Posts Tagged ‘divorce’

The “Wright” Strategy for Increasing What You Keep in Your Divorce

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014

In a post titled “Determining Marital Property in Maryland, Virginia and the District Of Columbia” (June 17, 2011), I said:

“This article is about when the accumulation of marital property ends. It starts at the time of the marriage. When you return from the honeymoon and go to work the next Monday morning you are earning marital property – the stuff the divorce judge divides. When is the first day you can go to work and earn separate non-marital property? It depends on the jurisdiction.”

And after reviewing the applicable statutes, I said:

“When you and your spouse have separated, intending to remain separated, and do not have a property settlement agreement, in Maryland and the District of Columbia the property you acquire from the date of separation until the date of divorce is marital property. In Virginia such property is not presumptively marital, and in general is determined to be separate property, unless special facts and circumstances are established to overcome the presumption.”

In a recent case, Wright v Wright, 61 Va. App. 432; 737 S.E. 2d 519; 2013 Va. App. LEXIS 53, the Court of Appeals of Virginia considered whether Mr. Wright’s strategy in the two plus years between the date of separation and date of the divorce hearing required a finding to bring post-separation expenditures of marital property back into the marital pot to be divided with Mrs. Wright.

Husband had certain marital accounts totaling about $2,800,000. Husband earned approximately $1,500,000 per year; Wife was a homemaker. During the post-separation period, the marital accounts declined to about $1,415,000 on account of Husband’s payment of joint income taxes, real estate taxes on the marital home, tuition and school expenses for a child of the parties, spousal support to Wife and his own attorney’s fees and expert witness fees. Husband deposited the money he did not spend on these expenses to his separate accounts which, of course, were not marital.

The Court of Appeals said none of those expenditure were improper so they did not amount to “marital waste.” They explained that there are only two categories of expenditures of marital funds “proper” and “waste.” If your spending of marital funds falls into the “proper” categories it’s okay even if that permits a big decline in marital assets to be divided and a big increase in the separate funds of the party following the strategy.

The result in Wright provides a road map for the higher earning spouse to skew the division of marital property in his or her favor in some Virginia cases. If you are the lower earning spouse you want prompt filings, quick hearings and, if the stakes justify it, an injunction on expenditure of marital property.

Also, for multi-state or potentially multi-state cases, Wright is another reason that in a case with a relatively long separation, all other things being equal, the higher earning spouse probably wants the divorce case to be heard in Virginia. As I’ve said here before, a little planning and a little audacity can get you into the Court you want to be in. And a little more planning during separation can increase the property you get to keep.

Some of the facts here are from an article by one of the lawyers involved in the case. What’s wrong with Wright, Ronald R. Tweel (Virginia Family Law Quarterly, Spring 2014)

Life Insurance to Assure Payments to Former Spouse

Monday, March 7th, 2011

Recently I wrote regarding using life insurance to assure payment of child support.  Another scenario is life insurance to protect the alimony payment – the spouse being the beneficiary of the policy.  This is a straight forward consideration flowing from payer/insured spouse to payee/beneficiary spouse.  The insured wants less coverage and less premium, the payee/beneficiary spouse wants more coverage.

            Premiums on a policy of life insurance on the alimony payer benefit the alimony payee.  Payments to a third party on behalf of or for the benefit of a spouse or former spouse can qualify as alimony.  Paying insurance premiums can qualify if the payer spouse is not obligated to pay under the insurance contract – because in that situation he or she is not simply paying his or her own expense.  Generally, the owner of the policy is the person who is obligated to pay the premiums.  So in order for premiums on the life of the insured/alimony payer’s life paid by the insured/alimony payer to be deductible as alimony, the alimony payee must be the owner of the life insurance policy.  The parties’ Agreement should require the insured/alimony payer to pay the premiums on the payee’s behalf and the parties’ Agreement should state that such payments are alimony.

            Another situation where life insurance can be appropriate is to replace a survivor annuity if it is unavailable or available only on undesirable terms.  A traditional defined benefit pension pays a lifetime annuity to the retiree.  Federal law generally requires married persons to elect what is known as a joint and survivor annuity payment option, unless the employee’s spouse agrees otherwise in writing. In divorce, the parties can agree to a joint and survivor annuity or the court can order it.  Under this option, if the non-employee spouse survives the employee spouse, the pension payer continues the annuity payments at a reduced rate to the non-employee spouse for his or her life. 

            The initial payment (during the joint lives) under a single life annuity payment option is higher than the initial payment under the joint and survivor annuity option.  Depending on the amount of that payment reduction, it may make financial sense to elect the single life annuity and buy life insurance on the employee’s life to protect the income stream for the non-employee in the event that he or she is the survivor. The advice of an experienced life insurance professional can be very useful in doing this analysis.

Life Insurance to Assure Payment of Child Support

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

The decision to pay money to an insurance company now so that the insurance company will pay others after you are dead is usually undertaken with some ambivalence.
If you have minor children, you generally still need life insurance coverage post-divorce but it is a prospect that many people find even more distasteful at that time. Add to this, the fact that the divorce court generally cannot order a party to obtain or continue life insurance. (In Virginia, the court can order a party to continue existing life insurance coverage and designate children as beneficiaries if the party has a duty of support to such minor children. Va. Code Sec. 20-108. D) So the party who is proponent of the life insurance coverage, usually the economically dependent spouse, will often have to make a concession on some other issue to get the desired life insurance coverage. In many cases, since that concession would means less money now to the economically dependent spouse, the concession is not made and the life insurance is not agreed to. As a result, many divorced fathers and mother have far less life insurance coverage than a married parent with similar income, net worth and family responsibilities would have. One more risk for children of divorce.

When we represent the economically dependant spouse, or in case where there are two significant income earners, we look carefully at apparent life insurance needs and counsel clients to seek an agreement requiring adequate life insurance coverage. When we represent the higher earner, if there are minor children, we counsel our client to carefully examine the life insurance need and think it through before bargaining for lower coverage.

It is always necessary from the insured’s viewpoint for the Agreement to provide for reduced coverage as the future financial obligation decreases over time. This is especially important if the life insurance policy does not lock in level premiums per unit of coverage for the duration of the obligation. It is best to consult with an experienced life insurance agent with a highly rated insurance company while the marital settlement agreement is being negotiated to determine the availability and cost of coverage.

 
© 2018 Thyden Gross and Callahan LLP. All rights reserved.