Category Archives: Oakdale Divorce Lawyer

Divorce Can Have Some Positive Benefits For Children

I have seen many ugly divorces and custody battles. It is without doubt an ugly divorce where children are used as pawns or placed in the middle of conflict will cause serious emotional harm to children. It has been a pleasant change that the procedures and family law rules have now been changed to encourage amicable resolution of custody disputes without ugly litigation through Mediation or Social Early Neutral Evaluation and to minimize Temporary Hearings until amicable Alternative Dispute Resolution is attempted.

Some experts are also now confirming that divorce can have some positive benefits to children.  Jackie Middleton has stated in Canadian Living that many divorce children can experience these five benefits:

1. Divorced children often learn to be Resilient and Adaptable.

2. Divorced Children often learn to be more Self-Sufficient.

3. Divorced Children often have an increased sense of Empathy towards others.

4. Divorced Children will often not take their own marriage for granted.

5. Divorced Children often learn more about each parent based on the quality time they spend alone with each parent individually rather than in a family setting.

There is far from consensus opinion on how divorces affect children. But based on my observations and experience it is very important to keep the children out of the conflict. Children do far better when they have both parents in their lives and are not subject to a parent constantly bad-mouthing the other.

Your children will be much better off, as will you, if you find a way to settle your Parenting Disputes and avoid Custody Litigation and a Custody Trial. Sometimes this is not possible, but do your children a favor and do your best to keep them out of the conflict.

A good divorce lawyer can litigate when necessary, but also can guide you through more amicable options and procedures that can lead to an amicable settlement. It is critical to promptly retain an experienced divorce attorney at the beginning of any divorce or custody dispute.

 

 

 

Significant Other’s Can Impact Custody Decisions

In an unpublished opinion in Newman vs. Newman, A15-0561 (Minn.Ct. App. Dec.21, 2015) the court of appeals reviewed an appeal from a divorce involving a 16 year marriage involving three minor children with a mother who had been a full-time homemaker since 2003 and a father who recently retired early. The trial court granted joint legal custody, but granted the father sole physical custody.

Mother appealed and claimed the trial court erred in not granting her joint physical custody or sole physical custody.  The appellate court noted there had been acrimony and a lot of personal attacks in the case and that a current harassment restraining order precluded father from harassing the mother. It was noted this conflict did not support their ability to cooperate under a joint physical custody arrangement.

The court also found that although there was not evidence of domestic abuse, the court had deep concern about the safety of the parties’ daughters around the mother’s live in boyfriend who had been convicted of felony invasion of privacy of a minor for hiding a video camera in his 17 year-old, step-daughter’s bathroom. It was specifically ordered the mother’s parenting time not include her boyfriend and that the mother’s boyfriend directing impacted the physical and emotional safety of the children.

In addressing the best interest factors the court noted nine were neutral, one inapplicable, two favored the father and one favored the mother. The deciding factor was the interaction and interrelationship of a person who may significantly affect the children’s best interests.  In this case the mother’s decision to live with a convicted felon who had harmed his step-daughter lead to her losing physical custody.

If custody is an issue in a divorce or paternity action it is crucial to immediately consult with an experienced divorce lawyer or knowledgeable family law attorney. Decisions about living arrangements, significant others, and high conflict disputes with your spouse can preclude sharing joint physical custody or even lead to a longtime homemaker to lose physical custody.

 

 

 

Moving On After A Marriage Ends

Clinical Psychologist, Kristin Davis, has recently published a thoughtful article in the Huffington Divorce section on February 1, 2016 suggesting 5 ways to move on after a relationship ends, which is sound advice to consider after a divorce. I concur and believe the tips can help an individual transition and overcome the emotional and psychological pain that divorce often brings. These are the recommendations:

1. TAKE STOCK. As painful as it might be it is helpful to think through your take and what you learned from that relationship. Would you do things differently the next time? What struggles on both sides may have contributed to the marriage ending? Many people just want to run away and hide or escape another way through other means such as alcohol, dating, or other destructive behavior and this will only lead to more problems and potential heartaches.  Instead analyze , where do I see myself? What have I learned? What , if anything would you do differently in the next relationship? How is it best for you to move on? Some may realize there are positive things and aspects of the break-up such as freedom, optimism, empowerment and relief. Remember this is an opportunity for a fresh start and to recreate yourself and pursue dreams or things that may never have been realistic or available when married.

2. PURGE SOCIAL MEDIA. Make sure you remove your former spouse off your social media. Delete and remove picture, emails, and texts. Do not follow him or her on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram. If you fail to do so you will be confronted with continuing painful reminders and will lead to you being stuck in the past and not focusing on the future.

3. INDULGE AND EXPAND HORIZONS. Reconnect with family and old friends. Expand your knowledge, take a class and read some interesting books or take up a new hobby. Exercise can often help with overcoming emotional pain. Be open to things, experiences or old hobbies. Explore things you have never done.

4. DO NOT RUSH INTO A NEW RELATIONSHIP. Many professionals believe rushing into dating is not the best way to move past your last relationship. It is often wise and better to give yourself some time and space before you rush back into another relationship. Give yourself time to spend on yourself to step back, evaluate and provide an opportunity for clarity and introspection. People often fail to analyze the mistakes of the past and end up repeating things that lead to future failed relationships. Look for patterns that can help prevent future relationships mistakes.

5. ACCEPT CHANGE AND UPHEAVAL. It often is not easy to get over a divorce or the end of a relationship, but do not dwell on the past every minute of the day. Over time you will heal and the ride will become less bumpy. Your new freedom can lead to many new adventures and you have an opportunity for a new beginning. Never give up. There will be future opportunities for love and fulfillment.

I am not a mental health expert or psychologist but as a divorce lawyer with several decades of experience and after representing a few individuals in multiple divorces and experiencing and witnessing the struggles some clients have I believe these recommendations are extremely helpful to prepare for your exciting future.

Anti-Palimony Statute Does Not Bar Claim For One-Half Interest In Property Listed As Joint-Tenant

In Lendzyk vs.Wrazidlo, A14-1331 (Minn. App .July 13, 2015) the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the Minnesota Anti-Palimony statute in an appeal involving a couple who were dating and commingled money in a new home they built. Boyfriend Lendzyk and girlfriend Wrazidlo began dating in 2006. At that time each owned a home in northern Minnesota. Girlfriend sold home and moved into boyfriend’s home with her two children. They then decided to build a home together. In 2008 girlfriend bought a lot, title to lot was recorded in her name and she financed a construction loan for the home.

After the construction was completed the parties arranged to refinance the construction loan. The loan was refinanced into joint tenancy and both parties signed a mortgage identifying them as joint tenants and girlfriend signed a quit claim deed that conveyed her interest in the property to herself  and boyfriend as joint tenants.

The relationship ended in 2010. In 2012 the boyfriend brought a partition action claiming one-half interest in the property requesting the property be sold and the proceeds be divided between the parties. Testimony was taken that since girlfriend sold her home she would initially buy the lot and pay the majority of the construction costs. After the home was built boyfriend would pay the refinancing cost and then pay for mortgage and insurance. The parties looked at and selected the lot together. Boyfriend testified that the parties agreement was to own the property together, build it together and start a family together. He was going to become more financially involved once he sold his home. Boyfriend paid $10,532 toward closing costs and made monthly mortgage payments and property insurance from 2008 to 2010, which together totaled $77,323. Girlfriend presented evidence she had put $201,171 towards purchasing the property and improvements.

Trial court found anti-palimony statute did not bar boyfriend’s claim to an interest in property and found that as joint tenants, the property should be sold and the proceeds equally divided.

On appeal the court interpreted the anti-palimony statute, Minn. Stat.  513.075, which in part provides that a contract between a man and woman living together out of wedlock is enforceable only if: (1) the contract is written and signed by the parties, and (2) enforcement is sought after termination of their relationship.  Minn. Stat. 513.076 states that unless a contract is executed complying with Minn. Stat. 513.075 a court is without jurisdiction to hear the matter and shall dismiss it as against public policy.

The court appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision citing to two other cases. In, In re Estate of Ericksen, 337 N. W. 2d 671, 674 (Minn. 1983) the supreme court held that even though cohabitants had not signed a contract detailing their financial arrangements regarding a home and it was solely titled in on party’s name, the probate court properly considered an unjust enrichment claim to a one-half interest in home where both parties equally contributed to the purchase and maintaining the home. In another case In re Palmen, 588 N.W. 2d 493 495 (Minn. 1999) two cohabitants agreed to built a log cabin together on a lot owned by Palmen.  After Palmen died cohabitant Schneider claimed an interest in log cabin stating it was agreed if their relationship ended she would be reimbursed her investment for labor and financial contributions to the log cabin’s construction. The trial court denied the claim, but the supreme court reversed holding the anti-palimony statute does not bar the enforcement of unwritten agreements between parties living together if a party can establish the agreement was supported by consideration independent of the couple living together in contemplation of sexual relations out of wedlock and that the party is seeking to protect their own property and is not seeking to claim the property of the cohabitant. The court noted under the facts in the current case the party was seeking to protect his own property and it was supported by independent consideration unrelated to the cohabitation.

Girlfriend also claimed boyfriend’s interest should not be one-half, but limited to the amount of his contributions. The court stated if a property is held as joint tenants there is a presumption of equal property interests. The court found this presumption was not overcome based on the evidence. The trial court found girlfriend’s testimony that boyfriend pressured her to put his name on deed and mortgage was not credible and that the only other evidence presented to rebut the presumption of equal ownership was that girlfriend made greater contributions to the property.  The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to equally divide the sales proceeds in light of lack of other evidence to rebut the presumption.

In any property or relationship dispute it is prudent to seek representation and advice from an experienced family law attorney.