes the definition of nonmarital assets and liabilities so that real property acquired separately through non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent and in which legal title has not been transferred to both parties as tenants in the entireties, remains non-marital property.
The appellate decision is here.
Mistakes In Your Agreement
What happens when you discover mistakes in your marital settlement agreement? Family and divorce lawyers are always interested in protecting their clients, and themselves, against mistakes. When agreements are entered into fast and furiously, mistakes can happen. One married couple in Florida found out just how courts look at mistakes in a marital settlement agreement.

Fast and Furious Divorce
In 2019, the wife filed for divorce. In their in pretrial stipulation, the parties agreed they would each keep their own cars and pay their respective car loans. However, their agreement was not specific as to what type of car each party owned and which care they would keep.
At their final hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment and incorporated their agreement. The husband kept the 2010 Mercedes and the wife kept the 2005 Mercedes.
About a month after their divorce the wife asked the family judge to correct their final judgment, arguing, in part, that the 2010 Mercedes actually belonged to her, that they no longer owned the 2005 Mercedes, and that they actually owned a 2015 Mercedes. The Husband argued in response that the 2010 Mercedes was really his car, and that there was no error in the final judgment.
During the hearing on her motion, the wife told the judge the 2010 Mercedes is titled in her name, it was her Mother’s Day gift for herself, and they intended for her to keep the care when they signed the agreement.
The husband argued that they purchased the 2010 Mercedes after being in a car accident with their previous vehicle. The couple alternated which vehicle they drove based on their needs. Before their divorce, the husband testified that it was always his understanding that he would keep the 2010 Mercedes when entering into the agreement.
Following this hearing, the court found a mutual mistake in the agreement and final judgment should be set aside. The trial court entered a Consent Order Equitably Distributing Vehicles giving the wife a one-half interest in the 2010 Mercedes and sole possession of the 2015 Mercedes. The husband appealed.
Florida Setting Aside Final Judgments
After a final judgment is entered in a divorce, courts are limited in granting relief, but not entirely. For example, a court can relieve a person from a final judgment because of things like, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud and the like.
Motions seeking relief from a judgment usually must be filed within a reasonable time, and usually not more than 1 year after the judgment. However, there is no time limit in Florida if the motion for relief is based on a fraudulent financial affidavit in marital or paternity case.
Fate of the Furious
On appeal, the husband argued that, at most, there was a unilateral mistake on behalf of the wife, which is insufficient grounds to set aside the final judgment.
The appellate court agreed. A marital settlement agreement may be set aside when it is entered into as a result of mutual mistake. However, a mutual mistake occurs when the parties agree to one thing and then, due to either a scrivener’s error or inadvertence, express something different in the written instrument.
But if the mistake is due to your own negligence and lack of foresight and there is absence of fraud or imposition, equity will not relieve you.
In this case, the parties’ agreement provided that “each party shall keep their own vehicle. However, there was no evidence regarding the vehicles at the final hearing, and the motion for relief filed afterwards only showed that the parties’ testimonies contradicted each other. The order was reversed and the original agreement and its disposition of the cars was reinstated.
The appellate decision is here.
Florida’s New Safe Exchange Locations Law
A new law amending Florida parenting plans this month deals with the concept of a ‘safe exchange location’. Every child custody and timesharing case must have a court approved parenting plan in which parents share decision-making and physical custody of their children. In some timesharing cases, the places parents do their pickups and drop-offs can be a problem. Family lawyers in Florida will be interested in the new changes to parenting plans.

Cassie Carli Law
Florida parenting plans not only govern the relationship between parents relating to decision making, but must contain a timesharing schedule for the parents and the children. Ideally, a parenting plan should attempt to address all issues concerning the minor child like the child’s education, health care, and physical, social, and emotional well-being.
But a frequent problem has been the place where exchanges of the child for timesharing takes place. Timesharing exchanges commonly occur in either parent’s homes, or well-lit parking lots of popular establishments, rest stops at the midway point between both parents, the child’s school, or a common landmark such as a specific coffee shop. There is really no limit to the location parents can agree to for the timesharing exchange.
However, when the parents have a contentious relationship, it is generally preferable that the exchange be made in a public, well-lit location with security cameras and high foot traffic by other people. Usually, parents are able to agree on a change in exchange location and deviate from the location prescribed in the parenting plan as needed.
Some sheriff and police departments allow parents to use their lobbies as an exchange location, but there is no standard process or procedure for all locations and many disapproved of the process.
The new law is often called  the “Cassie Carli law.’ The law was named for Cassie Carli, who was a 37-year-old mother from Navarre, Florida. Cassie went missing after a custody exchange with her ex-boyfriend. Days after she went missing, Cassie was found buried in Alabama.
Under the new law effective this month, every sheriff in Florida must:

designate at least one parking lot as a neutral safe exchange location for use by parents of a common child and
identify minimum requirements that each designated safe exchange location must satisfy, including a purple light or signage in the parking lot and a camera surveillance system.

Starting this July, family courts in Florida can order that exchanges of a child be conducted at a neutral safe exchange location if there is a risk or an imminent threat of harm to one of the parents or the child during the exchange.
The bill amends the domestic violence statute to allow the petitioner to request that the court require timesharing exchanges to be conducted at a safe exchange location, and to authorize or require the court to order the use of a neutral exchange location in an ex parte order for a temporary injunction under certain circumstances.
The bill also amends the law to provide that a parenting plan must generally designate authorized locations for the exchange of the child and may be required to take place at a neutral safe exchange location if there is a risk or an imminent threat of harm to one of the parents or the child during the exchange; the court finds such a requirement necessary to ensure the safety of a parent or the child; and such a requirement is in the best interest of the child.
Florida’s new designated safe exchange locations are not always staffed but are considered a secure environment because of the video surveillance and proximity to law enforcement. Police suggest that if anything occurs during the exchange to call 911 immediately.
The bill became effective July 1, 2024.
Big Update to Florida’s Property Division Law
There have been big updates to Florida’s property division law after Governor Ron DeSantis signed an important House Bill this month. Many divorce lawyers will be interested in the changes to the equitable distribution statute this bill makes and it can impact your divorce right now.

Dividing up property in divorce
In every divorce case, courts have to equitably distribute of assets and liabilities between the parties. In order to do that, the court first has to evaluate what assets and liabilities exist, then determine which are “marital” and which are “non-marital.” A new law makes some interesting changes to what are marital and non-marital assets, and how to distribute them.
Marital assets include things like, any assets and debts acquired during the marriage, the enhancement of value and appreciation of non-marital assets due to the efforts of either spouse or the contribution of marital funds or other marital assets; interspousal gifts during the marriage; retirement, pension, profit-sharing, and other similar funds during the marriage
A court always starts with the premise that a distribution of marital assets and liabilities should be equal, unless there is justification for an unequal distribution based on certain factors.
The new bill tries to clarify different aspects of the equitable distribution process. For example, the bill clarifies what sort of circumstances justify an temporary partial distribution during a divorce, and even provides a list of factors for the court to use in making a determination on whether there is good cause to make a temporary partial distribution.
Can you give your house away as a gift?
Believe it or not, there were cases in Florida where spouses accidentally gifted non-marital homes to their spouse by Valentine’s Day card or birthdays cards not knowing they would be found to have the proper donative intent.
The new law now prohibits interspousal gifts of real estate unless there is written documentation that complies with the provisions for conveyance of real property under the statute governing deeds to property. The mere inference of a gift of real property will now not meet the threshold required for an interspousal gift unless there was written documentation for a conveyance.
The bill also makes it clear that when a spouse merely signs a deed for the sole purpose of conveying a homestead property – other than the other spouse or both spouses jointly – does not change the character of the real property.
Finally, the new law changes the definition of non-marital assets and liabilities so that real property acquired separately through non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent and in which legal title has not been transferred to both parties as tenants in the entireties, remains non-marital property.
How do you value the family business
Your small business can be a marital asset, and difficult to value. That’s  because of the concept of “goodwill.” Goodwill is that intangible value of your business above and beyond the value of its physical assets. Things like, your company’s brand, reputation, amount of loyal customers, employee relations, and proprietary technology are aspects of goodwill.
One kind of goodwill is called “enterprise goodwill”, the value that exists separate and apart from the reputation or continued presence of the spouse who owns the business. Enterprise goodwill is a marital asset equitably distributed in a divorce. On the other hand, “personal goodwill” is the goodwill attributable to the spouse, not to the business itself, and is not a marital asset. That begs the questions, what is and isn’t personal goodwill?
Under the new law, courts have to consider evidence that a non-compete clause or a similar restrictive covenant may be required upon the sale of the business. The law clarifies that the mere existence of a non-compete provision is not dispositive as to whether the goodwill is considered enterprise goodwill. So, even if the valuation of a business is based on the requirement for a non-compete contract, the court can still determine whether the goodwill is enterprise or personal and subject to equitable distribution.
The new law becomes effective July 1, 2024 and is available here.
Abducted Child Returned to Third Country
In an international custody case, can a court order an abducted child be returned to a third country that’s not the habitual residence if the habitual residence has become unsafe? This is a frequent problem under the Hague Convention, and one New York appeals court just answered the question.

Два чоботи – пара
(“Two shoes make a pair”)
Tereshchenko and Karimi married in Odesa, Ukraine, in 2017. They are the parents of two children, one born in Ukraine and another born Florida. They divorced in 2018, and signed a custody agreement under which the children would reside with Karimi and Tereshchenko would “freely visit” with them and participate in their upbringing.
Then Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Karimi contacted Tereshchenko in Dubai by phone and asked for the passports so they could quickly leave Ukraine.
He agreed, but asked that they be brought to him in Dubai. Instead, she took the children to Poland, and ultimately to Manhattan. On January 8, the court found the children were “habitual residents” of Ukraine, and return to Ukraine did not pose a grave risk of harm.
The court ordered the return the children to Tereshchenko in France.
Hague Child Abduction Convention
I have written and spoken on international custody and child abduction under the Hague Convention. The Convention’s mission is basic: to return children to the State of their habitual residence to require any custody disputes to be resolved in that country, and to discourage parents from taking matters into their own hands by abducting or retaining a child.
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
If an applicant can prove his prima facie case, the abducted children must be promptly returned to their habitual residence. But what if no one is left in the habitual residence?
Розставити всі крапки над “і”
(“Dotting your “i”)
The appeals court noted that both parents agreed to remove the children from Ukraine because of the Russian invasion. And both parents continue to recognize the dangers posed by returning the children to Ukraine.
Notwithstanding the grave risk of harm facing the children if returned to Ukraine, the court agreed a court could return a child temporarily in a third country. The ongoing war in Ukraine simply precluded entry of the ordinary Hague Convention order.
However, even if a court does return a child to a third country instead of the habitual residence, the return order must be tailored to secure the continued authority of the Ukrainian courts over the children and over the parents’ respective custody rights. Absent such tailoring, the order has the effect of an impermissible custody determination.
The Convention did not accept a proposal to the effect that the return of the child should always be to the State of its habitual residence before removal․ The Convention’s silence must be understood as allowing the return of a child directly to the applicant, regardless of the place of residence.
The opinion is available at the invaluable MK Family Law site.