Common-Law Marriage in Minnesota

Posted by & filed under General Family Law.

Read more on "Common-Law Marriage in Minnesota" »

Common-law marriage is a marriage in which there is no license issued by a governmental agency, there is no marriage certificate filed with the government, and there is no solemnization of the marriage in the presence of witnesses.  The title of this post is ironic, because Minnesota does not recognize common-law marriage.  The Minnesota legislature abolished common-law marriage in 1941.  However, Minnesota does recognize common-law marriages that were legal contracted outside of Minnesota.

Several states still recognize common-law marriage, but most states have either abolished or never recognized common-law marriage.  Generally, what defines a common-law marriage are (a) the intent to be husband and wife; (b) cohabitation; and (c) public recognition or declaration of being husband and wife.

The practical significance of Minnesota not recognizing common-law marriages is the fact that many unmarried couples live together, pool their resources, share expenses, and jointly incur debts.  This deprives the individuals who cohabit outside of marriage of certain rights, and shields them from certain obligations.  Couples who cohabit long-term, without entering into a legal marriage, should make informed and deliberate decisions about raising children together, co-owning real estate, jointly signing off on debts or mortgages, or accepting and/or refraining from employment.

Developments in Gay Divorce in Minnesota

Posted by & filed under Same Sex Divorce.

Read more on "Developments in Gay Divorce in Minnesota" »

The latest development in gay divorce in Minnesota happened in probate court.  On August 1, a Hennepin County District Court judge upheld a probate court referee’s ruling that a surviving partner of a same-sex marriage was entitled to inherit the decedent partner’s assets.  The couple was married legally in California in 2008, moved to Minnesota in 2010, and the decedent passed away in 2011.

The court ruling depended on the Minnesota Uniform Probate Code, which does not prohibit inheritance by a same-sex partner, and the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act, which recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states.  The ruling also depended upon the disclaimer by the decedent’s parents of the decedent’s assets.  That is to say, had the decedent’s parents not disclaimed the assets, the assets would have gone to them because the decedent had no written will.

The Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act renders void in Minnesota any same-sex marriage solemnized in another state.  However, the court ruled that the legislative intent was to limit contractual rights, but not statutory rights.  The ruling lends support to the prospect that Minnesota courts can dissolve same-sex marriages, to the extent that doing so does not involve contractual rights.  Child custody, child support, spousal maintenance, marital property and non-marital property are statutory rights, not contractual rights.  So the probate court ruling suggests that these issues would be subject to the jurisdiction of the family court in a marriage dissolution.

Presumably, there will be cases in the near future that will continue to give shape to the developing landscape of gay marriage and divorce.


College Expenses and Divorce

Posted by & filed under Divorce.

Read more on "College Expenses and Divorce" »

In a divorce, the Minnesota courts cannot impose on a parent the obligation to pay for college. This is because Minnesota family law does not govern children who have reached majority.  The family court will not interfere with the application of existing college funds to tuition expenses, and cannot interfere with the provisions of an UTMA (Uniform Transfers to Minors Act) account or 529 Plan.  The family court will also enforce an agreement between parents to contribute to college expenses, but only an agreement that both parties enter into voluntarily.  The family court cannot order a parent to do so against his or her will.

The result of this situation is that many young adults of college age receive less help for college as a result of their parents’ divorce compared to their peers.  In some cases, the conflict between the parents results in a bitter parent’s withdrawal (or both parents’ withdrawal) of support for a child’s higher education.  More commonly, the economic realities (and struggles) of the parents’ divorce renders both parents much less able to contribute to college expenses.

There are times when the spouse with the greater income owes the duty of paying alimony or spousal maintenance to the other spouse, but would – if given the right – make a higher priority of a child’s college expenses than the other spouse’s living expenses.  The family court cannot allow the needs of a child who is no longer a minor to come before the needs of a spouse unless the child is disabled or otherwise in special need.

For families with college-age children, or children nearing college age, the need for a strong financial plan and the consequences of a high-conflict divorce are important considerations when the parents’ marriage is dissolved.

Divorce, and a House with No Equity (or Negative Equity)

Posted by & filed under Divorce.

Read more on "Divorce, and a House with No Equity (or Negative Equity)" »

Six to ten years ago, nearly every divorce in which the couple owned a house provided the couple some equity value to divide.  The house was an asset, and the spouses could sell the house, and divide the proceeds; or one of the spouses would buy out the other spouse’s interest in the house.  In the latter case, one spouse would be given a financial settlement for the asset he or she would be leaving behind.

Then there was a housing bust that caused scores of foreclosures and short sales.  Many economists believe that we may be climbing out of that hole, and the housing market is improving.  But that does not change the reality for many divorcing couples that their house has value at or below the balance owed on their mortgage.

In the case of a house with negative equity, if one spouse leaves the house behind, the other spouse is left, not with an asset, but with a liability.  The spouse left with the liability may believe that the departing spouse should pay something towards the debt on the house.  The problem with that idea is that the house may end up in foreclosure, or a short sale, or the spouse who stays in the house may be able to negotiate with the bank on the mortgage.  In other words, the spouse who stays may not end up realizing the entire “negative value,” so to receive from the departing spouse a “full accounting” of the negative value may result in something of a windfall to the spouse who stays.

Moreover, if the couple has children, one spouse may stay in the house to avoid, or delay, the children’s move to another house.  In so doing, that spouse derives intangible benefit, essentially an unquantifiable value, from remaining in the house – particularly if that spouse is able to negotiate with the bank, and is able ultimately to remain in the house, with the children, indefinitely.

The most common practice is to treat the “underwater” house as a “zero asset.”  The departing spouse is incurring the expense of renting, which offsets the expense to the remaining spouse to continue to make payments on the mortgage.  In the case of a home with a larger mortgage payment, the remaining spouse may leave the house after the expiration of the mortgage redemption period, without putting any additional money into the home.  Either way, assigning a zero value to the house is often found to be the fairest resolution.

Waiting Period for Divorce – Misguided Idea

Posted by & filed under Divorce.

Read more on "Waiting Period for Divorce – Misguided Idea" »

A bill has been introduced in the Minnesota Senate for a two-year waiting period in contested marriage dissolutions that involve children.  The concept of a waiting period is misguided if its purpose is to encourage (force?) parents to stay together “for the kids.”

The current law provides that if one spouse (not both) asserts that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the family court will grant a marriage dissolution.  This means that one spouse may want to save the marriage, and the court will still dissolve it.  Not ideal, for sure.  But what is the alternative?  Forcing someone who does not want to be married to stay married?

Under the current law, a marriage requires both spouses either to be fully committed to the marriage or to be subscribing to the belief that the marriage can be saved.  One could describe marriage the same way without referencing the law at all.  A marriage cannot survive if one spouse has one foot “in” and one foot “out.”  There are occasions when the spouse who has “checked out” can be brought back into the marriage through counseling.  But those occasions are far outnumbered by situations in which the marriage truly cannot be saved.

When children are involved, there is more reason to allow the marriage dissolution to proceed quickly, not less. Studies show that children living with parents who experience high marital conflict suffer more than children whose parents live separately.  Certainly, children are best off living with parents who live together and experience low conflict, and are worst off in high-conflict situations whether their parents live together or not.  But the dissolution of their parents’ marriage can be the triggering event to transform a child’s living environment from a high-conflict situation to a low-conflict situation.

Family courts would struggle with management of divorce cases if there were a two-year waiting period. During the waiting period, the conflict between spouses over parenting plans, child support, valuation of marital property, and the extended transition from living as a couple to living apart would be very destructive.

If the bill progresses into anything given serious consideration – here’s hoping that never happens – it would be interesting to see what empirical basis could possibly be presented to support the notion that a waiting period is a widespread solution to a widespread problem.



Alcoholic and Chemically Dependent Parents and Child Custody

Posted by & filed under Custody.

Read more on "Alcoholic and Chemically Dependent Parents and Child Custody" »

If a couple with children separates, and one of the parents is alcoholic or chemically dependent, should the family court:

a.    Terminate the addictive parent’s parental rights;

b.    Restrict and/or supervise the addictive parent’s parenting time;

c.    Condition the addictive parent’s parenting time on his or her sobriety; or

d.    Leave alcoholism or chemical dependency out of the custody and parenting time decision altogether?

It depends, but in nearly all cases, options (a) and (d) would be ruled out.  Option (d) is too extreme.  The family court needs to address the totality of the child’s circumstances in order to determine what is in the child’s best interests.  There is no way to comprehensively consider the child’s best interests if a parent’s addiction to drugs or alcohol is ignored.

Option (a) is too extreme in the other direction.  If an addictive parent’s parental rights were terminated, there would be other factors involved, such as criminal or abuse issues, persistent neglect of the child, the posing of significant danger to the child, or repeated failure to seek treatment for his or her addiction.

Option (b) is the most likely scenario if the addictive parent is not properly addressing the addiction, or is in the preliminary stages of recovery.  Restrictions and/or supervision are necessary to protect the child from the potential risk of being in the care of an impaired parent.

Option (c) is the common arrangement if the parent has learned how to manage his or her addiction. With proper management of addiction and sustained sobriety, the custody and parenting arrangements can be normalized.  There may need to be a backup plan for both parents to follow in the case of a relapse. Better still is a parenting plan with healthy co-parenting and communication that encourages the addictive parent to self-assess or self-report if his or her sobriety is tested or threatened, so that he or she is in no way deterred from doing the right thing for the child.  It is really no different than the circumstances of any child whose parents must rise to the occasion when coping with an emergency situation.

Being alcoholic or chemically dependent should not serve as an automatic disqualification for a parent to have primary custody or liberal parenting time.  Many parents who have overcome addiction are as equipped, or better equipped, to care for children as a parent who has not met those kinds of challenges. Consider a child whose parents are both addicts.  Option (c) is a necessary component in those circumstances, and the parents’ mutual accountability for sobriety is paramount.  Otherwise, the child is, by default, living in unsafe and uncertain circumstances.

There is no simple or quick answer to the questions that arise when child custody and parenting time are determined in cases of one or two alcoholic or chemically dependent parents.  If the issue is given proper weight, neither amplified nor ignored, the children are given the safe and secure living environment that they deserve.

Same Sex Divorce in Minnesota – Part 2

Posted by & filed under Same Sex Divorce.

Read more on "Same Sex Divorce in Minnesota – Part 2" »

As a followup to my November blog post about gay divorce, it is interesting to note Minn. Stat. Section 517.03, which dates back to 1997, and reads as follows (note the italicized parts):

(a) The following marriages are prohibited:

(1) a marriage entered into before the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties becomes final, as provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted;

(2) a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;

(3) a marriage between an uncle and a niece, between an aunt and a nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures; and

(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.

(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.

It is also interesting to note Minn. Stat. Section 517.20 (italicized in its entirety):

Except as provided in section 517.03, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), all marriages contracted within this state prior to March 1, 1979 or outside this state that were valid at the time of the contract or subsequently validated by the laws of the place in which they were contracted or by the domicile of the parties are valid in this state.

Section 517.20, which dates back to the late seventies, modified the requirements for marriage licenses, and “grandfathered in” all previous Minnesota marriages and all valid out-of-state marriages.  It is interesting to note (and frankly, somewhat troubling) that the 1997 legislature not only banned gay marriage but pre-empted the “grandfathering” of out-of-state gay marriages.

Aside from the politically charged issue of strictly limiting the defininition of marriage, the legislation creates problems for cohabiting couples, their children, their attorneys, family court judges and other related professionals.  If gay couples marry elsewhere, move to Minnesota, and then break up, their children do not deserve the uncertainty that is brought about by not falling within the purview of typical family law cases.  Nor does the financially dependent party to the breakup deserve the uncertainty involved in co-ownership of homes, cars, bank accounts and the co-responsibility on mortgages, leases, debts and credit cards.

There will necessarily be some progress and evolution in the enforcement and amendment of these laws, and the promulgation of other laws, to address these situations over time.

Irretrievable Breakdown of the Marriage

Posted by & filed under Divorce.

Read more on "Irretrievable Breakdown of the Marriage" »

Under Minnesota law, the statutory basis for dissolving a marriage is one spouse’s (or both spouses’) assertion that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.  It is important to note that it is not required that both spouses assert that the marriage cannot be saved.

In many cases, one spouse wants to end the marriage, but the other spouse would like to save the marriage.  In one sense, the Minnesota statute reflects a certain reality: if both spouses are not firmly invested in the preservation of the marriage, the marriage cannot survive.  In other words, the marriage cannot be sustained if either spouse has one foot in, and one foot out of, the marriage.  If one spouse makes the assertion of irretrievable breakdown, the other spouse can refrain from admitting it, but cannot keep the divorce from happening.

What the statute actually reflects is the no-fault grounds for divorce that accompanied the abolition years ago of fault-based grounds for divorce, such as adultery, abandonment or cruelty.


Same Sex Divorce in Minnesota

Posted by & filed under Same Sex Divorce.

Read more on "Same Sex Divorce in Minnesota" »

Now that gay marriage has been legalized in some states, the time has come to tackle the issue of gay divorces.  There is some debate in the legal community about how (or even whether) same-sex divorces should be handled in Minnesota.  Minnesota law provides that a person who has resided in Minnesota for 180 days is entitled to dissolution of their marriage.  Since my practice involves substantial interstate and international cases, I encounter cases of married couples whose marriages, or the solemnization of their marriages, would not be recognized under Minnesota law, but whose divorces fall under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota courts based upon residency.  Gay marriages presumably can be (should be…must be…) handled similarly.

The problem with not rendering divorces of valid same sex marriages is two-fold.  First, the same potential constitutional issues that loom over prohibiting gay marriage, pertaining to the unequal treatment of same-sex couples versus opposite-sex couples, loom for refraining from proceeding with gay divorces.  Second, the enforcement of bigamy laws is complicated greatly by refusing to provide a divorce to a legally married couple.  (As an example, if a Minnesota resident is validly same-sex-married, separated from his or her partner, unable to get a divorce, and prepared to marry someone of the opposite sex, they may or may not be in the process of committing bigamy.)

Other options for gay couples include prenuptial contracts and bifurcated court actions. Prenuptial contracts required the couple’s attention BEFORE solemnizing their union, but could define the parties’ respective rights in the event of a termination of the relationship.  Bifurcation court actions would result if the couple has children (issues pertaining to whom must necessarily be addressed in family court) and the parties resort to civil courts for financial and property issues.

My expectation is that eventually the distinctions between gay and straight divorces will become outmoded, and it is a matter of when (not if) same-sex couples will come to handle their divorces in the same manner as opposite-sex couples.





Posted by & filed under Parenting Time.

Read more on "Readeo" »

One way that the internet helps connect a child and a parent who do not live together is a web service called Readeo.  Essentially, Readeo ( is a bedtime story over the internet.  Both the parent and the child can see and hear each other, and either one can turn the pages of the book they are reading.

The book-chat requires a webcam, high-speed internet, and a subscription. Through the service, users are able to access a vast book library.

For children, it’s a step beyond Skype or video chatting, because it engages children of a young age in the interaction with a family member who lives elsewhere (regardless of how far away the family member lives).

Many parents have been given the right to telephone contact or video chatting only to have their time with the child cut short because the child is bored, shy, or put on the spot.  For many kids, the storytime element will boost their attention and enthusiasm for the social connection.  The service is also well-suited for military families and out-of-town grandparents and other relatives.

I am hoping that anyone who has used Readeo will post a review or anecdote their experiences with the service.