Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers | Affordable RI Divorce Lawyer Christopher A. Pearsall

Alimony Language - Rhode Islander's Take Care! Part 2

This Rhode Island divorce tip article is a follow-up to my first tip article which may be found at http://www.rhode-island-divorce-lawyer.com/2008/11/alimony-language-rhode-islanders-take-care-part-1.html

This first tip article is helpful, if not essential, to helping you understand rehabilitative alimony in Rhode Island.  Therefore I recommend that you read my first alimony tip article if you do not already know how Rhode Island law treats alimony in general.

Lanuguage is crucial in both Rhode Island Settlement Agreements and especially in the Rhode Island divorce proceedings when it comes to alimony awards and alimony waivers.

Whether you are representing yourself or you have a Rhode Island lawyer to represent you in your divorce proceeding, it is best to be vigilant when it comes to the language used by you, your lawyer and even the judge.  In this divorce tip article the crucial word you should focus on is "non-modifiable."

Leaving out the word "non-modifiable" in your Marital Settlement Agreement or failing to clarify to the judge a request for the court's order to include the word "non-modifiable" could lead to hazardous consequences.

Consider this Rhode Island Divorce example about Mr. and Mrs. Lawyers:

Mr. Lawyers has agreed to pay Mrs. Lawyers alimony of $400 per week for a period of three (3) years in their Marital Settlement Agreement and he has testified to that on the record of the court.  Mrs. Lawyers agrees that Mr. Lawyers' testimony is accurate and that $400 per week for three (3) year is precisely what they agreed to in their Marital Settlement Agreement.

Mrs. Lawyers testifies that she wants to waive alimony after that three (3) years has been paid, that she knows that this waiver would be permanent, and that she believes she will be able to sustain herself at the end of the three year period and therefore she would like the court to grant her permanent waiver.

At the end of the hearing, the Court orders the following:

Mrs. Lawyers is awarded weekly alimony of $400 per week for a period of three (3) years from Mr. Lawyers and that upon completion of the three (3) years Mrs. Lawyers' request for waiver of alimony is granted and she waives alimony permanently.

Do you notice that the word "non-modifiable" does not appear anywhere in the excerpt of the testimony above?  Do you notice that Mrs. Lawyers confirmed that it is "precisely what they agreed to" in their Marital Settlement Agreement? 

Let's assume this is correct and that the Marital Settlement Agreement doesn't contain any reference to alimony being "non-modifiable". 

Now, imagine that Mr. Lawyers secures a job that pays considerably more than his last job, that he becomes a partner in a very profitable business, that he creates a very successful invention, that Mrs. Lawyers gets into a tragic accident in the first year after their divorce which leaves her with brain damage which prevents her from proceeding with her attempts to rehabilitate herself and become self sustaining.

Choose any one of these events or any other event that you might think of that drastically affects the earnings or abilities of Mr. and Mrs. Lawyers within the three (3) years alimony is to be paid.

What is important here is what Mrs. Lawyers DID NOT agree to!

Even though Mrs. Lawyers waived alimony permanently after the three (3) years of payments, she DID NOT agree at any time that the alimony during those three (3) years would be non-modifiable.

If Mrs. Lawyers wanted to, she could retain a Rhode Island lawyer and once again return to court and request that the alimony she is receiving in those first three years be increased based upon either Mr. Lawyers' increase in his ability to pay more alimony and/or her own decrease in her ability to provide for herself over the long term as planned.

Though the agreement provided for $400 per week of alimony for a period of three years, this merely indicates to the court that this is an amount and timeframe that was either agreeable to the parties or ordered by the Rhode Island family court judge at the time of the divorce.  However, without the word "non-modifiable" before the word "alimony" this DOES NOT prevent Mrs. Lawyers from arguing that neither the parties or the court intended that it could not be modified during that three (3) year period if circumstances changed which warranted a modification of the amount of alimony.

What could this mean for Mr. Lawyers?

If either Mr. Lawyers or his Rhode Island attorney did not add that one word "non-modifiable" then Mr. Lawyers could end up paying $600, $900 or even $1,200 per week to Mrs. Lawyers for the remainder of the three (3) year period, if the Rhode Island family court judge found that Mrs. Lawyers had that need for such alimony and Mr. Lawyers was capable of paying that amount of alimony.

What monetary difference could this make to Mr. Lawyers?

Let's say the court found Mr. Lawyers had the ability to pay Mrs. Lawyers Rhode Island alimony in the amount of $900 per week for the last 28 weeks of the three (3) year alimony period that was agreed upon.  Let's also assume that the court held Mrs. Lawyers to the three (3) year period of alimony because she had validly waived alimony permanently after that three (3) year period of time.

Mr. Lawyers had agreed to pay $400 per week.  Mr. Lawyers is now ordered to pay an extra $500 per week for the last twenty-eight (28) weeks.  This now requires Mr. Lawyers to pay Mrs. Lawyers an extra $14,000 that he hadn't planned on.

To Mr. Lawyers and/or Mr. Lawyers' Rhode Island attorney, the omission of that single word . . . "non-modifiable" . . . just cost Mr. Lawyers $14,000. 

The words you use in your agreement and the words used in the order by the court are crucial.  Care should be taken in drafting any alimony provision in a Rhode Island Marital Settlement Agreement.  Care should also be taken to make sure that the word "non-modifiable" is used by the court in its order, if that is what is intended or expected by the parties.

In this example it was worth $14,000 to Mr. Lawyers.  That's one very costly word, don't you think?

Authored By:

Christopher A. Pearsall
Attorney-at-Law
70 Dogwood Drive, Suite 304
West Warwick, RI 02893

Call (401) 632-6976 Now for your low-cost consultation.
from
Rhode Island's Most Affordable Divorce* Lawyer & Family Law* Attorney

Copyright 2008. Christopher A. Pearsall
A New Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer for a New Millenium!

*The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law. Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com | GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer | Chris Pearsall | Legal Scholar | Pearsall Law Associates | Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers

Alimony Language - Rhode Islander's Take Care! Part 1

In a Rhode Island Divorce proceeding alimony must be awarded or denied by the Family Court Justice.

Since alimony under Rhode Island law is rehabilitative in nature, more often then not it is waived by one or both parties during the course for most Rhode Island divorce proceedings.  

Alimony that is rehabilitative is awarded by the court based upon the recipients need for financial support while he or she (1) re-establishes himself or herself in the working world with existing skills, (2) re-trains himself or herself with skills sufficient to sustain himself or herself with more modern skills, (3) is unable to care for himself or herself due to injuries, illnesses, handicaps or other circumstances that reasonably warrant the award of alimony for an extended period of time because one spouse is unable to care for himself or herself.

Alimony may be agreed to by the parties in circumstances when an award of rehabilitative alimony may be considered inevitable by the parties and/or their lawyers.  In other instances, a spouse may agree to pay rehabilitative alimony to the other spouse because their is an ability to make such a payment, even if the court would not normally award it, and one spouse wants to help the other spouse for a reasonable period of time until he or she regains a financial foothold on his or her own.

 
Whether alimony is by an award of the court or by an agreement of the parties, it is important that the language used by the court for any award of alimony is accurate pursuant to the agreement of the parties or as intended by the court.

The typical example is when an award of alimony is made for a specific amount of money for a specific period of time.  In this instance, clarity of language is essential!

Assume that Mr. Lawyers has agreed to pay Mrs. Lawyers alimony of exactly $400 per week for a period of three (3) years.    Now let's assume that the alimony award is phrased as follows in both the Marital Settlement agreement of the parties as well as the Decision of the Court.  Nothing else is mentioned about alimony.

    "Defendant Mrs. Lawyers shall pay Mrs. Lawyers rehabilitative alimony of $400 per week for a period of three years."

Here is where accuracy in the language regarding the rehabilitative alimony provisions is crucial when it comes to clarifying the Marital Settlement Agreement and/or the Decision of the Court.  If this is the ONLY alimony that Mrs. Lawyers is to receive per their Marital Settlement Agreement, then Mrs. Lawyers MUST request to waive alimony permanently on the record of the court and Mr. Lawyers or his attorney must make sure that the decision of the court is clarified to state that Mrs. Lawyers waives alimony permanently after that three year period.  Either Mr. Lawyers or his attorney should do so even if it means clarifying to the judge BEFORE the hearing or trial is concluded that the award of alimony should involve a waiver of alimony permanently with the exception of that three year period.

Why is this so crucial in a Rhode Island divorce proceeding?

Well, in the first instance it is significant to Mr. Lawyers.  If there is no permanent waiver of alimony by Mrs. Lawyers other than that three year period, then Mrs. Lawyers has a viable legal argument that alimony WAS NOT expressly limited to that three year period of payments because she DID NOT waive alimony permanently.  Therefore, if things aren't going well for Mrs. Lawyers at that time and Mr. Lawyers still has the ability to pay continued alimony, then Mrs. Lawyers might decide to return to court for another 1, 3 or more years of alimony.

In the second instance, if Mr. Lawyers has hired a Rhode Island attorney to protect his interests in the divorce, then the attorney may have made a crucial mistake because he or she didn't make sure a permanent waiver of alimony was made by Mrs. Lawyers.  Unless there was a miscommunication or some other circumstance which explains why the Rhode Island attorney didn't insure the permanent waiver of alimony was made, then the Rhode Island attorney may find himself or herself on the receiving end of a legal malpractice claim.

Authored By:

Christopher A. Pearsall
Attorney-at-Law
70 Dogwood Drive, Suite 304
West Warwick, RI 02893

Call (401) 632-6976 Now for your low-cost consultation.
from
Rhode Island's Most Affordable Divorce* Lawyer & Family Law* Attorney

Copyright 2008. Christopher A. Pearsall
A New Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer for a New Millenium!

*The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law. Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com | GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer | Chris Pearsall | Legal Scholar | Pearsall Law Associates | Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers

Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers explain Pre-marital Aspects of 401Ks!

Question:  Can My 401K Help Me In this Situation?

    For the sake of this question I'll call myself William.  I have a 401k that I began 10 years before I got married.  It had about $75,000 in it before Tammy and I got married.  We've been married for the past 13 years and my 401k is up to about $285,000.  I'm concerned about being able to pay my attorney's fees.  I'm also concerned because I want to keep the house my wife and I live in.  The house has been in our family for generations.  I don't think I can get a loan to buy out my wife's interest in the house because my credit isn't so good.  We have about $140,000 in equity in the house.  What can I do to save my house?  One attorney has told me that Tammy will get 1/2 of my 401k and that I can't touch my 401k monies while the divorce is pending.  This doesn't seem fair.  It looks like I'm going to lose 1/2 of everything I built.  I know Tammy is entitled to part of everything but it seems like I'm being left with no options but to lose the house and 1/2 of my 401k.  Is there anything I can do here?

    - William  (Coventry, RI)

Answer:  In this situation your 401K's Versatility Could be the Key in your Rhode Island Divorce!

    William, I can tell you that you have more options than you may think.  Ultimately, your 401k plan is the key to resolving your difficulties.  A 401k if much more versatile than a pension, annuity, IRA or any other investment vehicle. 

    First, Check with your 401k Plan Administrator.  Ask whether you are allowed to take a loan up to a certain percentage of your vested 401k balance.  Then confirm the amount of your vested balance and the allowable loan that you could take from your vested balance.  Loans on 401k plans are typical and are usually limited to 50% of your vested balance.

    For the sake of example let's assume this is a typical 401k plan and you can take a loan of up to 50% of your vested balance.  Based upon the numbers you have provided, I would be willing to venture a guess that you may be told that the entire $285,000 is vested and that your maximum allowed loan at 50% would be limited to $142,500.  You should also find out how much interest will be charged on whatever loan you take out and the maximum repayment period.  Of course you will be repaying yourself the interest so this is a considerable benefit to you.  Plus, you can check with your accountant to see if any of the 401k interest is potentially deductible because it is used as a buyout of your wife's interest in the real estate and adds to your adjusted basis in the property.

    Now William, there are a few things to take into consideration but careful planning will eliminate difficulty.  If you are already in the midst of a divorce then your are bound by the Automatic Orders of the Court.  These Orders prevent you from spending, hiding or doing anything out of the ordinary with any assets without the written consent of your spouse.  You may not unreasonably incur any debt that is not in the normal course of your home or running your business except for paying your attorney's fees.

At the outset this looks like it poses a massive hurdle but your case is a bit different.

The Rhode Island Family Court has the power of equitable distribution over the marital estate.  This means the marital assets and debts of the parties.  This does not include pre-marital assets.  You have already disclosed that your 401k had a value of $75,000 before you got married.  This $75,000 is a premarital asset.  These funds are yours.  Additionally, any appreciation relating solely to those $75,000 is also a non-marital asset because they are funds generated purely by virtue of a the pre-marital asset without further contribution from the parties.  Thus if over the 13 years if your 401k averaged 7% per annum return then your $75,000 has roughly appreciated to $180,738.38 making the marital portion of your 401k $285,000 minus $180,738.38 which equals $104,261.62.    The $104,261.62 should roughly be the true marital portion for distribution by the Rhode Island Family court.  It is certainly viable for you and your attorney take the position that this should be undisputed and that $180,738.38 is truly a premarital asset to which your wife is not entitled. 

If you are allowed a 50% loan to vested monies then you have in excess of $90,000 that you can take as a loan for both your attorneys' fees and to buy out your wife's interest in the house.  If your wife's share of the house equity is agreed to be $70,000 then even with poor credit you should be able to secure an equity line of credit or a refinance of the house even if you take out a loan of $40,000 and put $35,000 toward the house and rely upon $35,000 of the house equity to balance out the loan.  This also leaves you with an additional $5,000 for attorneys' fees.

If you take out a loan of $35,000 as suggested, then you still have $145,738.38 that should remain a pre-marital asset that you are entitled to claim as a pre-marital asset.

Keep in mind that this is an arguable position.  Technically, it is a judge's role to determine whether an asset is marital, non-marital, premarital or otherwise exempt from the court's equitable distribution power.  However, when the issue is as clear cut as this in accordance with the statutes, most judges will not penalize an individual for following the advice of his attorney in order to settle a matter on the judge's calendar.

If the judge disapproves of the manner in which you proceed and finds the circumstances to require the court's authority, the most likely conclusion is that the Judge will consider any disproportionate amount as an offset to your spouse against the marital estate.  However, pursuant to the Rhode Island General Laws this is an arguable position that you should be able to take and use without the written permission of the other party or an order of the court, especially if it is used in an effort to settle the case. 

However, if the funds are used for purposes other than settling the case, be prepared for the court to take more appropriate actions to punish you as an abusing party even if you are within your legal rights.

Authored By:

  Christopher A. Pearsall
Attorney-at-Law
70 Dogwood Drive, Suite 304
West Warwick, RI 02893

Call (401) 632-6976 Now for your low-cost consultation.
from
Rhode Island's Most Affordable Divorce & Family Law* Attorney
now
100% Digital and Virtual!

Copyright 2008.  Christopher A. Pearsall, A New Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer for a New Millenium

*The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law.
Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com | GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer | Chris Pearsall
| Legal Scholar | Pearsall Law Associates | Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers |  

Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer tells of Two College Cost Exceptions!

Under Rhode Island law, parents are not responsible for paying for college or expenses related to college.  There are a few exceptions that as a Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer I've seen Rhode Island Family court judges address.

Generally speaking the statement above is true.  Parents are not held responsible for paying for college expenses.  This is true, provided that normally accepted situations exist. 

For instance, most "children" do not take college courses before their 18th birthday and many, even before their 19th birthday. 

Under Rhode Island Law, child support obligations may be required by parents until a child is 18 and has graduated from high school or until the child has reached the age of 19 at the latest, provided the child is not a special needs child.  Child Support provides for child care expenses which may or may not, in the discretion of the judge include educational expenses.  Consider this example which is not that unusual.

EXAMPLE #1  - Your Child is Advanced

Terri and John have a daughter, Samantha and are divorced.  Samantha is exceptionally bright and finished high school at age 17 and was accepted to college early.  Terri takes John back to court to have him pay for part of Samantha's college expenses.  John hires a Rhode Island general law practitioner who advises him that he is not required to pay for his daughter's college expenses.  In the Final Judgment of Divorce John was ordered to pay for half of Samantha's tuition, books and extra-curricular activities until she was no longer eligible for child support.

At the time of the hearing John expects that he will not be ordered to pay anything toward Samantha's college expenses especially since Samantha's private high school tuition was about 1/5th the cost of Samantha's college tuition and he never anticipated Samantha would go to college early. 

However, after the hearing the judge sees things otherwise.   Since Samantha is still a minor
she is still entitled to child support and the support of her father.  Since the court's order didn't specifically exclude college expenses, then the judge finds that they are still included until Samantha is no longer eligible for child support.

EXAMPLE #2 - You Agreed to It

Claire and Tim get divorced and have a Marital Settlement Agreement.  Both parties had an attorney and both parties wanted to get the divorce done as quickly as possible so the Marital Settlement Agreement was a little rushed though each party had the opportunity to read all the provisions and discuss it with his or her lawyer.

Claire and Tim have a son, James.  James enters college and Claire contributes as much as she can to his college education and approaches Tim about his contribution.  Tim is surprised and tells Claire that he can't afford to contribute to college for James because he is just about to close on a new house.  Claire consults a lawyer who tells Claire that Tim has to contribute whether he likes it or not because he agreed to it in the Marital Settlement Agreement.

Tim consults an attorney who informs him that it doesn't matter what is in the Marital Settlement Agreement because the family court lacks the legal authority to make a father pay for college costs.

At the hearing Claire's attorney argues that Tim agreed to it in a provision of their Marital Settlement Agreement and Tim's attorney argues that the family court lacks the power to force Tim to pay for college costs and therefore the provision of the Marital Settlement Agreement is not binding.

The judge takes a straightforward and common sense position to the argument.  The judge agrees that the family court does not have the power to force a parent to pay for college costs for a child who is not a special needs child and is emancipated.  However, the judge finds that according to the Rhode Island Statutes the family court is empowered to enforce agreements made between the parties as a results of divorce and that the terms of such agreements may reach beyond what the family court may order because parties are free to contract to whatever terms they see fit as long as the court does not find them to be inequitable.

Therefore, the judge finds that the Marital Settlement Agreement is enforceable as a separate and binding contract and Orders Tim to pay half of the expenses as he agreed to do in the Marital Settlement Agreement.

   Authored By:

  Christopher A. Pearsall, Attorney-at-Law
70 Dogwood Drive, Suite 304
West Warwick, RI 02893

Call (401) 632-6976 Now for your low-cost consultation.
from
Rhode Island's Most Affordable Divorce & Family Law* Attorney
now
100% Digital and Virtual!

Copyright 2008.  Christopher A. Pearsall, Internet Entrepreneur and Attorney-at-Law

*The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law.
Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com | GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer | Chris Pearsall
| Legal Scholar | Pearsall Law Associates | Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers | TheModernMom.com| WholesaleQuiltBatting.com | Mesothelioma-Cancer-Articles.com

The Other Man - The Other Woman - Opposing Subpoenas!

In a Rhode Island Divorce a common practice of family lawyers is to subpoena the person their client alleges is "the other woman" or "the other man" who has broken up the marriage.

EXAMPLE

Todd and Marlene have been married for ten (10) years.  Marlene didn't see the signs that Todd was extremely unhappy in their relationship.  Todd files for the divorce.  Marlene is in shock when Todd files for divorce and instantly forms the belief that there must be "another woman" because she sees no reason why Todd would file for divorce otherwise.  Marlene starts putting together a list in her mind of females that his husband knows from work, little league practice for their son, and friends of hers that have been around her husband.

Marlene hires an attorney and files a counter-claim for divorce.  Eventually Marlene narrows down her list to the one or two people she suspects had an affair with her husband.  She starts following Todd around and finds that Todd is having lunch occasionally with one of those people.  Marlene forms in her mind the belief that this woman must be "the other woman" who broke up her marriage.  Marlene is now angry at both her husband Todd and this woman.  Marlene's attorney subpoena's the woman Todd was having lunch with into court, usually around the time of the trial.

ATTORNEY TACTICS

Unfortunately this is an all too common tactic that attorneys take in a divorce matter that causes divorces, in my humble opinion, to escalate beyond control or to immediately settle a case in an inequitable manner.

Let me explain.  The "other woman" as in the example may have no basis what so ever.  The fact is, people grow apart.  The parties in a marriage are often blind to the signs of the breakdown especially if both parties do not have good communication skills with one another. 

Denial is often an initial reaction to the recognition that divorce is taking place or is on the immediate horizon.  The person being divorced does not wish to believe that he or she is unattractive, boring, unyeilding or unworthy or being loved as a spouse in the marital relationship.  That denial, if not tempered with reason, often leads to the conclusion that there must be another person in their spouse's life that caused the marriage to break down.  This is because the spouse cannot, or will not, come to terms with the fact that the marriage simply wasn't a good match or that their spouse was looking for something in his or her life and thought it was present in the other spouse only to find that it wasn't.  Some spouses marry with blinders on.  They see the good qualities of the prospective spouse and then simply hope (or even expect) that over time if they marry the person that the remaining characteristics and qualities they do not see in that person will develop  . . . or they believe that the person will change because of their influence.

Whatever the circumstances, divorce lawyers will not hesitate to subpoena one or more persons that the spouse believes is (or could be) the person that caused the breakdown of their marriage.  This person is seen as the alleged "homewrecker". 

The purpose of subpoenaing the alleged homewrecker is two-fold.  First, when an attorney does this at the wishes of the client (especially without any proof that anything has occurred) it seemingly validates the beliefs of the client that there was in fact a "homewrecker" who ruined the marriage.   Regrettably I have found this to be true mostly in the case of women who feel scorned or rejected when the man files for divorce.

Second, whether the person subpoenaed is a love interest or simply a friend and confidant that the husband has chosen to confide in and is part of his support system to get through the divorce, it puts pressure on the man to keep the love interest, friend or even girlfriend out of the "divorce battlefield" to prevent her from experiencing anxiety, humiliation or any other fallout from the scorned wife.  This in turn has a third effect of leveraging the husband (at least in this example) to succumb to the demands of the wife's attorney even if they are unreasonable and inequitable purely to protect a person who may in truth simply be a friend who is supporting the man through the divorce process by being a listener or sounding board.

WHAT CAN THE "ALLEGED HOMEWRECKER" DO?

He or she can make a Motion to Quash before the court.  A Motion to Quash is a motion asking the court to invalidate the subpoena either permanently or temporarily based upon the circumstances.

The Rhode Island Family Court Judges generally have a good grasp on the reasonableness of a subpoena used in these situations.  A judge will not typically allow the unfettered intrusion into the life of person who is only alleged to be a person who has caused the breakdown of the marriage, especially if the subpoena to the third party (ie the alleged homewrecker) demands the production of documents (called a "Subpoena Duces Tecum") that invade the life and personal finances, etc . . . of the third party.  Without corroboration from the spouse who is alleged to have had the affair, or some other corroboration, there is a very good chance that the court will quash or invalidate the subpoena.

Typically the "alleged homewrecker" can orally or in writing, move to quash the subpoena.  It is best that if the person served with the subpoena is going to do this that he or she have more than one basis for doing so. 

REASONS FOR QUASHING A SUBPOENA in these circumstances include:

1)  It is intended merely to harass the person served and/or cause him or her anxiety;

2)  It is believed that it was issued merely to force a party to agree to inequitable terms in order to prevent one parties' friend from being embarrassed and humiliated by even the accusation the he or she was involved in an extramarital affair, thus it is being used to cause undue duress on the party alleged to have been involved in an affair;

3)  That the subpoena demands documents that are invasive of a reasonable person's right to privacy;

4)  That the subpoena was untimely served (requests for documents should provide at least 2 to 3 days for the person served to obtain the documents);

5)  That the subpoena was improperly served (A Rhode Island Subpoena must be served (a) personally, (b) by a person authorized to serve process in Rhode Island, (c) with the State of Rhode Island, (d) with a check for witness fees of  approximately $12 to $14).

6)  That the subpoena should, in the very least be invalidated, subject to the serving party's establishing a foundation for the subpoena and/or the alleged relationship between that party accused before the third party's privacy is violated.  Attorneys call this "quashing the subpoena subject to establishing foundation.";

7)  The subpoena cannot be complied with without undue risk of loss of employment of the subpoenaed individual with explanation as to why there is undue risk (i.e. brand new job and can't take time off);

8)  The subpoena cannot be complied with due to illness with a physician's note, preplanned vacation with proof of same, employment obligations out of state on the time and dates compliance with the subpoena is required.

THE POINT

Persons alleged to be the "other man" or the "other woman" who have been served with a subpoena in a divorce matter do have options of recourse to prevent this attorney's tactic.  Persons served may oppose the subpoena for these reasons and other basis of good cause if they do so timely and do not sit on their rights (i.e. wait til the last minute).  The longer a subpoenaed person waits to oppose a subpoena, the less likely it is that the court may grant the requested relief (i.e. that the subpoena be quashed in whole, in part, or subject to establishment of foundation).

Authored By:

  Christopher A. Pearsall
Money Making Entrepreneur and Attorney-at-Law
70 Dogwood Drive, Suite 304
West Warwick, RI 02893

Call (401) 632-6976 Now for your low-cost consultation.
from
Rhode Island's Most Affordable Divorce & Family Law* Attorney
now
100% Digital and Virtual!

Copyright 2008.  Christopher A. Pearsall, Internet Entrepreneur and Attorney-at-Law

*The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law.
Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com | GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer | Chris Pearsall
| Legal Scholar | Pearsall Law Associates | Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers | TheModernMom.com| WholesaleQuiltBatting.com | Mesothelioma-Cancer-Articles.com