Articles Tagged with Indiana divorce lawyer

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently took on the divorce case of a well-educated couple who married in 1995 and had two children. The husband, a tenured professor at Purdue University and the wife, a chemical engineer with a master’s degree in business administration, were in the process of separating in 2014 after nearly 20 years together.

At issue before the appellate court in Klimeck v. Klimeck was whether the trial court:

  • Properly and reasonably divided the marital estate;
  • Abused its discretion by ordering the husband to pay spousal maintenance to the wife;
  • Abused its discretion by imposing a gag order on the husband with regard to the wife’s medical conditions and treatments.

Ultimately, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.  Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court decision in Laesch v. Laesch, finding a husband must:

  • Pay interest on his monthly payments to his wife, because he did not pay each in a lump sum;
  • Be held in contempt for failure to obtain a life insurance policy naming his ex-spouse as the sole irrevocable beneficiary;
  • Pay for her attorney fees in taking the matter to court. 

The outcome has proven costly for the husband, and it illustrates the importance of ensuring you fully understand your obligations under each provision of the original Indiana divorce agreement. Failure to abide by any part of it could prove an expensive mistake.  Continue reading

by

When it comes to issues of parenting rights, child custody, visitation time, and child support, there are many sensitive and complicated angles to consider. 

One that Hammond family law attorneys sometimes see crop up is when one parent becomes involved with a new paramour, be it a boyfriend or girlfriend or a new legal spouse. It may be uncomfortable for the ex-spouse; beyond that, it could mean changes in the previously agreed-to parenting plan. That’s why it may be wise to avoid inviting new love interests to spend extensive time with one’s children until the developing relationship becomes more serious.

There have been a significant number of cases in which a parent will apply to limit the amount of exposure children have to their ex-spouse’s new boyfriend or girlfriend. In some cases, this desire arises out of legitimate concern, either a fear that the child will form too close an attachment too quickly, or a worry about the child’s safety due to the paramour’s history. In other instances, it’s simply done out of spite or jealousy.  Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the family trial court erred in its application of a financial formula on a husband’s retirement accounts. For this reason, in Ahls v. Ahls, the appellate court ruled wife should receive $115,000 more than she was granted in the original divorce settlement. 

This is a good example of why it’s important to carefully review retirement accounts when determining a divorce settlement.

According to court records, husband and wife married in 1993 and had one child together. After 20 years of marriage, wife filed a petition for divorce. Continue reading

by

A man in Iowa at first thought it was a joke when a letter arrived from the state ordering him to pay child support for a 1-year-old born to a woman he hadn’t seen in 17 years. 

But it was no laughing matter.

The case came about because, as The Daily Mail reported, the man was still legally married to that woman, his long-estranged wife. The pair had never formally divorced. In Iowa – just like in Indiana – a woman’s husband is the presumed father if:

  • He and his wife were married when the child was born;
  • The child is born no later than 300 days after the marriage ends.

Continue reading

by

A survivor benefit plan of a military pension should be included in the “marital pot” when considering what should be calculated as an “asset” in an Indiana divorce.

That was the ruling handed down by the Indiana Court of Appeals in the recent case of In Re: the Marriage of Carr v. Carr.

This was a couple who had been married for 16 years and had two children together when the husband sought a divorce. For 14 years before the pair were married, husband had worked in the military, and his service continued while the pair were together. Prior to their marriage, the husband had begun building up his pension. During the marriage, that pension grew. He’d also earned a pension prior to the marriage from a private company. Continue reading

by

If you are a business owner contemplating divorce, you have additional considerations that wouldn’t come into play for many facing a separation. 

It’s not an uncommon scenario, as many entrepreneurs toil long hours building the company, and the marriage can suffer. It’s typical of younger couples to marry with no prenuptial agreement. What starts as a $50,000 venture can expand to a $10 million enterprise by the time the marriage dissolves – and by that time, the spouse has a stake in the business growth.

Of course, every scenario is different, but preservation of the business is a top priority for many owners.  Continue reading

by

A new study published last month in the American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities revealed that while parents of children with developmental disabilities weren’t more likely to divorce than other parents, their reasons for separating often differed.

Researchers analyzed a longitudinal study of more than 10,000 people – and some of their siblings – beginning in 1957. From this group, study authors identified 190 parents of biological children with developmental disabilities, as compared to 7,250 parents of children without disabilities. What they discovered was that the rate of divorce was about the same for both groups – 1 in 5. However, for parents of children with no developmental issues, risks of divorce were lowest with just one child, and increased with each subsequent child. This was not true though for parents of children with disabilities.

What this suggests is that other children may provide an important support and coping system in caring for a developmentally disabled child, researchers say. Continue reading

by

Indiana law requires an equitable division of property in a divorce. However, “equitable” does not mean “equal,” and it can be difficult for courts to divide property when separate and marital property is commingled.

Marital property is that which is acquired during marriage, while separate property is what a spouse owns prior to marriage or acquires by gift or inheritance during the marriage. Even so, a judge has the discretion to divide the couple’s property in any way that seems fair, regardless of when it was acquired or who actually owns it. Commingling happens when separate and marital property is mixed.

Factors that may be considered when dividing a couple’s property unequally would be:

  • Economic situation of each spouse;
  • Each spouse’s current earnings or earning potential;
  • Conduct that resulted in dissipation or loss of property;
  • Each spouse’s contributions to property acquisition or income.

Continue reading

by

When a court in Indiana issues a dissolution of marriage, it approves the divorce agreement as reached either by both parties through mediation or by the court following litigation or some combination of both.

These agreements encompass everything from child support and parenting time to division of property and spousal maintenance (also sometimes referred to as spousal support). These orders are final, and the only way they can be modified is through a request from the court for modification on the basis of a material change in circumstance.

In weighing recently a request for modification in Pohl v. Pohl, the Indiana Supreme Court noted the precedent for such action was established nearly 20 years ago in Voigt v. Voigt. The court recognized in that prohibition of modification of maintenance agreements may produce harsh results, but it is generally to be recognized unless the agreement so provides. Continue reading

Contact Information
2546 45th St
Highland, IN 46322
Phone: 877-446-5294
Fax: 219-836-9388

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Padove Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design