There are a wide variety of strategies that can be used to, for lack of a better term, tell your ex to shut up. Specific legal remedies that can be put in place are: 

•Confidentiality Clauses/Non-Disclosure Agreements: A party can negotiate confidentiality or privacy clauses. Unfortunately, these Agreements are very difficult to enforce and not worth the paper it’s written on. It makes people feel better to include these clauses, but it’s important not to be delusional about their efficacy. 

•Orders of Protection: People do sometimes try to go for the jugular, which in today’s world is bad-mouthing your ex to their employers and coworkers. When that happens, it is a direct cause and reason to go straight for an order of protection to shut the person down. Judges are usually sympathetic to the person who is being harassed, especially since the courts want people employed. 

•Litigation: Johnny Depp’s defamation suit against Amber Heard was an outlier in the world of divorce. Most people do not want to litigate for various reasons, most commonly to avoid airing out their laundry for their employer or general network to potentially see — but sometimes bringing a suit is the right solution to the problem at hand. 

There’s often trepidation among divorcing people around using all the tools in their arsenal. They worry that doing so will exacerbate the situation. For example, if someone works at a job that requires a security clearance, they may be afraid that something like an order of protection will appear as a black mark and flag them from clearing. 

Instead, a lot of people choose the status quo and, essentially, suffer in silence. 

It’s important to keep in mind that the courts, as we know, are part of the government. The government is always afraid of people becoming a ward of the state. They want people employed and fully functioning, and they take this idea of playing around with another person’s employability very seriously. The legal system is capable of helping you — if you have good representation and know which cards to play.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post Remedies for a Blabbing Spouse appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

There’s nothing new about people changing their minds at the last minute. In fact, one of the perennial questions I field is something to the effect of, “How often do you see clients who choose to stay together?” I think this is an important topic because sometimes people really want to try to see if — maybe — they could stay together. The internal idealist in some holds out hope despite all odds; for others, it’s their inner pragmatist.  

•Many times, the spouse who initiated the divorce gets cold feet. Instead of serving papers, they opt to work on the marriage. 

•Sometimes the reconciliation happens after a frank assessment of the marital assets reveals that one (or neither) party would be in a good position after divorce and the parties are driven by practicality to stay together. 

•The couple might really pride themselves on being good parents and doing the best they can for their children. They think that being divorced would be terrible for the kids, so they just “stick it out.”

•Some people identify with the saying, “Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don’t know.” Home life might not be ideal, but they’ve carved out semi-independent lives under the marriage that make staying together less stressful than a divorce.  

•Sometimes people get intimidated by the dating scene and become afraid that they’ll never find somebody new. 

Every now and again, there’s a situation where parties are able to work through these situations and actually end up with a better marriage. More often than that, however, I end up getting a call in two or three years to finalize the divorce we previously discussed. I think it’s a healthy thing to do, because divorce is a journey for each person. When they come back the second time, they are unequivocally one thousand percent sure they want to proceed, and in that respect, they are completely at peace with it. 

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post When Filing For Divorce Triggers a Reconciliation: Changing Your Mind About Divorce appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

Studies show that addicts don’t necessarily get better — instead it’s about containing or channeling the addiction. Oftentimes, for a multitude of reasons, the partners of addicts are willing to cut the other party some slack because they don’t want to throw in the towel on the marriage. Sometimes, a post-nuptial agreement is done instead of a separation or divorce, sometimes nothing is done.

When thinking of addiction, most people conjure images of alcohol, drugs, and smoking, but there are so many other forms of addiction that can have deleterious effects on relationships and marriage, like sex addiction, gambling, video games and screen time, and engaging in dangerous and high-risk sports and behavior to test one’s edge and get their adrenaline pumping towards making them feel more alive, or on the flip side, to numb themselves from feeling anything.

I have a case in which a woman was married to someone who is a sex addict. He spent the down payment for a new house on his addiction. Because they have three young children, the wife took a wait-and-see attitude. For his part, the husband went to a rehab facility and found 12-step meetings to attend afterward. Unfortunately, as time went on, it became clear that his addiction was a factor once more. While it did not affect his career, he was not able to juggle his addiction and his marriage. I represented the wife in the divorce getting her 75% of the parties’ assets in an equitable distribution relief package to compensate her for the money the husband dissipated on prostitutes, escorts, and his porn addiction.

Another common situation I’ve come across is when there is a combination of addiction and rather acute mental illness, such as bipolar disorder. This is especially relevant when there are changes to medication used to treat mental health issues, or the person simply stops taking their prescribed medications. These situations can change overnight, and often cause people to want an immediate divorce in order to protect the children, in addition to protecting assets, and their own mental health and sense of safety.

Gambling addiction is also widespread. A client’s husband recently revealed to her that he has $150,000 in gambling debt and a co-debt with someone else for over $50,000. She is obviously very concerned about her assets, which primarily consist of the marital home. One option for this couple would be a post-nuptial agreement, putting everything in the non-addict spouse’s name.

Within more religious and tight-knit communities, I’ve seen many miserably unhappily married people choose to stay married to an addict solely because they fear stigma. Often, they have children and are afraid that others will think the addiction is inherited. If people live in a community where addiction is a highly stigmatized black marker, they don’t want people to know, so they choose to “stick it out” in their marriage — a very loveless marriage for the sake of maintaining a facade.

Feel free to contact me if any of this resonates and you or your spouse struggle with an addiction.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post Divorcing an Addict appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

I had a case where the husband had been put in jail because he had been stealing money from a fund that he was responsible for. Over the course of many years, he began taking money to subsidize his lifestyle with his wife. His wife made a good living, and he wanted to present that he was contributing towards the marriage as well. In truth, the wife didn’t know that much about the husband’s job, and she didn’t ask. He was a consultant, and they filed their taxes separately. 

The fund that the husband was responsible for eventually discovered his embezzlement. He ended up doing a stint in jail, and the wife stayed with him throughout this ordeal. The wife was not prosecuted or implicated in any way. This marriage did eventually disintegrate into divorce – the seed being planted with the husband’s criminal activity — but it took many years. 

In another instance where the husband was found guilty of embezzlement, the couple owned many joint assets together. They wanted to get a divorce in order to protect the wife’s share of the assets and transfer all the assets into her exclusive name, thereby protecting them. 

Sometimes, people trigger an investigation into their (ex-)spouse. For example, a wife may know that her husband used fuzzy math on his tax returns. They may stay married, and benefit from the questionable returns while they’re married. It’s only after the divorce — or during a very, very contentious divorce — that they will call the IRS. That is not only personally distasteful to me, it is also illogical to facilitate the imprisoning of your ex-spouse because then they cannot work and make support payments. Further, the children are deprived of a parent and have to deal with the emotional turmoil and stigma of an imprisoned parent.   

Finally, there are extreme scenarios of finding out your spouse committed a crime and got away with it. For example, finding out your spouse has affiliations with a supremacist or hate group, a terrorist organization, has stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars and gone undiscovered, and in the most extreme scenario, has committed rape or murder in their past and never got caught. These are not just scenarios that play out in mystery novels; while not run of the mill, these events happen and need to be handled delicately. 

There are ways to build up some armor and distinguish yourself from your law-breaking spouse. Post-nuptial agreements can address all kinds of different issues. If the marriage is in a more advanced stage of deterioration, you can pursue a separation agreement or divorce. Contact me at cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com to learn more.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post When Your Spouse is on the Wrong Side of the Law appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

While each situation is different, in my practice, divorces where one spouse is gay tend to be more amicable as an overall generalization, with there being some highly contentious ones every now and again. There’s oftentimes already a deep attachment and an understanding in place that they were never going to have a conventional marriage. They created a different kind of life together, and now they have to untangle it. 

That mutual respect is why so many couples like this are more inclined to mediate their divorces. In many of my cases, the person who is not gay is attached to the one that is, and the person that is gay usually does not want to be harsh. I have also had experiences where the couple tries initially to mediate, or resolve the situation amicably, and they end up litigating. That can happen for a number of reasons, including the non-adversarial setting of mediation, which has been known to make financial manipulation more likely to occur. 

Within the various religions, one party being gay may present seemingly unsolvable problems in a divorce. Oftentimes, religions bring with them a culture that involves every member of a multi-generational family. Some religious communities have their own systems of dealing with marriages and divorces. Information that is private in the secular world is everyone’s business in small communities. Because of that, couples may work out an agreement in which they are divorced in everything but name — unless the parties are completely willing to be open and potentially jeopardize some of the relationships with their family members, including parents, siblings, uncles still moored in more traditional and less accepting dogmas.

In many of these cases, the non-gay spouse did have suspicions over the years that their spouse might be gay. A lot of times, it was chalked up to depression, the gay spouse exhibiting behaviors such as being withdrawn, detached, and lack of interest in sexual encounters with their spouse. The reality is the gay spouse is often depressed if they feel trapped in a marriage with someone of the “wrong” sex who they lack sexual interest in and are often conflicted about how to handle their situation — do they stay out of a sense of loyalty to their family or do they go out of a sense of loyalty to their true innate nature. So, for many, getting that divorce is important to their continuing mental health.

To get started, contact me.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post When Your Spouse Is Gay appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

Many clients just don’t know what to do or how to answer when they are asked to move out. My first response to them is always, “Well, tell them they should move out. If they feel that the two of you shouldn’t be together, shouldn’t you be the one who gets to stay?”

That’s because moving out of the marital home is a big deal. The person who moves out loses a lot of power just by not being there — especially on day-to-day child care issues. That is why it is imperative to seek out an attorney to help you with a formalized move-out letter, and preferably, a parenting agreement before you agree to anything.

A formalized move-out letter most often states:

•it was a mutual decision that one of you should move out;
•thoughtful consideration was given to who that should be;
•the person who is moving out has the right to move back in at any time;
•the person who is moving out is not abandoning any of their rights; and
•the move has no bearing on equitable distribution, maintenance, custody, and visitation.

That document is signed and notarized by both parties. In an ideal situation, you also would have pulled together a parenting agreement to be incorporated and signed along with the move-out letter. If you cannot pull together an agreement fast enough, then one can be made at a later time.

In addition to protecting your legal rights, the agreement can protect you against your spouse reneging on promises. Sometimes this happens unintentionally, and sometimes with malice. The protection you get from the memorialized agreement works in both cases.

Please feel free to contact me if you have an impending dissolution or move out.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post When Your Spouse Asks You to Move Out — Breaking the Seal on the Marital Home appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

It is no surprise that, as humans, we too peak in our state of optimal growth and then our systems, more often than not, decline. Most people expect this to happen, but way down the line, in some fuzzy distant future. However, life does not always follow the script and premature illness is challenging to grapple with. 

Classic wedding vows include “in sickness and in health;” there is this overriding expectation that spouses can stand by each other through the most vulnerable times, but not everyone can or wants to stay in a marriage that goes from friend, companion, and partnership to caretaker when their spouse’s health turns south during what may be the “prime” years of their lives.

“Superman,” aka, Christopher Reeves, was a famous case of caretaking by a spouse. Michael J. Fox has been very open about his Parkinson’s and remains married throughout his ordeals. The much beloved novel from the 1970’s by Erich Segal, “Love Story,” portrayed a strong love in the midst of a wife dying of cancer; but, not all marriages unfold this way in the face of illness or disability; not all spouses feel so committed, love to this degree, or can handle their spouse’s ailments. 

I have seen a full spectrum of reactions to a spouse’s illness in the face of separation and divorce from exceedingly collaborative and amicable to vicious and hostile. The former instances include extending as much time as needed to the ill spouse to acclimate to the idea of divorce; agreeing to pay well above the statutory maintenance guideline amounts to comfortably support an ill spouse; living under a separation agreement for an extended period of time rather than finalizing a divorce so the ill spouse can remain on the other’s health insurance plan, which separation allows for but divorce bars; proceeding with a divorce but agreeing to pay the permitted 3 years of COBRA for dependents to allow the ill spouse to have continued health insurance for at least that duration of time; and agreeing to remain married for a minimum of ten years so the ill spouse can collect off the other’s social security, which is permitted once couples are married for ten years.  

On the litigious end, I have seen a husband and father who left his cancerous wife, subpoena his only child, an adult son, who had moved in to his mother’s house to help her while she had cancer; the husband’s agenda was to impute his son’s income to his ill wife, so that he wouldn’t have to pay her maintenance. 

More of these “cheery” stories include a husband who stayed with his ill wife, with whom he had two children, for years but had a long term extra-marital affair that fostered additional children, who he funneled more money to than to his wife and children of the marriage. He said his wife’s progressive illness killed any semblance of what he wanted and needed out of a marriage, but that he felt too guilty to leave her while his children with her were growing up. He commenced a divorce action when his children of the marriage were grown, but they were onto him, and it became a case of children against father. The children were actually attorneys, and they pieced together that their father had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his “other” family. They were intent on getting the best deal they could for their mother to compensate her for all the marital money their father had spent on the other woman and children in his life. For better or worse, this man was not a sympathetic character before the presiding judge, who practically forced a very harsh settlement deal down his throat in open court.  

Often when someone can’t handle their spouse’s illness, they stay out of guilt, fear of a protective relative, or because of perceived obligation, but eventually check out. They feel like a prisoner to their relationship and are often resentful. 

Both the healthy and ill spouses in these instances are sympathetic in different ways and require strong advocacy; they suffered enough, and until we walk in another’s shoes, it can be difficult to pass judgment on their actions and decisions.

Please contact The Law & Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein with any questions.  

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylstein

The post YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON I MARRIED appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

“A Good Samaritan — a charitable or helpful person.” 

There are infinite ways of exercising kindness to one’s spouse during a divorce, but we will focus on the timing of divorce here.  

Sometimes, in a divorce, one party needs more time while the other wants the divorce finalized immediately. The one that wants the immediate resolution will try to exercise grace, extend the other party significant latitude, and give them more time, sometimes years to ease the blow and transition for the party having a harder time with the concept of the divorce and disentanglement. What can happen is that two, three, or even more years go by before the divorce process is underway. 

Due to that wait time, the spouse that has exercised patience can end up having to pay much more than if the divorce had been commenced earlier, because of the equitable distribution cut-off date being postponed and the maintenance entitlement, as a correlation to the length of the marriage, being longer. 

For example, wages/income earned, bonus payments, retirement accruals would be subject to equitable distribution, so you have cases where parties have been living separate and apart and want half of the other’s bonus payments and funds in separately titled accounts that income has gone into, in addition, to support payments.  

The cut-off date for equitable distribution is demarcated by the filing of a summons for divorce or the parties entering into an agreement, such as a postnuptial or separation agreement specifying the equitable distribution cut-off date. 

On the maintenance end, the formula states that for a marriage up to 15 years, maintenance is 15-30% of the length of the marriage; at 15-20 years of marriage, maintenance is payable for 30-40% of the marriage; and for a marriage over 20 years, it’s payable for 35-50% the length of the marriage. So, the longer you’re technically attached to someone, the longer you’re paying them. 

In one extreme case, a well-off husband, who worked for 5 years trying to negotiate an agreement but never filing a summons or doing anything to cut off equitable distribution, ended up being obligated to pay his wife a lot more due to the patience he extended to her during that 5 year period when they were still married, although living apart. 

In this situation, the more monied spouse exercised kindness and allowed the other spouse more time, which in turn cost him more than it needed to. Both spouses knew the marriage was over, and the spouse who needed more time was totally unsympathetic in the final divorce. 

Sometimes, the waiting spouse is acting from pure altruism — out of empathy and compassion towards their spouse; often, there is also an interlaced self-serving quality, as the waiting party thinks their spouse will be cooperative and less aggressive in their demands when they finally come around. 

Sometimes, this works in the reverse, where the non-monied spouse gives the other party latitude and by the time they are ready to proceed, there is a lot less money to divide, as assets have dwindled. 

The “feel good” concept we’ve all heard: “You attract the energy you put out” simply does not always unfold as such; far too often, the party putting out gracious energy gets taken advantage of, as cynical as it sounds.  

Unfortunately, being a Good Samaritan can get a divorcing party taken advantage of and leave them feeling beaten down and resentful.  

There are practical solutions to stop-gap this, including but not limited to, stop the clock agreements; equitable distribution cut off agreements; postnuptial agreements and interim agreements; filing a summons but holding off on filing a request for judicial intervention while the agreement is being negotiated.  

Feel free to contact us to discuss the various containment methods and best strategy approach where these Good Samaritan dynamics operate in the shadows.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post Good Samaritan Divorce appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

In part because clients aren’t always telling you the full stack and sharing all their skeletons, I would not tell a client that I could get them relief such as sole custody, 100% rights to a business formed during the marriage, a guarantee that the statutory cap will apply for maintenance and child support when the income exceeds the cap, or the ability to relocate with their children — all of which are big-ticket, multi-dimensional items of relief.

In sharing the personal details of their lives, clients are often vulnerable — opening themselves up to outsider’s judgment and/or disapproval of how they are managing their lives. Attorneys need to know the larger context and help the client see it too.

During a recent client intake, the client revealed that she wanted to not have to pay her husband a penny, even though she earned more than him, to get primary residential custody, and to carte blanche be able to relocate with the children domestically. The latter one, being the one she desired most was the biggest wild card in her case, carrying the greatest improbability.

Her argument that she could offer them a better life elsewhere (perhaps questionable in it of itself in light of them already having the garden, backyard, family nearby, good schools, and residing in a good neighborhood in New York) was overshadowed by the overarching question — Can you offer the children a better life elsewhere than the life of having a father regularly present in their lives who they’ve seen daily to date and have a good relationship with?

Another case presented a high performing husband and father who worked long hours in finance. He wanted custody of his children stating his wife was an alcoholic and good for nothing. When we dug deeper, we learned that he, in fact, drank more than she did, but in light of his high performance at work, he considered himself a highly functional drinker and avoided using the term alcoholic altogether to describe himself. It appeared his wife had unraveled some several years back after she was let go from a prestigious job and never managed to regain her footing after that, but his contempt for her undermined who she was now, which was a functional enough mother, perhaps sloppy at times, but still quite present and active.

A case in point on the support end was a father making over $600,000 for the 5 years preceding the divorce who was adamant that he would only pay the statutory caps for maintenance and support, stating that they were modest spenders and quite frugal. There was some truth to this, except that they lived in New York City, and that alone meant that their modest living would require payments above the caps to sustain the accustomed lifestyle.

There is also the controlling personality type who called the shots during the marriage with the other spouse going along. These clients often think they will be able to navigate the divorce in a way to continue to get their spouse to go along with them, except that their spouse, self-aware enough of their namby-pamby quality, typically hires an overly aggressive attorney to compensate, who pushes back at every turn.

We all get these laundry lists of desired reliefs. As a service provider, we work for the client and are their cheerleaders, but realistic ones, that don’t overpromise and underdeliver; this is a key element of being supportive and effective for the client.

Being a cogent advocate and mouthpiece for the client and helping them to see the full breadth of their situation’s appearance to an outsider when all the relevant factors are weighed are not mutually exclusive; they are part of the same overarching role.

Please contact The Law & Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein with any related questions.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post Beware Selling Clients the Brooklyn Bridge appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..

Every now and again, a spouse will even sign the other spouse’s signature, which often comes out during the divorce. I’ve had a few clients over the years that said their spouse signed for them, but when I’ve dug deeper, that client has told their spouse to sign for them if they ever needed to.  

In one classic situation, the wife asked for child support and claimed that her husband made $600,000, but the joint tax return showed that collectively they made $180,000. In this case, the husband said that she signed to that amount and should be held to it for child support calculations, thereby imposing a significantly lower child support obligation on him. The wife claimed that she didn’t know what she was signing. She simply believed and acceded to him. Of course, assuming the wife knows basic math, she would know she was living on $600,000, rather than $180,000.

I recently worked on a divorce case, where the wife signed an addendum to the couple’s prenuptial agreement, executed many years ago, that gave the husband carte blanche discretion and authorization with regards to filing their joint tax returns; akin to a power of attorney relating to their taxes. This is an extremely bright and savvy woman — starry eyed in love, in her youth, with who she thought was an incredibly charming millionaire; her romantic notions and desire to be taken care of created thick naïve glasses through which the reality was obscured, and she trusted him wholeheartedly. Years later, his macho charade started to unravel, and IRS letters claiming tax evasion and liabilities exceeding 15 million dollars started to pour in. After her initial shock and numbness, she ran for cover under the safety haven of “innocent spouse relief.” See IRS Publication 971 and IRS Form 8857 (Publication 971;  Form 8857.pdf).

In these case, I’ve looped in accountants, tax lawyers and forensic experts, if needed, to provide the necessary perspective, releases, and maximize the relief to the client. It becomes very interdisciplinary, and a team of professionals who work well together and communicate fluidly, efficiently, and effectively, while also communally keeping an eye on the client’s pocketbook and spending is key.

Cheryl Stein, Esq.
The Law and Mediation Offices of Cheryl Stein
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 884-2324
E-mail: cheryl@cherylsteinesq.com

The post Are You an Innocent Spouse? appeared first on Cheryl Stein, Esq..