Family Law Case Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Family Law Case Notes PDF

Description

Family Law Case Notes W1: Courtships & Premarital Agreements Cases Rivkin v. Postal • Record-producer David dumps both his pregnant girlfriend Lori and his wife • Lori sues for breach of promise to marry—can she establish a case? Campbell v. Robinson • Matthew Campbell gives Ashley Robinson an engagement ring • They call off wedding • Who keeps the ring? Campbell adopts modern trend of no-fault. Analysis: 1) Is ring conditional (on marriage) gift or absolute? 2) Is your state a fault or no-fault state on this? In Re Marriage of Shanks Lawyer Randall Shanks marries Teresa, his secretary – Both already have kids • He asks her to sign prenup, she does • At divorce, she challenges the prenup • Result? W2: Restrictions on Marriage: Incest, Bigamy, Age Cases •

In Re Adoption of M. An adopted daughter (now age 22) moves to vacate a final judgment of adoption to marry her adoptive (divorced) father and legitimize their son What result? Why? Brown v. Buhman •

Sister Wives stars challenge Utah’s bigamy statute: – Utah Code Ann. §76-70101(1) provides that “[a] person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” • What result? Why? Kirkpatrick v. District Court •

• Mom gives consent to daughter’s underage marriage in NV, dad doesn’t • What result? W3: Restrictions on Marriage: Mental & Procedural Requirements Cases Blair v. Blair • •

Fraud over child’s paternity, BUT Is evidence that husband was “crazy” about her sufficient? 1

Carabetta v. Carabetta A Catholic ceremony but no marriage license Wife wanted divorce, husband moved to dismiss on the grounds that there was no marriage Lower court granted husband’s motion to dismiss, reversed here by CT Supreme Court, which adopts majority rule— what is it? Jennings v. Hurt • • •

Actor William Hurt and Sandra Jennings live together in New York City when Hurt is separated from his wife • Are they common law married? • 2nd wife Heidi stipulated in their prenuptial agreement that his alimony payments would increase if he relapsed into his drinking habit. They divorced in 1992. W4: Restrictions on Marriage: Interracial & Same-Sex Marriage Cases •

Loving v Virginia U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the last state bans on inter-racial marriage – What level of scrutiny applies? Strict scrutiny for race-based laws under equal protection! • Today love is color blind: 8.4% of US marriages are interracial vs 3.2% in 1980 • In 2010, 15% of all new marriages were interracial • Of the 275,500 new interracial marriages in 2010: – 43% were white-Hispanic couples – 14.4% were white-Asian – 11.9% were white-black • Almost quarter of black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, vs. 9% of black female newlyweds. About third of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2010, vs. 17% of Asian male newlyweds. Zablocki •

•

Statute says people behind on child support can’t get married without court approval – State asserted interests: (1) the statute fulfills a counseling function (providing an opportunity to counsel an applicant to meet support obligations) and (2) it protects child welfare Struck down because marriage is a fundamental right and the statute violates equal protection – State’s interest are “legitimate and substantial,” but statute is wrong means to achieve these interests

Perry Timeline: •

2008: In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) invalidates CA’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage as a violation of constitution (rights of privacy and equal protection)

state

2

• • •

18k same-sex couples marry Later in 2008: CA residents enact Prop 8 (by a 52.3% vote), which amends the CA state constitution to define marriage as heterosexual 2009: Two same-sex couples challenge Prop 8 in Perry – District court overturned Prop 8 based on Due Process and Equal Protection – 9th Circuit affirmed (CA had no legitimate reason to withdraw the right to marry) – U.S. Supreme Court: State of CA did NOT appeal to 9th Circuit NOR to U.S. Supreme Court, the official sponsors of Prop 8 did; U.S. Supreme Court held they had no standing to appeal…so district court decision overturning Prop 8 stood

Windsor Issue: tax refund under DOMA (signed by Clinton in ‘96) – DOMA §2: U.S. states NOT required to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages under Full Faith & Credit Clause (left in-tact by Windsor) – DOMA §3: “marriage” and “spouse” in federal law applies only to opposite sex couples (struck down) – What level of scrutiny applies? • Although the text of the 14th Amendment applies only against the states, the U.S. Supreme Court has applied Equal Protection against the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment under a doctrine called reverse incorporation since Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) • Bottom line: federal government recognized same-sex marriages performed in states where allowed • What arguments are made? • Postscript: U.S. Supreme Court aff’d, but court did not explicitly apply heightened scrutiny •

Obergefell 1st time U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of same-sex marriage state bans Issue: Whether the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws, prohibits states from banning same-sex marriage • Result? • Level of scrutiny? th 14 Amendment in Obergefell • (Substantive) Due Process: The right to marriage (a “two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals”) is a “fundamental right” – But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”? – And no level of scrutiny articulated? • Equal Protection: “The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the 14th Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.” • •

3

But, unless we are talking about suspect classes like race or gender, only ordinary scrutiny applies? “. . . The fundamental liberties protected by [the Due Process Clause] extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. . . .” –

•

W5: Reproductive Privacy: Contraception & Abortion Roe v. Wade • What is the legal issue? – Constitutionality of state abortion law • What is the standard of review? – Strict scrutiny because fundamental liberty right • Result? – Roe legalizes abortion (56% of Millennials don’t know this!) • Dissent? Planned Parenthood v. Casey PA abortion law required, among other things: – Informed consent, such as giving the woman information on fetal development & the medical risks of abortion & childbirth (Upheld) – A 24-hour waiting period (Upheld) – For a minor, consent of at least 1 parent, with a judicial bypass option (Upheld) – For a married woman, a signed statement that she had notified her husband of the procedure (Struck down) • U.S. Supreme Court: – Introduces undue burden as new standard of review – Rejects Roe’s trimester system – Result: allows states to regulate abortion more Gonzales v. Carhart •

What is the legal issue? – Constitutionality of federal partial birth abortion ban • What is the standard of review? – Shift since Roe—Carhart enshrines “undue burden” standard introduced in Casey • Result? – Ban upheld as constitutional • Dissent? Griswold v. Connecticut •

•

What new constitutional right is created (parties had argued due process right to life & liberty)? – Right to privacy! – What standard of review? 4

– Strict scrutiny for fundamental rights! • Result? Justified? • Dissents? • Griswold is cited in many later cases, including Roe • Penumbra—a distinct part of a shadow, created by any light source after impinging on an opaque object Eisenstadt v. Baird •

What is the legal issue? – Constitutionality of state law treating unmarried couples differently from married couples on contraceptives – What is the standard of review? – Ordinary review (rational basis) for unmarried people under Equal Protection analysis (not suspect class) – Result? – Law is unconstitutional – Dr. Baird landed in jail many times in many states due to his contraceptive lectures; he was motivated by women dying of self-inflicted abortions

Lawrence v. Texas What is the legal issue? TX sodomy law. – Note Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a Georgia statute prohibiting sodomy – Note Romer v. Evans, 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down (on equal protection grounds, using rational basis review) Colorado’s state constitutional amendment preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality • Standard of review? – Unclear, arguably strict, maybe ordinary review • Result? – Law struck down • Dissent? W6 Parental Autonomy •

Meyer v. Nebraska • • • •

Issue: constitutionality of Nebraska statute preventing the teaching of a foreign language to students below high school What standard of review? Rational basis Who won? Teacher!

U.S. Supreme Court finds:

5

• • • • • • •

“Property” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes the right to earn a living “nor shall any state deprive any person of…property, without due process of law” “Liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment includes the right of parents to control the education of their children “nor shall any state deprive any person of…liberty…without due process of law” Foundation for parental autonomy constitutional right (see Troxel later) Foundation for expanding understanding of 14th Amendment Foundation for applying 14th Amendment to family law issues

Pierce v. Society of Sisters • Issue: the constitutionality of an Oregon statute compelling public school attendance • What standard of review? Rational • Who won? Private schools • Parental right = to direct the upbringing of children under his/her control Prince v. Massachusetts Custodian of 9-year-old girl, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of violating state child labor law because she allowed niece to sell religious magazines on a street corner • Custodian’s arguments: – Freedom of religion under 1st Amendment, as applied to states by 14th Amendment – Parental rights argument W7: Duties in Marriage Cases •

McGuire v. McGuire Wife wanted some new purchases from Husband, like a new furnace – Result? – IMPORTANT family law doctrines: – Doctrine of nonintervention – Duty of support – Doctrine of necessaries Hypo: Parochial School •

A married couple could not agree on the education of their 7-year-old daughter and brought the case to court—father wanted parochial school, while mother wanted public school (might have been driven by grandparents) • Kilgrow v. Kilgrow, 107 So. 2d 885 (Ala. 1958) • Result? – Doctrine of nonintervention applies! (Court will not interfere in problems of intact spouses). •

6

W8: Cohabitation Cases Marvin v. Marvin • • • • •

Summer romance leads to cohabitation 7 years later, he pops the question: Will you move out of my house? “Palimony”? What types of cohabitation agreements will be recognized? Influence of Cary?

W9: Divorce Jurisdiction; Fault Grounds Cases Brown v. Brown (Adultery) • • • •

Wife and mother of 4 “fools around” with window installer in back of car Husband files for divorce on grounds of adultery – Result? Granted! P.S. Over 40% of both married men and married women admit to cheating, emotionally or physically In Nemeth, S.C. found adultery on cruise despite chronic pain

Anderson v. Anderson (Cruelty) • • •

Husband files for divorce on the ground of wife’s cruelty But is he a cheater? Yes! Why does it matter? Result? No cruelty.

Reid v. Reid (Desertion) • • • •

Wife leaves non-communicative, asexual, workaholic husband 2 months before filing for divorce, claiming constructive desertion justified her departure Result? She deserted him; no alimony for her P.S. Which month is “divorce month”? P.P.S. Is this a pursuer-distancer, disengaged, operatic, cohesive-individuated (“yuppie and feminist ideal”), or traditional marriage?

W10: Fault Defenses; No-Fault Divorce Jenkins v. Jenkins (Recrimination) • •

Husband argues lower court erred in rejecting his recrimination defense – He loses his argument Recrimination: “If either party to a marriage proved a fault-based ground for divorce, then neither party was entitled to a divorce.”

7

– –

“Founded on the basis that the equal guilt of a complainant bars his/her right to divorce.” “The complainant must come into court with clean hands.”

Haymes v. Haymes (Condonation) •

CAUTION: Sex on beach NOT just a drink, also bar to divorce!

•

But, not in this case.

Bennington v. Bennington • • •

Mary becomes disabled after stroke and Larry moves into a van adjacent to home Larry seeks no-fault divorce on ground of living separate and apart Result? Not living separate and apart here

Feltmeier v. Feltmeier • • •

Lynn sues ex-husband for intentional infliction of emotional distress Result? Illinois recognizes this tort in the divorce context Recall: The last time we saw a tort in family law was the heartbalm torts

W11: Property & Alimony (Part 1) Ferguson v. Ferguson • Homemaker/beautician and cable guy divorce after 24-year-marriage • How does the property division go down? • Judicial introduction of equitable distribution in Miss. (last state to move from title theory) Mani v. Mani • How to calculate alimony? • Justifications for alimony? – Damages for breach of the marriage contract, compensation, unpopularity of taxpayer support for the lower-income spouse, & division of the economic benefits the marriage reaped • Note: Alimony law has been reformed in NJ since this case—permanent alimony no longer available – This has been the trend in many states W12: Property & Alimony (Part 2) Wolfe v. Wolfe •

Trial court: – Property division: wife $2.6 million & husband $2.4 million; husband takes $10.3 million in disputed property, determined to be his separate property 8

•

– Alimony: $2k/month for 2 years and $1k/month for next 3 years – Attorneys’ fees: each pays own Wife appeals: – award of $10.3 million in disputed assets to husband – alimony amount/duration—wants $10k/month indefinitely – denial of her request for attorney fees Result?

•

Oregon’s property division statute?

•

–

“Just and proper”

–

“Rebuttable presumption that both spouses have contributed equally to the acquisition of property during marriage, whether such property is jointly or separately [titled].”

–

2 equitable considerations?

–

Social & financial objectives of divorce

–

Extent to which husband integrated separate property into marital property (commingling)

Paul v. Paul • •

Divorce agreement stipulates that alimony ends upon cohabitation as defined in the Delaware alimony statute, which requires “regularly residing” Court here holds that separate residences do not preclude finding of cohabitation

W13: Property Division & Alimony (Part 3) Bender v. Bender Firefighter husband no-good except for his unvested pension package Divisible? – What is property? – What is fair? Pensions are going extinct—now often replaced by 401k’s in private sector • •

In Re Marriage of Roberts • Husband earns law degree during marriage—divisible? Matt’s salaries: Pre-law school: $30k Post-law school: $70k Trial Court Divorce Division: Equal distribution rebutted 9

Matt: $2k in debt Leigh Anne: $25k in assets Should his law degree have gone into pot for division? • What is fair? • What is property? Note: New York takes opposite, minority approach Award Exceeding Assets of Marriage Rule: No award over and above the assets of the marriage possible (Wilcox) – Exception #1: Maintenance (alimony) – Exception #2: IC 31-15-7-6 IC 31-15-7-6 Monetary judgment to spouse for expenses of postsecondary education Sec. 6. If the court finds there is little or no marital property, the court may award either spouse a money judgment not limited to the property existing at the time of final separation. However, this award may be made only for the financial contribution of one (1) spouse toward tuition, books, and laboratory fees for the postsecondary education of the other spouse. W15: Child Support Calculation Turner v. Turner • •

• •

Uses most popular model: the income-shares model Explains how the guidelines (under any model) produce a presumptive award and how deviations from the presumptive award require the court to make and articulate specific justifying findings Grapples with complexities of modern child support, i.e., shared parenting arrangements and extracurricular activities Emphasizes the guidelines’ strict limitations on judicial discretion in contrast to big judicial discretion in property division & alimony.

McLeod v. Starnes • •

Flip-flopping: what result on postsecondary expenses? Case captures the difficult questions raised by the interaction of today’s age of majority or emancipation (18) – which usually terminates a parent’s obligation to pay child support – and the contemporary importance of postsecondary education.

Pohlmann v. Pohlmann • •

Constitutional challenge by father seeking to reduce his support to his children from his first marriage because of his kids from second marriage Result?

10

Olmstead v. Ziegler • •

Can court impute income to lawyer, wannabe teacher? Indiana Approach: Courts may impute income to a parent. Scott v. Scott, 668 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. 1996)

W16: Child Support Enforcement State v. Oakley •

Condition of Oakley’s probation—can’t have any more kids unless he demonstrates ability to support them and the kids he already has

Strict Scrutiny: Law must be “narrowly tailored” and “of compelling government interest” –

Equal Protection claims based on race, national origin (“suspect groups”)

–

Due Process claims based on fundamental rights, e.g., right to marry (Zablocki), right to procreate (Skinner)

Heightened Scrutiny: Law must be “substantially related” to “important government interest” –

Equal Protection claims based on gender, legitimacy of birth (“quasi-suspect groups”)

Ordinary Scrutiny: Law must be “rationally related” to a “legitimate government purpose” –

Equal Protection claims based on anything else, e.g., age, disability, poverty, political party

Turner v. Rogers • •

Is there right to counsel at civil contempt proceeding? 14th Amendment controls, so Mathews v. Eldridge test: 3-part test that determines what process is due under U.S. Constitution— 1) the nature of ‘the private interest that will be affected,’ 2) the comparative ‘risk’ of an ‘erroneous deprivation’ of that interest with and without ‘additional or substitute procedural safeguards,’ AND 3) the nature and magnitude of any countervailing interest in not providing ‘additional or substitute procedural requirement[s].’

W17: Child Custody Standards Devine v. Devine • •

Provides background on Anglo-American making…What is it? Mom gets custody of 2 sons (a...