Divorce can have a profound effect on children. And children do not really have a say in whether their parents stay together. Obviously, having children gives parents an enormous incentive to work things out. But in the end, the decision to keep the family together or split it up rests with the parents.

Health scientists and social scientists want to know exactly how divorce affects children. A pair of recent studies on the consequences of divorce showed harm, but those problems can be solved, mitigated or avoided altogether by a loving, but divided, family.

The first study showed that children of divorced parents may be at greater risk of health problems. Researchers at the University College of London studied the blood of 7,462 people age 44. They found that the subjects whose parents had divorced before they reached age 16 showed elevated levels of a protein that is associated with increased risk of adult-onset diabetes and heart disease.

Dr. Rebecca Lacey, who led the study, said that it is not necessarily the divorce itself that caused the physiological changes, but rather the socioeconomic hardships that often accompany divorce when compared to two-parent households. For instance, children of divorced parents can face greater economic challenges and more limited educational opportunities.

The second study indicated that children of divorced parents regard their relationships with their parents as weaker than other children’s. Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign surveyed 7,335 men and women averaging 24 years old. Those from divorced families less often saw their current relationship with their parents as “secure.” The effect was more pronounced in those whose parents divorced before they reached age 5.

Studies like this can be disheartening to families contemplating divorce, because they feel conflicted about the actions that are best for their children and for themselves. But not every divorce or troubled relationship or child is the same.

Notice one thing both the studies mentioned have in common: the negative effects of divorce on children are worse for younger children. No divorce at all gives kids the best chance, but if divorce must happen, later is better than sooner. If you and your partner can stay amicable and on the same team for the sake of your child – even for just a couple more years – the benefits can be significant. Couples therapy can go a long way to help you make this happen.

If divorce is inevitable, at the very least, it can be peaceful. “Collaborative divorce” is a process by which couples agree from the outset to cooperate and negotiate toward a solution that is satisfactory to both parties and their children. They agree not to litigate against each other. The process is not only often faster and less expensive than litigious divorce, but far less emotionally draining.

Many couples with prenuptial agreements find that the documents give a certain peace of mind and help them avoid fights. If you are considering divorce, it is too late for a prenuptial agreement, of course, but not for a postnuptial agreement. “Postnups” are just like prenups, but for couples already married. Sometimes it can help prevent conflict to have a written agreement in place, and if a divorce still comes to pass, the outcome is largely prenegotiated and the process can be relatively quick and painless.

When a divorce is finalized, parents can still give their children enormous advantages by actively maintaining healthy, happy relationships – both with your children and your ex. Children who see their parents maintain civility and cooperation and keep close ties with both of them will fare far better than those who do not.

Contact a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

In 2013, the government released data showing that consumer bankruptcies were down 13 percent in 2012. For the first half of 2013, bankruptcies were also down 13 percent from the same period in 2012. Sam Gerdano, executive director of the American Bankruptcy Institute, said that due to current low interest rates, households were “deleveraging.”

Deleveraging refers to reducing debt such as high-interest-rate credit cards, mortgages and vehicle loans, which can be accomplished by refinancing at a lower interest rate, taking advantage of government programs and avoiding taking on additional debt. Deleveraging is a step that can result in a better financial position for the individual consumer, making it less likely that a person will need to file for bankruptcy. Experts expect the deleveraging trend to continue.

According to Gerdano, the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) has made it possible for many homeowners to refinance their mortgages and has contributed to the decline in bankruptcy filings.

Over time, fluctuations in bankruptcy filings have been caused by changes in the economy and the law. Filings peaked in 2005, with 2 million consumers declaring bankruptcy that year. The following year, Congress passed a reform bill that tightened bankruptcy requirements. Filings dropped to 600,000 in 2006, but then rose each year until 2010, when 1.5 million consumers filed for bankruptcy. Since 2010, filings have dropped steadily each year.

The rise in consumer bankruptcy filings coincided with the economic downturn. Now, although the economy has not been restored to full health, experts say that consumers are taking steps to deal with debt and are avoiding taking on additional debt. The bankruptcy reform of 2005 also contributed to the decline in filings, as it made filing for bankruptcy a less attractive option. 

Although bankruptcy is now more expensive and less forgiving, it is still an important option for consumers experiencing overwhelming debt.

The decline in bankruptcy filings is an important indicator of the overall health of the economy, showing that fewer consumers are in financial distress. And, while economic predictions are famously prone to error, experts say that with a continued decline in unemployment, low interest rates and the help of government programs like HARP, the decline in filings could continue well through 2014.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Offices, P.A. If you need a Brandon bankruptcy lawyer, attorney, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

Each spouse is equally responsible for debts incurred by either party while married. Debts will be divided equally between the two divorcing parties, but if one spouse becomes delinquent on payments, the creditor can legally try to collect the entire debt from the other.

Consider a couple who divorces and splits debts, after which the former husband files for bankruptcy. In this case, his former wife remains liable for the entire debt, not just her half. She can use the divorce agreement to compel her husband to pay his share, but if the husband simply cannot pay it, and the wife cannot pay the entire obligation, she remains stuck in debt.

In order for both the husband and the wife to escape the debt, they must both declare bankruptcy. Doing so decreases their debt burden, but it harms their ability to borrow. If the wife elects instead to sue the husband, her credit may not be affected, but she will remain in debt. Each option has serious downsides.

Divorcing couples who foresee any difficulty in making payments on debt should weigh all their options for bankruptcy and divorce proceedings at one time. They may find their best option is to declare bankruptcy jointly prior to divorce.

Court filing fees for joint bankruptcy are the same as for individual bankruptcy, and attorney fees for one joint bankruptcy are usually far lower than for two individual bankruptcies. In Florida, couples filing joint bankruptcy are allowed to double many exemptions. Exemptions are the assets that are protected from creditors and that remain the property of the bankruptcy filer.

For these reasons, bankruptcy before divorce may be a good idea, but it is not always the answer. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is usually completed relatively quickly, and so is a workable option even if divorce is certain. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy, on the other hand, can last several years, and so is probably best filed after divorce.

The attorneys at Osenton Law Offices are well-prepared to help you understand the legal pros and cons of bankruptcy, divorce and legal timing.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Offices, P.A. If you need a Brandon bankruptcy lawyer, attorney, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

But in fact, many investment accounts, including 401(k) accounts and individual retirement accounts (IRAs), have beneficiary provisions that supersede wills. These provisions are sometimes called “substitute wills” because of their ironclad legal status.

Beneficiary designations on investment accounts are an important and useful estate planning tool. They enable the probate process to be bypassed for those assets, meaning their transfer to beneficiaries is quick and easy, with a minimum of paperwork or legal hassle. But just as efficiently as these provisions can bring about the decedent’s wishes, they can bestow assets upon the wrong person if they are not kept up to date.

This potential problem is aptly illustrated in cases of divorce. If someone names his or her spouse as beneficiary, then gets a divorce, but fails to change beneficiaries, the ex-spouse could inherit the bulk of the estate.

In a different example, a man has children from a previous marriage. He has since divorced and remarried. Because the law dictates that his 401(k) goes to his current wife by default, he must file certain paperwork if he instead wishes to leave the funds to his children. A prenuptial agreement to this effect is not enough; the man’s current wife must specifically relinquish her claim on the account.

The following must be considered to ensure retirement account assets go to the right people:

• Beneficiary designations and wills should work together to form a cohesive estate plan. The estate itself may be designated as the beneficiary. This is useful when assets must be distributed in specific ways to achieve specific goals — to, for example, minimize taxes or qualify a special-needs child for government benefits.
• A will should reflect and confirm beneficiary designations to minimize disagreement.
• Divorcees should update the beneficiaries on their retirement accounts to reflect their current wishes.
• Married and remarried individuals who wish to leave their 401(k) accounts to anyone other than their current spouses must file specific paperwork to that effect.

Contact a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

One part of that “bigger picture” is each party’s earning potential – that is, not what he or she actually earns, but what he or she could earn. Parties to divorce who are voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, and who could probably earn more with reasonable effort, can expect the court to make alimony and child support determinations as if they actually earn that amount. This is called “imputing” income, and a recent case from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals (DCA) illustrates the legal concept well.

In Adelberg v. Adelberg, the wife, 59, had a master’s degree in urban planning and experience running her own public relations firm, but she was unemployed when she and her husband filed for divorce. A vocational expert testified at the trial that, although the wife had been unemployed for eight years, she was qualified for positions in public relations and fundraising that paid $40,000 to $50,000 per year.

Despite this evidence, the trial court did not impute income to the wife. But on appeal, the Fourth DCA reversed the order. The case was remanded to the trial court for recalculation of alimony.

Determining alimony is a complex process that is very open to interpretation. Those seeking divorce who believe their spouse is voluntarily unemployed should speak with their divorce attorney about imputing income.

Contact a divorce lawyer in Brandon and Tampa with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

Today, unscrupulous spouses may be employing a new, high-tech innovation to do so: electronic currencies like Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is the best-known of a class of computer-generated currencies invented within the past several years. These crypto-currencies may be used to purchase practically any good or service. 

They began as a concept of interest mainly to computer scientists, but soon, they began to attract wider attention for their clandestine properties. All Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger viewable by anyone, but the parties to those transactions are anonymous “addresses” – strings of letters and numbers akin, perhaps, to a Swiss bank account. Bitcoin rivals or surpasses cash in terms of its anonymity of ownership, ease of transfer and simplicity of concealment.

While there are few, if any, currently documented cases of Bitcoin or other electronic currencies used to conceal assets in divorce, there is little doubt that the option will become attractive to those desperate enough to break the law in the pursuit of financial gain.

Bitcoins are often purchased online by wire transfer or electronic bank transfer. This method is also employed by those with nothing to hide, but it could present significant obstacles to asset discovery for those who desire it. Bitcoins can also be purchased in person with cash — potentially leaving no paper trail whatsoever.

If it is easy to conceal the actual purchase of bitcoins, concealment of ownership is even easier. The use of the currency depends on a long password, called a “key.” Bitcoin keys are easily stored on USB flash drives, memory cards or paper printouts, then hidden anywhere. They may even be memorized, leaving absolutely no physical evidence.

The transfer of bitcoins is a trivial task involving a few keystrokes and a tiny transaction fee. A divorcing spouse could have a trusted friend or relative hold on to the currency in his or her own accounts.

The problem of uncovering assets in an adversarial divorce is a very old one. Electronic currency may be the latest method available to cheating spouses, but it will not be the last. Parties to divorce, family law attorneys and judges all need to be vigilant in ensuring a fair and lawful outcome in every divorce case.

Contact a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

In Florida, child support is not an obligation that one parent has to the other. Instead, it is an obligation that each parent has to the child — from the day he or she is born until he or she reaches adulthood. 

Florida Statute §61.30 sets the guidelines that Florida courts use to determine how much child support a parent owes. The statute establishes minimum levels of support based on the parents’ combined income. Courts use these guidelines to determine each parent’s individual child support obligation based on his or her proportion of the couple’s combined income.

The income used to make this determination is net income – gross income minus certain deductions. Gross income includes employment income (such as wages, salary, commissions and bonuses) and retirement, pension and social security benefits. Allowable deductions include federal, state and local taxes, mandatory retirement contributions, union dues and health insurance premiums.

The child support figure that results from this series of calculations is generally presumed to be correct, but the court may deviate from the guidelines. Taking into account “all relevant factors,” including the child’s needs and the financial status of each parent, the court may increase or decrease this amount by up to five percent. The court may alter the figure by an even greater amount if it provides written findings explaining its reasoning.

The court that enters a child support order retains jurisdiction to alter that support in the future. The court may do so when it is in the child’s best interests or when circumstances change substantially. 

A parent who wishes to modify his or her child support obligation must show that the change in their circumstances is material, significant, permanent and involuntary. For instance, a parent who chooses to quit a high-paying job for a lower-paying job would not be eligible for a modification because the change is voluntary. Parents who choose to have income significantly less than that readily available to them may find the court will attribute additional income to them. This is called “imputing” income.

If you have questions or concerns about your current or possible child support obligation, contact Osenton Law Offices.

Contact a divorce attorney and Brandon family law lawyer with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

Eight gay couples who were married in states that recognize same-sex marriages joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in filing suit against Florida. Their lawsuit argues that the state unfairly discriminates against them by not recognizing their marriage, violating the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a response asking the federal judge in charge of the case to throw it out. This is no surprise. Arguably, it is required of her office. But it is her choice of words that has some gay marriage advocates expressing indignation.

Bondi’s legal brief included the following: “The Court should also deny the preliminary injunction motions because there is no likelihood of success on the merits, there is no immediacy requiring a preliminary injunction and disrupting Florida’s existing marriage laws would impose significant public harm.”

On May 30, the attention of gay rights activists and the news media turned to that last word: “harm.” Some took it as evidence of the attorney general’s malice, bigotry or outdated prejudice.

In response, Allen Winsor released a statement from the attorney general’s office. It clarified that, “Florida is harmed whenever a federal court enjoins” – that is, prevents – “enforcement of its laws … Florida’s voters approved a constitutional amendment which is being challenged, and it is the attorney general’s duty to defend Florida law.”

Perhaps Bondi should have chosen her words more carefully. But what is truly important and interesting about this case is not the attorney general’s position on it, but the stakes for Florida family law and for Florida same-sex couples. In states where gay marriage is not recognized, the issues couples face are diverse.

First, of course, is the fact that many Florida same-sex couples wish to marry but cannot. Then, like the plaintiffs in this case, some are married under the laws of recognizing states, but live in a non-recognizing state. Still other couples – at least one of whom has filed a separate lawsuit against Florida – were legally married in another state but wish to divorce. The spouses are unable to do so because their marriage is not legally recognized in the Sunshine State.

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down both a federal law preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages for federal benefits and a California law banning same-sex marriage. Since then, efforts to fight such bans have gained momentum state by state. 

Many Floridians are anxious to see the outcome.

Contact a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

A recent article on the Washington Times Communities website suggests that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, may lower this barrier to divorce if it succeeds in making health care more affordable.

A study by the University of Michigan in 2012 found that each year, some 115,000 American women lose their health insurance after they get divorced. Many of them are not employed outside the home, work part-time, or work for companies that do not offer insurance. Some are eligible for COBRA benefits, but of those, many cannot afford the premiums while living alone.

Concerns over health insurance are especially prevalent among couples divorcing after age 50, cases sometimes called “gray divorces.” If individuals are too young to qualify for Medicare, they may find themselves priced out of insurance markets. An unknown number of couples remain married until age 65 for this very reason.

Individuals with pre-existing conditions who are covered under their spouse’s plan also face strong incentives to remain legally married.

Beginning January 1 2014, the ACA could change this dynamic for many people. Presumably, some number of people will be able to afford health insurance on their own where previously they could not. If the program is a success, and large numbers of couples find themselves in this situation, the divorce rate could rise sharply, especially among the unemployed or underemployed, seniors and those with pre-existing conditions.

The ACA could also bring about changes in spousal support. The cost of health insurance affects the need for spousal support, with one party often having to pay enough for adequate coverage. Any change in the overall insurance market could affect how much support is awarded in some cases.

Accounting for these changes will likely be highly contentious in several ways. Opposing parties might disagree over whether spousal support should provide for excellent (“platinum”) insurance, or only basic (“bronze”) plans. If the spouse receiving support is eligible for a federal insurance subsidy, the other party may argue that that should lower the support awarded. Likewise, the expansion of Medicaid in some states will make more individuals eligible—another possible argument for lower support.

Among those couples who find themselves better able to afford health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, some who might otherwise have remained married may opt for divorce. The specific effects of such a change will take time to recognize and understand.

Kristi J. McCart is a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

The first thing to know is that you should make every effort to reach a mutually-agreeable compromise on all issues related to your children. This may involve simple, honest communication between partners, couples or individual therapy, a custody mediator, or the help of an attorney. Try to avoid taking your custody battle to court, which can often harm the relationships between not just you and your partner, but between the children and both parents. A method of divorce becoming more widespread is called “collaborative divorce,” which boils down to compromise, agreement, and a lack of litigation. Regardless of your marital status, cooperation between partners is always preferable to an adversarial relationship.

If you cannot reach a resolution in your child custody dispute and must go to court, here is what to keep in mind.

If Both Partners are Legal Parents

Both same-sex partners may be legal parents of a child for any of these reasons:

• The child was born into a marriage or civil union in a state where that relationship grants parental rights to nonbiological parents.
• The nonbiological parent adopted the child.
• Both partners adopted the child jointly.

When both partners have legal parental rights, courts will resolve child custody disputes as they would for opposite-sex couples. The best interests of the child will be held paramount, and a variety of factors will be used to determine this.

If Only One Partner is a Legal Parent

Most often, partners who are not legal parents have no parental rights at all, and cannot seek custody, regardless of the reason they are not legal parents. However, some courts have granted rights to second parents on the basis of the partners’ intent to raise the children together or the second parent’s relationship with the child. For instance, did the nonbiological parent attend doctor’s office visits and birthing classes with the biological parent? Did the second parent involve his or her family as members of the child’s extended family? These factors can influence judges to grant parental rights.

If you are a legal parent who wishes to deny your ex-partner child visitation or partial custody, carefully consider your motivation. If you genuinely believe that it is not in your child’s best interest to visit with your ex-partner, it is your right to pursue that. But the fact that your ex may be a flawed person or your inability to get along as a couple are not sufficient justification.

If you are a second parent, and your ex-partner wishes to deny you visitation or partial custody, find out with the help of your attorney whether your state will permit you to present a claim. If so, what steps must you take? If not, are you willing to try to forge new law? Are you willing to pursue your case up to an appeals court? This can be difficult and expensive, but it is often how laws are changed – an important aspect of our common law system.

No matter the legal status of your relationship with your partner or your child, remember to put the child’s interests first. In most cases, this means allowing the child to continue a relationship with both parents and maintaining a civil relationship of respect and compromise between partners.

Kristi J. McCart is a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

In practice, of course, it does not work quite like that. It is still significantly less common for men to be awarded alimony – indeed, many men who may be eligible for alimony do not even request it. This is despite the fact that women’s likelihood of working and their income levels are both rising, and they are now more likely than ever to be the primary or even sole breadwinner member of a couple.

A recent study from Pew Research Center on “breadwinner moms” shows that a record 40 percent of households with minor children include mothers who are either the primary or sole source of family income. The figure was just 11 percent in 1960. The 40 percent figure must be taken with a grain of salt: two-thirds of that group is made up of single mothers with a median income of just $23,000. The other third, though, is made up of 5.1 million married mothers with a median family income of nearly $80,000. These are the true breadwinner wives and mothers who might very well have to pay alimony if they divorced and their spouses requested it.

But the truth is, many men who might be eligible to receive alimony do not request it. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010, there were 380,000 women in the U.S. receiving alimony, but just 12,000 men. A man might believe that asking for alimony is a sign of weakness. If he comes from a marriage in which his spouse made more money, he might have lingering issues with not being the primary breadwinner that could make him hesitant to continue in a role of being supported by his spouse.

It is still true that alimony is more often awarded to women than to men because women are more likely to have foregone education and work experience for the sake of a spouse or a family. But that is a generalization. An individual man is more likely than ever to be in a marriage in which the opposite is true. Anyone seeking a divorce who believes they need or deserve to be awarded alimony should seek the counsel of an experienced divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Kristi J. McCart is a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon child custody attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

Divorce can have a profound effect on children. And children do not really have a say in whether their parents stay together. Obviously, having children gives parents an enormous incentive to work things out. But in the end, the decision to keep the family together or split it up rests with the parents.

Health scientists and social scientists want to know exactly how divorce affects children. Let’s look at a pair of recent studies on the consequences of divorce and then discuss how those ill-effects might be mitigated or avoided altogether.

The first study showed that children of divorced parents may be at greater risk of health problems. Researchers at the University College of London studied the blood of 7,462 people age 44. They found that the subjects whose parents had divorced before they reached age 16 showed elevated levels of a protein that is associated with increased risk of adult-onset diabetes and heart disease.

Dr. Rebecca Lacey, who led the study, said that it is not necessarily the divorce itself that causes the physiological changes, but rather the socioeconomic hardships that often accompany divorce when compared to two-parent households. For instance, children of divorced parents can face greater economic challenges and more limited educational opportunities.

The second study indicated that children of divorced parents regard their relationships with their parents as less strong than other children. Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign surveyed 7,335 men and women averaging 24 years old. Those from divorced families less often saw their current relationship with their parents as “secure.” The effect was more pronounced in those whose parents divorced before they reached age 5.

If you think a divorce may be in your future, studies like this can be disheartening because you feel conflicted about what is best for your children and yourself. But not every divorce or troubled relationship or child is the same.

If divorce is inevitable, at the very least, it can be peaceful. “Collaborative divorce” is a process by which couples agree from the outset to cooperate and negotiate toward a solution that is satisfactory to both parties and their children. They agree not to litigate against each other. The process is not only often faster and less expensive than litigious divorce, but also far less emotionally draining.

Many couples with prenuptial agreements find that they give a certain peace of mind and help them avoid fights. If you are considering divorce, it is too late for a prenuptial agreement, of course, but not for a postnuptial agreement. “Postnups” are just like prenups, but for couples already married. Sometimes it can help prevent conflict to have a written agreement in place, and if a divorce still comes to pass, the outcome is largely prenegotiated and the process can be relatively quick and painless.

Notice one thing both the studies mentioned have in common: the negative effects of divorce on children are worse for younger children. No divorce at all gives kids the best chance, but if divorce must happen, later is better than sooner. If you and your partner can stay amicable and on the same team for the sake of your child – even for just a couple more years – the benefits can be significant. Couples therapy can go a long way to help you make this happen.

Remember, when a divorce is finalized, you can still give your children enormous advantage by actively maintaining healthy, happy relationships – both with your children and your ex. Children who see their parents maintain civility and cooperation and keep close ties with both of them will fare far better than those who do not.

Joshua Law is a divorce lawyer in Brandon and Tampa with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

Bankruptcy in the U.S. is subject to federal law – the U.S. bankruptcy code. The law varies somewhat from state to state, but bankruptcy cases in the U.S. are heard in federal court. That means bankruptcy cases were subject to DOMA. The prohibition of joint bankruptcy filings by same-sex married couples was not ironclad, however.

In fact, determining whether such a couple could file jointly has been a confusing matter for some time. Under the direction of presiding judges, some bankruptcy courts have allowed joint petitions by same-sex married couples. In June, 2011, a California bankruptcy court ruled that DOMA violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. In an unusual move, 20 bankruptcy judges signed onto a ruling rejecting the U.S. trustee’s office’s request that the joint bankruptcy petition of two legally-married California men be dismissed. Prior to that, a very small number of judges had called DOMA unconstitutional.

Just three weeks later, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would stop opposing joint bankruptcy filings of same-sex married couples.

But that still did not mean that those couples could count on being able to file jointly. Individual bankruptcy judges exercise great discretion in how to handle cases presented to their courts. They need not heed the rulings or opinions of other bankruptcy judges.

Daniel Maltbie and Garry Houston made news recently when they filed for joint bankruptcy. Having married in Vermont in 2003 and subsequently moved to Florida, they anticipated a rejection of their petition by judges sympathetic to DOMA and to Florida’s non-recognition of same-sex marriages. The couple and their attorney had indicated a willingness to appeal the case in the event their filing was dismissed.

Following the Supreme Court ruling in June striking down DOMA, Maltbie and Houston and many other couples in similar situations expect their cases to proceed smoothly. The decision affects many federal benefits in addition to joint bankruptcy filings, and it remains to be seen how quickly and completely it will be reflected in the government’s laws and day-to-day practices.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Offices, P.A. If you need a Brandon bankruptcy lawyer, attorney, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

A bill recently signed by Gov. Rick Scott should bring some much-needed relief to Florida. SB 1852 will distribute $200 million to a number of programs designed to ease Floridians’ housing woes. The funds are part of a $25 billion settlement between 49 states and the nation’s five largest mortgage lenders – JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Ally Financial – to settle allegations of improper lending practices. As one of the hardest-hit states in the aftermath of the housing bubble, Florida received just over one third of that, or $8.4 billion.

Most of that money will come in the form of modifications of the terms of existing mortgages and writedowns to their outstanding principle. The Florida government received a distribution of $334 million in April. Of that, $60 million was designated for assistance in paying down mortgages, and $73 million went to the state’s general revenue fund, where it may be spent on non-housing-related programs. The remaining $200 million sat in limbo for some time until Scott’s recent signature on SB 1852.

That legislation directs the funds to several different housing programs. The State Apartment Incentive Loan program will receive $60 million to help pay for rental homes for the elderly and disabled. The State Housing Initiative Program, which funds municipal efforts to help low-income homeowners keep and maintain their homes, will receive $40 million. Foreclosure courts will receive $40 million to help reduce the foreclosure backlog. Habitat for Humanity will receive $20 million. Domestic violence shelters and a program for housing the homeless will each receive $10 million.

This is all good news, but meanwhile, attorneys general in Florida and other states have received troubling allegations that banks are not complying with various aspects of the settlement. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has threatened to sue Wells Fargo and Bank of America over concerns they are dragging their feet on processing valid and proper requests from homeowners for lower mortgage payments. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office has received 293 complaints of violations of the settlement and say they are investigating every one. Bondi said they are doing everything they can to hold the banks accountable, but stopped short of threatening a lawsuit, indicating that other legal processes must play out first.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Offices, P.A. If you need a Bankruptcy attorney in Brandon, Tampa lawyer, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

Governmental bodies, of course, purport to have the best interests of those children at heart. But parents – the most important advocates a child can have – are often excluded from court proceedings if they are involved in immigration disputes. These are the proceedings in which parental rights and the child’s future are decided: at least 5000 children nationwide are in foster care because their parents have been detained or deported.

In recent sessions of Congress, lawmakers introduced a bill called the Humane Enforcement and Legal Protections (HELP) for Separated Children Act. The bill ensures a number of crucial protections for children of immigrants that find themselves embroiled in legal actions.

The bill would:

• Allow parents, soon after their initial detainment, to make phone calls to arrange for someone to take care of their children;
• Require Immigration and Customs Enforcement to consider the children’s best interest when making decisions on the detention, release, or transfer of immigrant parents (this moves the law in line with child custody proceedings in divorces, in which the child’s best interest is always held paramount);
• Allow children to visit or at least call their parents during their detainment;
• Ensure that parents are allowed to participate in their children’s family court hearings;
• Ensure that if parents are required to leave the country, their departure can be coordinated with their children.

The legislation did not pass when it was introduced in previous sessions as a stand-alone bill. However, U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) succeeded in adding the bill as an amendment to an immigration reform measure that appears to have quite a bit of momentum behind it. That bill was recently passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 13-5 vote. It would provide most undocumented immigrants in the United States a pathway to citizenship, reform border security, and implement new worker visa rules. And thanks to Sen. Franken, it includes vital protections for vulnerable children who are adversely affected through no fault of their own.

Franken introduced a second amendment that the committee also voted to add to the bill. It would reassign the responsibility to provide lawyers and other advocates to unaccompanied children. That responsibility currently lies with Health and Human Services, but Franken’s amendment would put it in the hands of the Justice Department, which Franken says is better equipped to handle it. According to a press release from the Senator’s office, “as recently as 2012, half of the unaccompanied children who arrived in the country were forced to represent themselves in immigration court.”

Joshua Law is a divorce attorney and Brandon family law lawyer with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

Supporters of the legislation, HB 87, said that it will reduce the backlog of pending foreclosures and help the state’s housing industry.

On the last day of the Legislature’s 60-day session, the Senate passed the bill on a 26-13 vote. It recently cleared the House on an 87-26 vote.

Whether Scott will sign the bill is not clear. A spokesperson would only say that the governor’s office is reviewing the bill.

Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, said the bill would make banks demonstrate more thoroughly their ownership of a mortgage on which they file foreclosure. It also would enable parties other than mortgage holders, such as condo associations, to ask courts to accelerate foreclosure proceedings.

Sen. Darren Soto, D-Orlando, was a prominent critic of the measure. He said it erodes longstanding property rights and does nothing to protect Floridians from losing their homes to fraud. Latvala countered that the bill has more safeguards for consumers than for banks.

One important provision would reduce the time limit for banks to try to get deficiency judgments against foreclosed homeowners from five years to one year. A deficiency exists when a foreclosed home is sold for less than the original homeowner owed on it.

Soto said that banks are deliberately slowing foreclosures in an attempt to prevent a glut of houses from hitting the market, which could cause another price crash. He said that for this reason, the bill would not produce its intended result.

A group called Jurists Engaged in Title Integrity said that the bill would put more burden on homeowners, limiting their time to demonstrate legal issues with foreclosures brought against them.

Meanwhile, the national housing market appears to be improving. The March figure for repossessed homes in the U.S. fell to a five-year low. The number was down 3 percent from February and down 21 percent from March, 2012, according to foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc.

Having an experienced bankruptcy attorney on your side during a home foreclosure is vital. This bill, if signed by Gov. Scott, would only increase the importance of this choice. Weaknesses in a lender’s foreclosure case are difficult to spot, and this bill would force defendants to bring these issues to the court’s attention much faster.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Offices, P.A. If you need a Bankruptcy attorney in Brandon, Tampa lawyer, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

An article by Shan Li says that nearly 44 percent of American households would find themselves in financial ruin if they fell victim to one emergency. That is according to a study by the nonprofit Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). Those families could not pay for their basic living expenses for three months if they lost their jobs or became too sick to work. Furthermore, nearly one third of Americans do not have a savings account at all.

In Florida, the rate is even worse than the nationwide average. The CFED measures the “liquid asset poverty rate,” defined as the percentage of households without enough cash or other liquid assets to live at the poverty level for three months if their income stopped. Florida’s rate is 51.9 percent, meaning more than half of Florida families fit this profile. That puts the Sunshine State 35th out of the 50 states.

Experts say stagnating wages, rising prices, and high-interest debt may be to blame for the discouraging figures.

The second article, by Alejandro Lazo, explains one widely-held form of high-interest loan called a payday loan. A payday loan is a small, short-term, unsecured loan that depends on the borrower’s ability to demonstrate that they are employed.

Although the loans are marketed as short-term, a study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) shows “high sustained use.” The CFPB found that the average payday loan customer took out 11 loans during a year-long period and paid a total of $574 in interest and fees. And the median number of days that borrowers remained indebted was 155.

The CFPB reports also found no real difference between payday loans and so-called “deposit advances” offered by some large banks.

High-interest debt creates a cycle of poverty that is very difficult to escape. It is important to make every effort to build a cushion of cash reserves so that you can weather a storm without resorting to burdensome debt. If you feel like your debt is keeping you from getting your head above water, it may be time to speak with an experienced bankruptcy attorney.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Offices, P.A. If you need a Brandon bankruptcy lawyer, attorney, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

When an ex-spouse with shared custody wishes to move a significant distance, therefore, he or she must obtain proper permission in order not to violate the custody agreement. Florida statutes refer to such a move as a “relocation.” A relocation is a change of one’s principal residence to a new location at least 50 miles from the current location for a period not less than 60 consecutive days.

The first step is for the ex-spouses to try to come to a relocation agreement. If they are able to do so, they sign a written agreement that states consent to the relocation, establishes a new time-sharing schedule, and describes any necessary transportation arrangements. After signing the agreement, the couple request a court order ratifying the agreement. The court will usually presume the relocation to be in the best interests of the child and ratify the agreement without a hearing of evidence.

If the couple cannot come to an agreement, the parent wishing to relocate must petition the court. The petition must include the location of the proposed new residence, the intended date of relocation, a statement detailing the reasons for the relocation, a proposal for a revised custody sharing schedule, and specific legal language indicating that if the counterparty objects, he or she must notify the court within 20 days. The relocating parent must serve the other party with a copy of the petition.

If the other party objects to the move, then permission for the relocation must be determined in court at a hearing or trial. There is no presumption for or against the relocation. The court must evaluate the following factors:

• The nature, quality, and duration of the child’s relationship with each parent and with other family members and significant persons.
• The anticipated impact of the relocation on the child’s development.
• The child’s preference, within the context of his or her age and maturity.
• Whether the relocation will benefit the relocating parent and/or the child, especially with regard to the parent’s employment circumstances.
• Whether the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her obligations to the relocating parent.
• Any history of domestic violence or substance abuse.
• Any other factor affecting the child’s best interest.

After considering all these factors, the court will grant or deny the petition to relocate.

Joshua Law is a divorce lawyer in Brandon and Tampa with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/

More recently, authorities placed the company into receivership under the control of the Division of Rehabilitation and Liquidation at the Florida Department of Financial Services.

Then, on March 28, 2013, Federal agents raided Universal’s St. Petersburg headquarters, ordering hundreds of employees out of the building.

The raid came shortly after the trustee in the company’s bankruptcy case alleged a “pattern of dishonesty or gross mismanagement.” Examples cited included a transfer of $18.3 million to a company controlled by Universal’s founder, Dr. Akshay Desai, and over $2 million is bonuses paid to executives in 2012.

Following Universal’s bankruptcy filing, state insurance regulators had already begun liquidating the company’s assets when the federal raid happened.

Desia founded Universal Health Care in 2005. It quickly grew to be the fourth-largest Medicare HMO in Florida. Companies like Universal combine Medicare payments and membership fees to provide coverage that expands upon that offered by Medicare. It eventually expanded its services to 23 states and boasted 140,000 members.

The first public news indicating the extent of Universal’s troubles came when Georgia’s insurance commissioner requested that it halt sales of new policies there, citing the company’s $22.1 net loss in the first half of 2012.

Over 800 former employees are now without a job. In a recent filing in Universal’s bankruptcy case, the company sought to eliminate employment agreements in place for seven executives. Universal’s motion said it no longer required the executives’ services, five of whom were hired less than one year ago.

Employees said they had not received 60 days’ notice before losing their jobs, as is often required before large numbers of layoffs.

Thousands of Universal customers were also left in the lurch, forced to search for new Medicare plans. Members who did not select their new coverage before the April will have to wait until the first of May for the switch to take effect.

The biggest losers, though, will likely be Universal’s investors, including Desai’s fellow doctors, who contributed capital in the company’s early years. Dr. Zachariah P. Zachariah, who chairs the Florida Board of Medicine, invested some $6 million. Zachariah, who was removed from Universal’s board in 2009, has a lawsuit pending against Desai.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Offices, P.A. If you need a Tampa business bankruptcy attorney, bankruptcy lawyer, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

Speak with your lawyer.

This assumes you hired a divorce attorney – which is highly recommended. Although a divorce lawyer’s primary job is to assist with the divorce itself, they have an interest in seeing their clients succeed post-divorce as well. Your family law attorney is likely to have a number of good suggestions, from expanding on the tips in this article to referring you to professionals, organizations, or support groups to help you along. Even if your divorce is already finalized, your lawyer will probably be happy to spend a few minutes giving you some advice.

Make a budget.

Your divorce probably caused significant changes to your cash flow and responsibilities. Now is the time to remake a proper budget from the ground up. Evaluate your income sources and try to anticipate an entire month’s living expenses. Then maintain a record of all income and expenses and re-evaluate your budget periodically. Is your financial path sustainable? If you are going into debt, what expenses are you able to trim? If you are able to save, are you setting aside that money in order to avoid the temptation to overspend?

Depending on your asset levels, you may wish to speak with a financial planner or accountant for help protecting your wealth.

Update estate plans.

Your spouse was likely named as the beneficiary for your insurance and investment accounts. Make a list of all accounts that need to be checked and change them as necessary. If you have a will, make an appointment with your attorney to review it and any other legal documents involving your ex.

Reassess your insurance coverage.

If your health insurance came from your spouse’s employer, you will need to find your own coverage soon. If you are unemployed or your employer does not offer health insurance, look into purchasing COBRA insurance through your ex-spouse’s insurer. COBRA provides for temporary continuation of group benefits.

You may have a greater need for long-term care insurance following your divorce. If you anticipated your spouse being able to care for you in the event that you needed long-term care, you may have to reevaluate.

In all your dealings with money, exercise caution and seek expert advice when you need it. With a little effort and planning, your post-divorce financial life can be secure and rewarding.

Joshua Law is a Tampa divorce lawyer and Brandon family law attorney with the Osenton Law Offices, P.A. To learn more, visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com/