A recently published decision of Saseeshkumar v. Venugopal confirms that a request to amend a Complaint and/or Counterclaim for Divorce can and should be freely permitted in the interests of justice. While the facts here are...more
I have seen this more than one time in my career. One party (or his/her family members) really wants there to be a prenuptial agreement but, either due to lack of time, fear/cowardice, not having your act together, or any...more
Many people think that palimony is just alimony with a “P” and that the mere existence of a long term unmarried relationship, where the people live together, is enough to convey some right of support. Having argued the...more
In light of all the negative new stories in 2020 and the statistics about the rise in divorce rates, it does not hurt to point out that there is a plus side to the pandemic: more requests for premarital agreements means more...more
In the summer of the fiftieth anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the LGBT* community have a lot to celebrate. In the last 15 years, there have been significant changes for same-sex couples in England and Wales. In 2004 the...more
Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides funding for long-term care in a nursing home, an assisted living facility, an adult medical day care program or at home. As a means-tested public benefit program,...more
Prior to the December, 2016 Neyman vs. Buckley decision, couples who were joined in civil unions had difficulty dissolving their union in Pennsylvania. When Neyman filed a divorce complaint to dissolve her civil union in...more
September Interest Rates for GRATs, Sales to Defective Grantor Trusts, Intra-Family Loans and Split Interest Charitable Trusts - The September § 7520 rate for use with estate planning techniques such as CRTs, CLTs, QPRTs...more
July Interest Rates for GRATs, Sales to Defective Grantor Trusts, Intra-Family Loans and Split Interest Charitable Trusts - The July § 7520 rate for use with estate planning techniques such as CRTs, CLTs, QPRTs and...more
This is the fourth installment of a seven-part series. Florida law generally provides, when there is no premarital agreement, a marrying person’s right to alimony depends on the person’s need for alimony and the other...more
In a historic decision, the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges recently held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires all jurisdictions in all fifty states to: (1) license a...more
Yesterday Hawaii adopted the Hawaii Marriage Equity Act of 2013 recognizing same sex marriages as of December 2, 2013 and permitting persons in civil unions in Hawaii to apply to be married without first requiring dissolution...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provision preventing the federal government from recognizing a legally-valid marriage of a same-sex couple, and the Internal Revenue Service...more
After months of speculation, on August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service published formal guidance on the treatment of same-sex spouses under the Internal Revenue Code. In Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the IRS confirmed that a...more
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision inUnited States v. Windsor overturning Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raised several questions regarding the federal tax treatment of same-sex couples. (See Holland &...more
We recently sent an E-Alert on what the recent Supreme Court same-sex marriage decisions mean for employers, but what do those decisions mean for the couples themselves in terms of employer and tax benefits?...more
Last month, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act's requirement that only opposite-sex marriages may be recognized for federal law purposes. The Court's decision became effective July 21,...more
In today’s world, fewer marriages exist and more people are cohabitating in committed relationships for various reasons. Arizona’s community property laws do not apply to the ownership of real property between...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) that defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. This decision will...more
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal law purposes to mean opposite-sex marriage, is unconstitutional (United States v. Windsor, 2013 WL...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which required the federal government to deny married same-sex couples the rights and benefits provided to...more
In Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that required federal laws to ignore same-sex marriages that are legally entered into...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in United States v. Windsor. ...more
With the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, same–sex couples legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, and who reside in such a state, are now governed by...more
On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, holding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages for purposes of...more