Let's Talk About Common Law Marriage
Marriage has always been governed by state law, and it is only in very recent history that select states began revising their definitions of marriage to acknowledge the rights of all couples to be married. While Massachusetts...more
Partner Joseph Ortiz Discusses Changes in the Southern California Newspaper Group - For California employers, 2020 brings sweeping changes to equalize the workplace. This playbook of new employment laws — aimed at...more
On July 30, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 30 into law, changing existing law to permit opposite-sex couples under the age of 62 years old to register as domestic partners. Those who enter into domestic...more
Hong Kong’s top court has confirmed that the status of same-sex couples who have entered civil partnerships overseas is to be recognised when considering the grant of dependent visas. In QT v. Director of Immigration (FACV...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
How do domestic partnership agreements (DPAs) and prenuptial or premarital agreements differ? Marriage contracts between two people who plan to marry are prenuptial agreements or antenuptial agreements. Marriage...more
In our July 2, 2015 blog, Obergefell v. Hodges – Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in All 50 States, we indicated that employers may need to offer same-sex spouse health and welfare benefits and rethink domestic partner benefits in...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
The decision by the United States Supreme Court on same-sex marriage has been greeted with praise and disdain by different corners of the country. The faith-based community has been especially outspoken. This is not...more
Domestic partnership agreements should list or include an attached schedule of each party’s separate property. If the parties agree, the agreement should protect ownership of property and interests in trusts as separate...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
Partners may acquire a home together, and they may contribute different amounts toward the purchase price. During their relationship, they may contribute different amounts toward improvements, the mortgage, insurance, and...more
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 1039 (June 26, 2015),answered definitively the lingering questions following the Court’s decision last year in Windsor about whether states could...more
On June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that it is unconstitutional for a state to ban same-sex couples from exercising the fundamental right to marry. As a result of this...more
In its recent landmark Obergefell decision, the United States Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in all states. Many employers will have to decide whether to continue benefits for...more
On June 30, 2014, same-sex domestic partnerships registered with the Washington Secretary of State will automatically convert to lawful marriages, unless one of the partners is age 62 or older, or the domestic partners have...more
Action by December 31st Required for Safe Harbor - Yesterday, the IRS issued specific guidance on how employers can address issues arising from the change in tax treatment for same-sex spouses under cafeteria plans. ...more
The California state legislature recently enacted a law that may affect the taxation of benefits an employer provides to same-sex domestic partners in the state. California AB 362 excludes from gross income for California...more
In response to the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (Ruling) on August 29, 2013, in which the IRS set forth the following...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
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, and we reported in our client alert of July 12, 2013 on implementation of the decision by United States Citizenship...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
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