I'm not too terribly surprised that it has been over a month since I last blogged. So much has happened with getting the boys through another semester of school, then Christmas, then New Years, then one of the boys' birthdays then Snowcalypse (although with the unexpected break caused by Snowcalypse I would have thought I'd blog more, not less) and finally, a presentation I delivered on the United Nations Agreements reached in Cancun in December.
Still, all of that is a poor excuse for neglecting my nightly blog duties. A pox upon me for loafing.
The Firm continues to do exceptionally well. Looking back at 2010 we actually helped more people than in 2009 which was an astonishing accomplishment in this economy. Of course, you are familiar with our successful battles in Cyprus in getting little girls returned under the Hague convention and preventing the departure of a boy to non-Hague country, Nigeria with only 24 hours' notice, and the location and rescue of a boy who had been abducted by his estranged and violent father.
You no doubt recall reports of the trials, now too numerous to mention, but capping off with that $500,000 alimony award when the opposing counsel had asked the jury for $3.2 million.
All in all, while 2010 could have been better for our nation and our clients, it was not a bad year for The Firm.
So, now I'm back at the late night keyboard, typing out a line, reaching out into cyberspace, and dropping a few observations about this curious profession and the practice I've chosen and so dearly love - Family Law.
Stay tuned...
Michael Manely
Showing posts with label Alimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alimony. Show all posts
Monday, January 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Where have I been?
It has been almost two weeks since I last visited these pages, now often a part of my nighttime ritual. You may well ask, where have you been?
I have been doing that rarest of rare things in family law, a jury trial. Our trial was conducted In Fulton County Superior Court (http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Fulton-County-Judges.asp) over three days: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday last week. The jury came back with its verdict at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night.
It was a divorce case. Twenty-six year marriage. Three grown kids. My client is a medical doctor. Very nice guy. The opposing party is an attorney. She hasn't practiced since the second year of their marriage. The significant issue was alimony.
Opposing Counsel wanted to play it up for the jury. His case was full of drama complete with heroes and villains (my client was cast as the villain). Opposing Counsel's problem is that he had no facts to back up his theme. And his client, as I told the jury is a very nice lady, didn't have the best of stories nor the best of presentation. So, Opposing Counsel had no facts and his client had no presentation.
The Opposing side wanted the jury to award them 3.2 million. The jury awarded them less than one-sixth of that. We were prepared to offer them more than what the jury eventually awarded had Opposing Counsel's demand not been so extreme.
What is the moral to the story? If Opposing Counsel had ever taken the task of settlement seriously rather than be consumed by slaying the dragons of his imagination, he could have helped his client far more. Opposing Counsel wanted so desperately to play the hero. At the end of our tale, that was not the role he wound up playing.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Divorce.asp
I have been doing that rarest of rare things in family law, a jury trial. Our trial was conducted In Fulton County Superior Court (http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Fulton-County-Judges.asp) over three days: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday last week. The jury came back with its verdict at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night.
It was a divorce case. Twenty-six year marriage. Three grown kids. My client is a medical doctor. Very nice guy. The opposing party is an attorney. She hasn't practiced since the second year of their marriage. The significant issue was alimony.
Opposing Counsel wanted to play it up for the jury. His case was full of drama complete with heroes and villains (my client was cast as the villain). Opposing Counsel's problem is that he had no facts to back up his theme. And his client, as I told the jury is a very nice lady, didn't have the best of stories nor the best of presentation. So, Opposing Counsel had no facts and his client had no presentation.
The Opposing side wanted the jury to award them 3.2 million. The jury awarded them less than one-sixth of that. We were prepared to offer them more than what the jury eventually awarded had Opposing Counsel's demand not been so extreme.
What is the moral to the story? If Opposing Counsel had ever taken the task of settlement seriously rather than be consumed by slaying the dragons of his imagination, he could have helped his client far more. Opposing Counsel wanted so desperately to play the hero. At the end of our tale, that was not the role he wound up playing.
Michael Manely
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/PracticeAreas/Divorce.asp
Monday, August 9, 2010
"What do you think I owe you?"
When a marriage ends at one party's request, it is often hard to perceive how the party who wants to leave has any claim to the future work of the party who gets left.
Tonight's topic: alimony.
And alimony in that particular situation, where the party seeking alimony is the one who has left yet still wants to continue a relationship with her ex spouse. She wants that kind of relationship where she has no responsibilities but he will continue to support her. It seems the height of cynicism.
"I don't want to live with you anymore. I don't want to share meals with you anymore. I don't want to have Christmas with you anymore. Oh, but I still want you to take care of me."
I don't think that position works. I don't think you can sell that position. I think there is no market for that position.
If you want out, fine. But don't expect others to keep picking up your tab. It doesn't tend to work that way.
Put yourself in the juror's shoes, a relatively randomly chosen group of 12 regular folks, folks you might pass in the grocery store. Not your grocery store, but some other grocery store somewhere in your county. You're going to tell those jurors, those strangers, that you just want the allowance without the chores. You want the cake, you just don't want to have to bake it. You want the reward without the work. I can't think of a more spoiled meme.
And the jury never buys it.
Sure, you can think of circumstances where this scenario would work: spousal abuse, habitual adultery (on the non-leaving party's part), incurable alcohol addiction. But that doesn't happen often. That is not the norm. There's a reason why that's called the exception. And it is the exception that proves the rule. The rest of the time, the leaving party just wants out, wants to move on, wants to see other people, wants to have her own life.
She's more than entitled to have her own life. She just has to fund it.
But the jury will tell her that. Lord knows her attorney won't. There's too much money to be made until the verdict.
Michael Manely
Tonight's topic: alimony.
And alimony in that particular situation, where the party seeking alimony is the one who has left yet still wants to continue a relationship with her ex spouse. She wants that kind of relationship where she has no responsibilities but he will continue to support her. It seems the height of cynicism.
"I don't want to live with you anymore. I don't want to share meals with you anymore. I don't want to have Christmas with you anymore. Oh, but I still want you to take care of me."
I don't think that position works. I don't think you can sell that position. I think there is no market for that position.
If you want out, fine. But don't expect others to keep picking up your tab. It doesn't tend to work that way.
Put yourself in the juror's shoes, a relatively randomly chosen group of 12 regular folks, folks you might pass in the grocery store. Not your grocery store, but some other grocery store somewhere in your county. You're going to tell those jurors, those strangers, that you just want the allowance without the chores. You want the cake, you just don't want to have to bake it. You want the reward without the work. I can't think of a more spoiled meme.
And the jury never buys it.
Sure, you can think of circumstances where this scenario would work: spousal abuse, habitual adultery (on the non-leaving party's part), incurable alcohol addiction. But that doesn't happen often. That is not the norm. There's a reason why that's called the exception. And it is the exception that proves the rule. The rest of the time, the leaving party just wants out, wants to move on, wants to see other people, wants to have her own life.
She's more than entitled to have her own life. She just has to fund it.
But the jury will tell her that. Lord knows her attorney won't. There's too much money to be made until the verdict.
Michael Manely
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Revenge is a dish which is best served cold.
Last night I wrote about plotting spouses having a special place in hell reserved. Tonight I write about how plotting can be your best strategy.
As with all of life, whether it is ethical or moral to plot is a judgment call. In tonight's scenario, you get the notion that your spouse is seeing someone else. Maybe they're hyper sensitive about you being in proximity to their cell phone. Maybe they have unaccounted for hours. But you have a hunch. What do you do?
First you need to decide if you care to confirm your suspicions. Does it matter if they are definitely committing adultery? Do you really want out anyway? Even if you are leaving, are you the kind of person who needs to know just for your sense of balance? If so, then you should confirm.
Don't expect your spouse to come clean when you ask them. They don't. They usually don't confess when you confront them. They will often have an excuse, no matter how paltry, even if you have an 8x12 glossy of them deep in the throes. They won't confirm. You need another strategy.
You need to catch them.
Private Investigators are the time honored method of catching cheating spouses. I swear by them. If you can tailor their work to specific times when your spouse is most likely to be stepping out, private investigators can be reasonably affordable. But that isn't your only recourse.
Back to my point: you've decided you want or need to confirm. Perhaps your need stems from your legal situation. Perhaps your spouse will likely seek alimony from the divorce and you feel that your spouse shouldn't feed off of you while dining at someone else's table.
Adultery is a bar to receiving alimony.
If your spouse is cheating, they cannot prosper. You don't have to pay alimony to an unfaithful spouse.
This is the occasion to plot, to plan, to marshal your evidence before you announce your intentions. This strategy is fair game. Why? Because your spouse has plotted against you to engage in her relationship with her paramour and expects an unjust reward based upon her deceipt.
You can right that wrong. It's ethical, moral and legal.
The title to tonight's installment may be a bit strong. It's a James Bond reference. But it speaks volumes for having patience to accomplish your objectives. It speaks to the fortitude you have to have while you are collecting the evidence you need to ensure that justice prevails. Your revenge, the cessation of your gravy train, is best and most certainly delivered, long after your blood has ceased to boil, but has chilled in your veins.
Okay, that's a bit strong, too. But this is a serious business. And it is no less serious than the situation you face, if this is your situation. Serious times call for serious measures. I won't excuse it. I don't have to justify it. I just have to prove it. But then, that's what I do.
Michael Manely
As with all of life, whether it is ethical or moral to plot is a judgment call. In tonight's scenario, you get the notion that your spouse is seeing someone else. Maybe they're hyper sensitive about you being in proximity to their cell phone. Maybe they have unaccounted for hours. But you have a hunch. What do you do?
First you need to decide if you care to confirm your suspicions. Does it matter if they are definitely committing adultery? Do you really want out anyway? Even if you are leaving, are you the kind of person who needs to know just for your sense of balance? If so, then you should confirm.
Don't expect your spouse to come clean when you ask them. They don't. They usually don't confess when you confront them. They will often have an excuse, no matter how paltry, even if you have an 8x12 glossy of them deep in the throes. They won't confirm. You need another strategy.
You need to catch them.
Private Investigators are the time honored method of catching cheating spouses. I swear by them. If you can tailor their work to specific times when your spouse is most likely to be stepping out, private investigators can be reasonably affordable. But that isn't your only recourse.
Back to my point: you've decided you want or need to confirm. Perhaps your need stems from your legal situation. Perhaps your spouse will likely seek alimony from the divorce and you feel that your spouse shouldn't feed off of you while dining at someone else's table.
Adultery is a bar to receiving alimony.
If your spouse is cheating, they cannot prosper. You don't have to pay alimony to an unfaithful spouse.
This is the occasion to plot, to plan, to marshal your evidence before you announce your intentions. This strategy is fair game. Why? Because your spouse has plotted against you to engage in her relationship with her paramour and expects an unjust reward based upon her deceipt.
You can right that wrong. It's ethical, moral and legal.
The title to tonight's installment may be a bit strong. It's a James Bond reference. But it speaks volumes for having patience to accomplish your objectives. It speaks to the fortitude you have to have while you are collecting the evidence you need to ensure that justice prevails. Your revenge, the cessation of your gravy train, is best and most certainly delivered, long after your blood has ceased to boil, but has chilled in your veins.
Okay, that's a bit strong, too. But this is a serious business. And it is no less serious than the situation you face, if this is your situation. Serious times call for serious measures. I won't excuse it. I don't have to justify it. I just have to prove it. But then, that's what I do.
Michael Manely
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
