Rhode Island Divorce Tips by Attorney Chris Pearsall

Work Out Your Divorce or You're Subject to the Men and Women in Black!

If I've learned anything as a lawyer after practicing Rhode Divorce daily for all these years it is this:

It is best to settle your divorce either with or without a lawyer.  Why?  It is really a matter of practical common sense.  Your divorce will take into account your life, your assets, your debts and especially the lives of your children. 

Do these things mean anything to you?

Now, there are only two options to resolve your divorce.  Either you resolve your divorce with your spouse, or you spend time and money on a divorce lawyer and go to trial where a family court in a robe who does not know you or your family, who must remain impartial, and who has a variety of other cases to hear . . . determine what will have to you and everything you have in your life.

Option #1: You have control over settling your case.

Option #2:  You do not have control over your life to the men and women in black.

Which option sounds better to you for your Rhode Island Divorce?  Would you rather have a choice about your family and your belongings or would you rather put it in the hands of a judge who impartially considers the evidence and renders a decision?

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

Now

Rhode Island's Premiere Legal Divorce Coach !!

Copyright 2009.  Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
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 Attorney - Sale of the Marital Home, Can it be Deferred?

Yes, the sale of the marital home can be deferred if certain conditions are met.  Generally speaking, the court will defer the sale of the marital home in a divorce when, after considering the finances of the parties, there are enough financial resources to sustain the home, both parties can still sustain reasonable standards of living, and deferring the home is in the best interests of the minor child(ren).

The definitions and actual standard as provided by law are set forth in Rhode Island General Laws §15-5-16.1.1 which is as follows:

§ 15-5-16.1.1  Deferment of sale of home. – (a) As used in this section, the following words and terms have the following meanings unless the context indicates another or different meaning or intent:

   (1) "Custodial parent" means a party awarded physical custody of a child.

   (2) "Deferred sale of home order" means an order that temporarily delays the sale and awards the temporary exclusive use and possession of the family home to a custodial parent of minor children, or children for whom support is authorized under this chapter, whether or not the custodial parent has sole or joint custody, in order to minimize the adverse impact of divorce on the welfare of the children.

   (3) "Resident parent" means a party who has requested or who has already been awarded a deferred sale of home order.

   (b) In any case in which one of the parties has requested a deferred sale of home order pursuant to this section, the court shall first determine whether it is economically feasible to maintain the payments of any note secured by a mortgage or other liens, property taxes, or insurance for the home during the period the sale of the home is deferred. In making this determination, the court shall consider the resident parent's income, the availability of spousal support, child support, or both spousal and child support, and any other sources of funds available to make those payments. The intent in requiring this determination is to avoid defaults on the payments of notes and resulting foreclosures, to avoid inadequate insurance coverage, to prevent deterioration of the condition of the family home, and to prevent any other circumstances which would jeopardize both parents' equity in the home. After making the determination that it is economically feasible to consider ordering a deferred sale of the family home, the court in exercising its discretion to grant or deny a deferred sale of home order, shall consider whether it is in the best interest of the child or children.

   (c) Upon a determination pursuant to subsection (b) of this section that a deferred sale of home order is indicated in order to minimize the adverse impact of divorce on the child, the court may make such an order. The order shall include the duration of the order, may include the legal description and assessor's plat and lot number of the real property which is subject to the order, and may be recorded in the office of the registry of deeds of the city or town in which the real property is located.

   (d) The court may make an order specifying the parties' respective responsibilities for the payment of the costs of routine maintenance and capital improvements.

   (e) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, the following shall apply:

   (1) A deferred sale of home order may be modified or terminated at any time at the discretion of the court.

   (2) If the party awarded the deferred sale of home order remarries, or if there is otherwise a change in circumstances affecting the determinations made pursuant to subsection (b) of this section or affecting the economic status of the parties or the children on which the award is based, a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, is created that further deferral of the sale is no longer an equitable method of minimizing the adverse impact of the divorce on the children.

   (f) In making an order pursuant to this section, the court shall reserve jurisdiction to determine any and all issues that arise with respect to the deferred sale of home order including, but not limited to, the maintenance of the home and the tax consequences to each party.

• Published at the Rhode Island General Assembly Website

Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer - How might equity loans be treated by the RI Family Court?

Equity Loans are very similar to mortgages. Usually they are loans secured by something of value, traditionally a piece of real estate that is worth more than the loan being taken out. A mortgage for an equity loan is typically recorded and though it can be a first mortgage on the property, it is often a second mortgage.

Equity loans can also be extended upon other collateral of value, such as bonds, stocks, valuable business equipment, jewelry and the like.

Fred has been married to Rachel for 26 years. Over the years they have accumulated a nice house along the water which is paid off. Fred has a 22 Foot Scooner that has a galley kitchen and sleeps six (6). Rachel has four (4) collectible fur coats that she has kept in mint condition and lots of diamond jewelry including necklaces, anklets, bracelets and rings that she only wears for special occasions.

Fred has kept the finances, but he hasn't done it very well and after he and Rachel retire, he realizes they have no liquid cash coming in to sustain their lifestyle.

Fred panics as Rachel tells him she's going shopping at Carte Blanche. Scrambling to figure out what to do Fred finds the deed to his schooner and grabs the three most valuable peices of jewelry that he bought for Rachel.

While Rachel is gone Fred runs out and has the jewelry appraised and gets a value assigned to his Scooner. Fred then runs down to Focus One Finance and applies for a loan by pledging the equity in the jewelry and his schooner. Focus One Finance holds the title to the schooner and records a lienholder statement against it. Focus One Finance also holds the jewelry and tell Fred that he'll get all of this back when he satisfies his Equity Loan terms. Focus One Finance wires $85,000 to Fred's bank just in time for Rachel to make a purchase with her MasterMoney Card.

Fred rushes back home feeling that he has put an end to the crisis.

Two weeks later Fred gets his first Equity Loan Statement. He doesn't want to pay it out of the monies he got so he puts it in a drawer. A month later another statement comes with a double payment due and penalty fees. Again Fred stuffs it in the drawer, not wanting to deal with it at this time.

Finally in the third month Fred knows he can't avoid this anymore, but rather than pay the statement he waits until Rachel is out of the house and he takes her two best fur coats and runs down to Focus One Financial. At first Fred offers them as payment and tells Focus One that the fur coats are worth much more than the payments due, but Focus One Financial wants payment ...they do not want to barter. Financial Focus One states that the best it can do is re-finance his loan and capitalize the interest and penalties and hold the garments as additional collateral since he did not make the first three payments. Fred agrees and returns home.

A week later Fred and Rachel are invited to a formal dinner event. Rachel immediately notices that several of her best peices of jewelry are gone and so are her fur coats. Rachel insists on calling the police but Fred urges her to keep looking. After about an hour, Fred breaks down and tells Rachel the whole story. Rachel is furious! She demands that he go right down and get her furs and her jewelry back immediately. Fred goes to Focus One Financial but they will not release the items until he fulfills the Equity Loan. Fred checks the checkbook. There is only $5,300 remaining in the account. Fred goes back and checks all the entries and they are all purchases that Rachel made for herself.

Fred returns to explain to Rachel why he can't get the items back. Rachel quickly packs a suitcase, takes her debt card and their check book and leaves.

The next afternoon Fred is served with divorce papers. Fred goes down to the bank to get some monies to hire an attorney. The ATM gives him $300 and then says $0 balance. Rachel had withdrawn the other $5,000, presumably to hire her attorney.

How might this mess be dealt with by the Rhode Island Divorce Court?

Fred didn't tell Rachel about the equity loan. Is Rachel likely to be held responsible for the equity loan given that circumstance?

Fred pledged Rachel's jewelry and fur coats as collateral against the equity loan. In the divorce proceeding could Rachel get them back from Focus One Financial without paying off the equity loan?

Rachel used up virtually every dime of the equity loan money. Even if Rachel didn't know where the monies came from, might she be held responsible for the loan as well since she received the benefit of the monies?

Is the Equity Loan a marital debt such that the Rhode Island Family Court has the power to determine its apportionment and assignment, or does Fred's conduct in deceiving Rachel render this his own private debt?

There are three (3) other issues (Questions) in this case that you should spot.  Can you see them?

Authored by:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI  02910
Phone:  (401) 354-2369

Attorney Pearsall's practice is focused almost exclusively in the areas of Divorce and Family law.

NOTE:  The postings on this website are NOT legal advice, DO NOT create an attorney/client relationship and are NOT a substitute for a detailed consultation with an attorney experienced in the state where you have your legal issue.  This site is based on Rhode Island and is presented for the convenience of the internet public.

* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law and has no procedure for recognition of specialty in any area of law.

Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer - Tips about Your Marital Home

Retirement accounts in divorce actions usually include any number of types of accounts.  The following are just a few.

Annuities

Pensions

401(K) Plans

403(B) Plans

SEP Plans (Simplified Employee Pension Plans)

IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts)

Both prior to and during the course of many marriages retirement accounts are formed and appreciate.  When a divorce complaint is filed in family court any and all retirement accounts that were opened during the marriage or appreciated during the marriage come under the scrutiny of the family court as a possible marital asset.

So how do you know whether your retirement account might be a marital asset?

These two examples should be helpful to understand a few basic concepts.

Scenario No. 1

Jack worked at P&H Electrical.  Jack had a 401(K) plan that he invested in.  Jack had $23,000 in his 401(k) when he married Jill.  During their marriage Jack continued to contribute to his 401(K) until Jill filed for divorce in Rhode Island 5 years later.  At the time of the filing of the divorce complaint Jack's 401(k) had reached $57,000.

Jack didn't want to surrender any of his 401(k) to Jill because she didn't contribute to it, however that didn't matter.  During the marriage, marital monies from Jack's income were contributed to the 401(K) and therefore at least part of Jack's 401(k) became marital when he married Jill and then made contributions into that 401(k).

The $23,000 was created by Jack prior to the marriage, therefore it should be exempt from the marital estate as well as any appreciation associated with that $23,000.

However, every dollar contributed by Jack, Jack's employer (if they match funds) and all the appreciation on those monies until the conclusion of the divorce would be considered marital funds subject to division by the family court.

Let's assume the total of the account by the time of the divorce trial is $62,000. After subtracting the $23,000, $39,000 would normally be the marital portion subject to equitable distribution by the court.  This would be divided either by agreement or by the presiding judge after a trial on the merits by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.

A Qualified Domestic Relations Order is a relatively complex document drawn up by a qualified professional who is proficient with the intricacies of such orders and the various plans that exist.  It is a very technical Order to draft and is usually referred by most domestic relations attorneys to a specialist lawyer who drafts these Orders on a regular basis.

Scenario No. 2

 

Tim and Charlotte are married for 17 years.  Tim has been contributing to a pension provided by his company since their second year of marriage.  Tim files for divorce.  Charlotte files a counterclaim for divorce and wants half of the estimated value of Tim's Pension when it reaches distribution.

At trial it's determined that Tim is 15 years into his pension but that he is not vested until he reaches his 20 year anniversary.  Charlotte's attorney argues that they were married for more than half of Tim's total vesting period and therefore she should get 50% of his pension payment when Tim does vest.  Tim's attorney argues that Charlotte would then be getting the benefit arising out of the last five years of service without being married to him and therefore the request is outside of the power of the court.

The trial judge determined that divorce assets are to be valued as of the time of the entry of the final decree and since Tim would not vest before the final decree of divorce entered that Charlotte could not be entitled to half of the vested payment.  The court ordered that the value of the contributions to the pension be determined and Charlotte was awarded half of the contributions.

The trial judge's ruling found that a vested payment in a pension cannot be divided if it doesn't exist.  If a pension plan has not vested, the pension only consists of the contributions made to the plan and those contributions are the only thing that exist to be divided.

Authored by:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI  02910
Phone:  (401) 354-2369

Attorney Pearsall's practice is focused almost exclusively in the areas of Divorce and Family law.

NOTE:  The postings on this website are NOT legal advice, DO NOT create an attorney/client relationship and are NOT a substitute for a detailed consultation with an attorney experienced in the state where you have your legal issue.  This site is based on Rhode Island and is presented for the convenience of the internet public.

* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law and has no procedure for recognition of specialty in any area of law.

Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer: The Doctrine of Transmutation

In a Rhode Island divorce you may not have heard of the "Doctrine of Transmutation."  Yet it's something you certainly want to know about or at least something you don't want to be surprised by.

The doctrine of transmutation applies in a divorce when non-marital property is pulled into the marital estate when a non-marital asset that is in the name of one spouse is transferred jointly into the name of both spouses.

The court will generally deem this asset to have been transmuted into a marital asset absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 

The doctrine would come into effect, for instance, where you have a Rhode Island Divorce and there is a piece of real estate that the wife purchased with inherited monies and wanted to keep separate from her husband, however, she had her husband's name added to the deed during the marriage.

A spouse wishing to combat the doctrine of transmutation can usually expect substantial resistance in court because the doctrine of transmutation has been held to be consistent with the idea that marriage is a partnership and therefore the intention by the transfer into joint names embodies the notion that the transferring party intended both parties to share equally in the asset.  See Hurley v. Hurley, 610 A2d 80 (RI 1992); and see Quinn v. Quinn, 512 A2d 848 (R.I. 1986).

 

It is an interesting doctrine in that, if the wife then caused the "transmutation" or... change of character in the property such that she permanently changed it to a property that her husband also had an interest in. . . then no single act by her can remove that interest.  In essence the wife changed the property from what might have arguably have been "pre-marital" real estate to one that is now part of the marital estate and and is subject to division by the Rhode Island family court whether she likes it or not.

While this doctrine might seem to be fairly obvious, it can be a bit more complex in its underlying tones.  It is very easy for laypeople and even casual attorneys practicing in family law to misuse the doctrine. For those attorneys who do use it, either poorly or out of context you should make sure that you and/or your chosen attorney are aware of the defenses that can be used and which might  diffuse the claim of the doctrine.

Authored by:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI  02910
Phone:  (401) 354-2369

NOTE:  The postings on this website are NOT legal advice, DO NOT create an attorney/client relationship and are NOT a substitute for a detailed consultation with an attorney experienced in the state where you have your legal issue.  This site is presented for the convenience of the internet public.

* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law and has no procedure for recognition of specialty in any area of law.

Rhode Island Divorce Tip: Leaving Your House Will it Hurt You?

Generally speaking I've noticed in my Rhode Island Divorce practice that many men have a the same frequent question.

Will it hurt me with the court if I leave my house?

This question usually comes at a point when the marriage relationship for the Rhode Island couple has broken down to the point where one or both parties believe it is better for them to live separately than together due to the hostility, anger, hurt, need for space, or the effect it is causing on the children.

Most of the men who have been my clients believed or believe that leaving the house will hurt their financial interest in the house or any chance of getting the house in a settlement.   This does not necessarily follow though.

If you are headed for divorce, the Rhode Island family court judge will be dealing with the assets that you and your spouse have as well as your debts and your conduct (among other things).  Perhaps the most significant aspect the court justice will look at is your conduct after leaving the house.

The rationale is that the house is an asset and it needs to be preserved.  If you leave the house and it has an outstanding mortgage, taxes and insurances that need to be paid on it and you continue to pay your share of those "carrying costs" for the upkeep of the value of that asset, then it is likely that leaving the house will not hurt your financial investment in the house.

However, if you were to leave the house, stop contributing to the house entirely and then file for divorce a year later without contributing, then most Rhode Island family court judges would probably agree that some adjustment needs to be made to your share of any equity (or debt) that results from the house because you shirked your responsibilities with respect to the marital assets.

Don't expect their to be any concern or consideration for any living expenses that you might have needed in order to survive.  That is not an aspect within the divorce proceeding that the court needs to consider or account for.  Though it may well be within the discretion of the family court judges in Rhode Island to consider your expenses, if they want to. . . . I have yet to see a judge consider it.

Why?  The judge's concerned with the marital relationship.  The living expenses of the spouse that left the house are not part of the "marital relationship", rather that is something you have voluntarily undertaken.  If you can't handle your living expenses and continue your contribution to the marital assets such as your house, then there are consequences to such financial shortfalls both temporarily and in the long term depending upon if your divorce is resolved or goes to trial.

Authored by:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI  02910
Phone:  (401) 354-2369

NOTE:  The postings on this website are NOT legal advice, DO NOT create an attorney/client relationship and are NOT a substitute for a detailed consultation with an attorney experienced in the state where you have your legal issue.  This site is presented for the convenience of the internet public.

* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law and has no procedure for recognition of specialty in any area of law.

Rhode Island Divorce Tip for Men: Don't Get Trapped!

Divorce can be heart wrenching.  In fact, it can be so earth shattering that it can cause your spouse to do things he or she wouldn't otherwise do.  This can lead to some pretty devastating consequences if you aren't aware of it or simply trust that "my spouse would never do that".

Examples are always best.  Consider this one.

Charlie has been married to Victoria for about 22 years.  The children are fairly well grown and in their late teens.

Charlie sees Victoria as very spoiled and unreceptive to him.  He tries to talk to his wife about it but she doesn't want to hear about it.  Victoria is from an old fashioned italian family and getting a divorce in Rhode Island isn't even something she'd consider.

Charlie runs into an old friend, Carrie.  They have some coffee and talk about old times.  Charlie has a good time just talking with someone for years.

Charlie comes home happy after a nice chat with Carrie and Victoria suspects something more is going on.

Victoria starts following Charlie around and finds him having coffee and lunch with Carrie on a few separate occasions.

Victoria confonts Charlie very harshly about it and asks him what is going on.  Charlie explains that he can't seem to talk with her anymore so when he met up with an old friend they've been getting together to talk and catch up on old times.

Neither Charlie nor Victoria mention getting a divorce or that the situation is even that bad.  Victoria is angry and she yells and screams at Charlie so that he gets in his car and leaves.  He comes back later after he thinks Victoria has calmed down.  Victoria's car isn't in the driveway.

Charlie drives into the drive way and goes into the house.  Victoria has not calmed down.  She accuses Charlie of having an affair and cheating on her.  As Charlie tries to calm Victoria down she starts pushing Charlie and then hitting him with spatulas as they make their way into the kitchen. 

They make their way out the kitchen door into the driveway and Charlie sees that Victoria's car was hidden in the backyard.

Victoria runs out to Charlie's car and starts rifling through it looking for any evidence of this "mistress" or an affair, .... something..... anything.

Charlie begs her to calm down.  Then she starts ripping open his seats with her car keys.  Charlie reaches into the card door and takes hold of Victoria's arm to pull her out of the car.  Victoria comes out of the car and slashes his arm with her keys and she tears Charlie's shirt.

As Charlie's shirt rips Victoria falls back on her butt and notices that their daughter is near the window.  Victoria starts screaming "Help" and "He's Beating me".  Neighbors come out.  The daughter comes out and the next thing you know, the police have been called and Charlie is arrested and convicted for domestic assault and prohibited from returning to his house.

Charlie never expected that Victoria would do such a thing.  To some of us it is unfathomable that the prospect of divorce or the possibility of betrayal would cause someone to hide cars, accuse our spouse of infidelity, stalk other people and even set them up for criminal charges.

Is Rhode Island Divorce potentially in your future?  Are you a man?  Be wary!  Be careful!  Be mindful!

Authored by:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI  02910
Phone:  (401) 354-2369

NOTE:  The postings on this website are NOT legal advice, DO NOT create an attorney/client relationship and are NOT a substitute for a detailed consultation with an attorney experienced in the state where you have your legal issue.  This site is presented for the convenience of the internet public.

* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law and has no procedure for recognition of specialty in any area of law.

Rhode Island Divorce: Domestic Abuse Law

If you are a man going through a Rhode Island Divorce, are thinking about filng for Divorce in Rhode Island or if you are a man whose spouse thinks you are cheating on her, there is one set of laws you need to be aware of. . . those regarding the Protection from Abuse, namely the Rhode Island Domestic Violence Laws.

Some men go into a Rhode Island Divorce situation with their eyes wide open and knowing what their spouse is capable of.  There are other men, however, perhaps even a majority of men within the Rhode Island Divorce process who are totally clueless when it comes to their spouse and what a scorned woman might do with a little help from a lawyer who doesn't give a hoot about morality or simply has a different and even perhaps warped view of it.  Unfortunately they are out there and unfortunately there are far too many of them.

One example should be all it takes to convince any man to be on his or her guard.  Naturally, names and circumstances have been changed to protect anonymity.  This is, however, a scenario that I have run into in my last 18 years in the legal field.

Charlene and Bob are married and have a minor daughter, Brittany.  Bob meets an old college sweetheart, Courtney, and has coffee with her at a local coffee shop.  Bob isn't concerned about this meeting because it is just coffee and he is just reminiscing with an old friend.  Bob does nothing sexually or otherwise to lead Courtney on.  They simply just have a nice chat.  Bob has already been unhappy with his marriage for the past 6 years and as fate would have it he discovers that Courtney is still single and that she has wondered about him all these years.

Bob feels bad and tries to make things work with Charlene because is mind strays to how nice things might be with Courtney as opposed to being so unhappy with Charlene.  Bob decides to try to make things better in his marriage.  Unfortunately, a friend of Charlene's mentions to her that she saw Bob on a "date" with a woman he heard was Bob's "old flame".  That sets things off for Charlene and she confronts Bob and accuses him of cheating on her.  Bob denies it, tries to speak with her, she hurls a few profanities at Bob and he storms out for the evening.

The next week doesn't go too well and Bob decides to lighten up his week by having coffee again with Courtney after an evening fight with his wife.  Certainly not the best thing to do, but Bob doesn't believe he has done anything wrong and needs a friend to talk to.   This time when Bob gets home Charlene is waiting for him in the house.  She accuses him of cheating and begins striking him repeatedly in the house.  Brittany sees this and runs to her room to avoid the fight.  Bob makes his way outside to get away before things get out of control.

Charlene suspects that there is evidence of his infidelity in the truck and she begins screaming at Bob, pushes him out of the doorway of his truck and frantically throws papers and such in the air while screaming at the top of her lungs.  Bob just wants to get out of there because she is out of control and he's getting scared because he's never seen her like this.  Bob does the best he can to restrain his wife and pull her from his truck so he can get in an drive away.  All the while, Charlene is kicking and screaming. 

Somehow Charlene is not realizing that her little Rhode Island family is headed for a Rhode Island Judge, a Rhode Island Court and a Rhode Island divorce proceeding.  Yet I doubt at this point that anything was just going through Charlene's head except rage and emotion.

Anyway, Bob pulls her from the car and she continues to kick and scream.  She grabs Bob's shirt and rips the sleeve, kicks him, yells to Brittany to call the police and then takes her long fingernails and gouges Bob in the face.  Bob tries to get his keys from her and get in his truck to leave.  Charlene continues to kick and hit him while getting in between him and the door.

Bob is forced to pull her out of the door of the truck and push her away from it so he can get in.  When Bob pushes her away, she stumbles and falls to the ground.  Charlene starts to get up but then notices that the neighbors have just come out and are watching her and her daughter is at the window also watching her.

Charlene feigns that she has been terribly hurt and falls back to the ground instead of getting up and rolls around holding her head and her face.

A nearby neighbor runs to his shed and gets a large old-fashioned croquet mallet from his garage and starts running at Bob.  Bob gets in his truck and tries to pull away while the man with the croquet mallet is striking his truck, clearly having no idea what has happened.  Police sirens can be heard in the distance but the neighbor is still pounding on his truck with the mallet. 

Bob is scared to death because of the way his wife has reacted and because the neighbor has now tried to intervene in a matter that he clearly has no idea what has happened.  Bob drives away and calls an attorney for advice.  Meanwhile, the neighor told what little he saw and Charlene has concocted a story about being struck on the head by Bob.   The police take photos of Charlene which show scratches to her face and a welt on her forehead that were not there when he drove away.  Bob later finds out from his daughter that the mother struck herself with a stone from the driveway just before the police showed up but she didn't want to "tell" on her mother.

The end result is saddening and maddening.  Bob is arrested for domestic violence and a no contact order is issued.  Charlene's lawyer get's Bob ordered out of the house.  Charlene calls Bob and leaves an urgent message their their daughter is in trouble and says he needs to call her immediately.  When Bob calls back, Charlene has the police on the other end of the line who inform Bob that he had better turn himself in a the local police station because he is under arrest for violating the no-contact order.  Bob is arrested again.  Bob now has two criminal charges.  One for domestic abuse and the other for violation of the no contact order, neither of which have any basis at all because it's all been concocted and set up by Charlene.  Bob is forced to pay all the household bills plus try to survive on his own.  When he goes to retrieve his clothes he is again alleged to have assaulted Charlene but there are no marks, no witnesses and Bob is confused because all he did was pick up his clothes left at the curb in a garbage bag.   The police do not pursue it this time. Bob has already filed for divorce at this point and there is no chance of reconciliation.  Sadly, Bob discovers that the few clothes he was given by Charlene are mixed with dog feces.

Bob stays with his sister for a bit but Charlene causes some problems for his sister so his sister asks him to leave.  Bob, with no where to go, has coffee again with Charlene who offers to take him in if he can help pay for the household expenses.  Bob accepts and in the divorce proceeding Charlene's attorney rants and raves about all the domestic violence and Bob's contempt for the court's order of no contact.  It's all a sham but the judge has bought into the scenario just like the neighbor and the police.  With criminal charges pending and Charlene's word against Bob's word there is little Bob can do because he never expected that Charlene was the kind of person capable of such humiliating tactics.

By the end of the divorce proceeding Bob gave up most of the assets.  He had been worn down by the criminal charges which resulted in a criminal record and all the false accusations that he could not directly prove were false except by his testimony and no one was believing him except his own lawyer.

It was an outrage of justice and something that we hope wouldnt' occur in a civilized society.  Divorce is the legal separation of two parties in a controlled setting so that things are equitable.  Yet the breakdown of the relationships and the emotional "metal" so to speak of the parties involved are often what bring things to a head.

Whether you have a Rhode Island Divorce pending or contemplated, or if you just have a woman who is angry at you, beware!  No matter what anyone tells you, the Domestic Abuse Laws favor women in large part because many judges harbor the notion that men are... well  ... men!  But mostly that a real man really must be pushed pretty hard to have (as the legal standard requires) a reasonable believe if imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

In the end, it is best for any man . . . and in my humble opinion . . . every man to consider that a woman who is upset at divorce, the prospect that her husband may be cheating on her or that she feels wronged in some way (regardless of whether there is any truth or factual basis for that feeling) that a woman scorned . . . regardless of what you may believe her demeanor to be. . . can be.. and often is . . . a dangerous weapon or a loose cannon. 

Having seen several men's lives destroyed and left in ruin by an angry woman who simply manipulated circumstances for her own benefit, it is best to be aware of the domestic relations laws, be aware that your significant other may be capable of ANYTHING when angered enough and that you had better know EXACTLY what to do immediately if such a situation arises or your life may be forever destroyed.

Authored by:

Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall
Visit My Website at :  http://www.ChrisPearsall.com
See How I can Help with your Rhode Island Divorce

Rhode Island Divorce - Your Children May Surprise You!

In most Rhode Island Divorce matters, the parents will often consider the best interests of the minor children.  At least one parent, if not both, are proponents of keeping the children out of the scuffle and dealing with their issues as adults as far away from their children as possible.

Unfortunately sometimes that doesn't happen.  In some cases, the children are pulled into the fray and in a few rare cases this MUST be so if a good divorce lawyer to to protect his or her client.

What do I mean?  Let me give you an example.

Melinda and Brett

Melinda and Brett have been married for 25 years.  They have two children, Alexandra who is 15 years old and Timothy who is 17 1/2 years old.  Brett is  a bit obsessive about his "things" which includes his wife, who he sees as his "possession".  Brett's home is his castle, he calls the shots and things are to be done his way without argument. Melinda and Brett have lived the same house for about 20 years.  The house is paid off and only Brett's name appears on the deed because he considers it "his" house.

Melinda can't take it any more and tells Brett that she wants a divorce and that things aren't working for her anymore.  Brett flies off the handle, smashes a kitchen chair and throws a drinking glass in Melinda's direction causing it to shatter against the wall with shards of glass flying everywhere.  Melinda is afraid, reaches for the telephone and tries to call for help.  Alexandra and Timothy watch as their father pulls the phone out of their mother's hand and then rips the phone cord right out of the wall.   In front of the children Brett tells Melinda that if she files for divorce or if she leaves the house that he will kill her.  Brett stomps around the house a bit more slamming doors and cupboards and breaking another object or two.  Brett grabs his coat, warns Melinda not to leave the house and storms out.

Alexandra and Timothy

Alexandra and Timothy do not want their parents to divorce and plead with their mother not to call the police and to let their dad calm down and talk to him later.  Melinda can't bring herself to call the police so she listens to her children.  Brett stays out until late at night, comes home and forces Melinda to have intercourse with him against her will.  Melinda doesn't tell her children.

A few weeks pass.  During that time Brett keeps reminding her that he will kill her if she files for divorce or tries to leave him.  Brett begins demanding to know her whereabouts throughout the day and tells her that she must be home right after work "or else".  Melinda does want to disobey out of fear for her safety.

Over the next few weeks Brett calls Melinda's work constantly, begins following her around in his car and leaves countless messages on her cel phone telling her that he knows where she is at all times so she better not do anything.

Melinda Gets an Attorney

Melinda seeks legal counsel and has her attorney file for divorce. On the same day that her attorney is going to have Brett served, Melinda goes to her mother's house until she sees how Brett is going to react.  Later that day Alexandra finds out that her mother has gone to grandma's house and she goes over to see what is going on.

Brett is served with divorce papers that afternoon and rushes over to Melinda's mother's house where he continues to threaten Melinda in front of Alexandra.  Thankfully, Melinda's mother comes home and Brett abruptly leaves.  Melinda, afraid for her son who is at their house goes back home to check on him.  At her home Brett again threatens to kill her and pulls a knife from the nearby butcher block right in front of their son Timothy.  Timothy tries to calm his father down and his father pushes him out of the way.  While Timothy scuffles with his father, Melinda leaves and calls her attorney who gets an Ex Parte Emergency Order which orders Brett out of the house, places the children with Melinda and prohibits Brett from contacting her.  Melinda is petrified.  During the three weeks before the hearing, Brett follows Melinda with his car daily threatens her with physical violence when no one is around and and makes anonymous calls to her work and cel phone from local pay telephones so he cannot be traced.  In each instance it is Melinda's word against Brett's word.

Alexandra and Timothy Meet Mom's Attorney

Melinda's divorce attorney meets with Alexandra and Timothy.  They confirm the death threats their father made to their mother as well as ripping the phone out of the wall and smashing various household items.   Melinda's divorce lawyer knows that if the judge is going to continue the Order that keeps Brett out of the house that he may need the children either to testify or to speak with the judge and confirm these events since ordering a father from the marital home is an extreme remedy.

In tears, calls her lawyer and has her lawyer go to court to get an emergency order restraining Brett from harrassing her.  The judge grants the Emergency Order temporarily and enters it in the divorce proceeding.

Melinda's attorney meets with the children and asks them what events they have witnessed between their mother and their father and what they heard.  The children substantially confirm that Melinda's account to her divorce lawyer was correct and that the children witnessed it. Melinda's attorney explains that it may be necessary for the children to speak with the judge about the events and that it is important for the children to tell the truth.  Alexandra and Timothy promise the attorney that they will tell the truth if the judge wants to hear what they have to say regarding what happened.

Brett Retains a Lawyer

On the day of the hearing Brett's divorce lawyer objects to the Order, states that Melinda is lying about the incidents and asks that the Order be immediately removed so he can return to his home. Melinda's lawyer argues vehemently that to remove the Order will subject Melinda to continued abuse and force her out of her home and away from her children because the events are true.

The Rhode Island Family Court judge is not inclined to keep the Order in force without something other than Melinda's word against Brett's word.  Melinda's divorce lawyer asks the judge to speak briefly with the children to confirm that the abusive incidents did occur.

The Kids Meet The Judge

Alexandra and Timothy are led into the judge's chambers to give the Judge additional information to determine if the Emergency Order should remain in full force and effect.  The following dialogue ensues:

Judge: There's no need to be nervous because nothing is going to happen to you here.  You're not in any kind of trouble or anything so you can just have a seat and rest easy.

As the judge I just wanted to make sure I had all the information I needed when considering what to do when issues come before me.   So I'm just going to ask you a question or two and then I'm going to speak with your parents and their lawyers.

Alexandra and Timothy: [Nodding...]

Judge:  Now it's important that you tell me the truth when I ask you something.  You know that, right?

Alexandra and Timothy: [Nodding again.]

Judge:   Good, so I just ask you a few questions, you tell me what happened and that's pretty much it.  Simple.  Okay.

Alexandra:  Sure.

Timothy:  Yeah.

Judge: Okay, now there was an argument between your mom and dad recently at your house.  It was in the morning and you were both home.  I know that.  And I know you were home and you watched the argument or at least some of it.  Do you both recall that?

Alexandra: Yes.

Timothy: Yup.

Judge: Now, did either of you hear your dad say that he wanted to kill your mom?

[The children look at each other and hesitate. . . ]

Judge:  Go ahead.  Either one of you can speak.  How about you young lady?

Alexandra: It happened pretty fast.  I know there was some yelling, but my dad has a loud voice.

Judge:  Okay, but did you hear your father make any threats to your mother?

Alexandra:  Well, his voice sounded threatening because he's loud and he was angry but mom had just told him she wanted a divorce so I guess I can understand why he was angry.

Judge: Alright, but did your father say he was going to kill your mother?

Alexandra:  Well, he might have said something about that he wanted to kill her for doing this to him or something like that but I don't think he meant that he would really kill her.  I don't believe my dad could do that.  He gets angry, but that's not my dad.

Judge:  [Looking at Timothy.]

Timothy: Alex is right.  Dad was upset but if he said anything like that I think my mom misunderstood or something because she knows Dad would never hurt her.

Judge: Okay.  So your father was angry.  Did he grab a weapon or anything?

Timothy: No.  He just had it.

Judge:  What do you mean he just had it?

Timothy:  Well, I can't remember but I think my dad may have been making a sandwich when mom told him about wanting the divorce.

Judge: What do you mean that he just "had it" though?

Timothy: You know.  When we make sandwiches we cut them with a steak knife.  I think dad was just making his sandwich when he was told about the divorce and he had the steak knife in his hand and he talks with his hands alot so the knife was moving around in his hand. I could understand if mom got nervous but I don't think it's like he pulled a knife on her or something.

Judge: Okay, last question.  Did your father throw anything or do anything with the telephone that day?

Alexandra: I think that was an accident.  Mom went to call someone and dad grabbed the phone and the plug came out of the wall.

Judge: That's it?

Alexandra: That's what I saw.

Judge:  Okay... I've heard enough.

Alexandra and Timothy Leave the Judge's Chambers.

Judge:  The Order is vacated.  The father can return to his home.

Melinda's Attorney: Judge I must object.  This is endangering my client.   The kids . .  .

Judge: The kids just confirmed for me that your client is LYING or that she is trying to set this man up to keep him out of his own house.  YOU had no objecting to having the children talk to me and now I have the truth and you're unhappy that it backfired on you so I don't want to hear another word or I'll find you in contempt and send you down to lockup.  The Order is VACATED!  Good day counsel!

In the courtroom Alexandra and Timothy were sitting down cajoling with their father as I led their mother crying through the courtroom.

Practicalities of Testimony

The long and the short of this is that adults are not the only people that lie.  This is a substantially true story which has been changed slightly to maintain anonymity.  The children were questioned by the judge and they lied.  They lied and it hurt their mother more than they will ever know.  It placed their mother and her lawyer in a horrible position throughout the remainder of the divorce.  Most importantly, it set a precedence whereby she was forced to move out of her home and was relentlessly stalked by her husband for more than a year and a half.  Even now after the divorce is done and over with, this man still taunts her, threatens her and stalks her.  This mother could no longer trust her children to back her up on the other occasions when her husband mentally tormented her and she could not trust that the legal system who had called her a liar would protect her.

We all would like to think that our children are loving, loyal and will be there for us or better yet just that they tell the truth. Unfortunately, children are often manipulated by using their own feelings and desires.  Whether you are in a Rhode Island Divorce or another proceeding in which you need to rely on what your children have said, seen or witnesses, first you must think about what happens if they do not tell the truth.  Think and then think again . . . when you least expect it . . . and when it hurts the most . . . your children may surprise you.

Enticement

For those who are interested, Melinda's attorney later discovered that Timothy had been promised a new car by his father if he told the judge his father hadn't done anything.  Timothy did, in fact, receive a new car just three (3) days after the hearing.  Alexandra later apologized to her mother and stated that her father had been crying and that he would kill himself if he went to jail and that if she told the judge the truth that he would go to jail.

While it is true that the father played on each of the children's feelings, greed and weaknesses, the ultimate responsibility landed with the children.  They had one responsibility.  To tell the truth.  Sadly, despite all the efforts of Melinda's lawyer to achieve some level of safety for her, she paid the price for her children's lack of honesty.

Authored by:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI  02910
Phone:  (401) 354-2369

Rhode Island Divorce - Equitable is not Equal!

Rhode Island adheres to a principle of equitable distribution of the marital estate when dealing with divorce cases.

It is important to keep in mind that equitable does not necessarily mean equal.

The role of the Rhode Island Family Court Judge in a divorce proceeding is to determine based upon all the facts and circumstances presented to the court, what is an equitable distribution of the assets and what is an equitable apportionment of the debt between the parties.

In making this determination the Rhode Island Family Court judge looks at a variety of factors, including the length of the marriage, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, each party's ability to earn additional income, etc.... and based upon all of the various considerations the court will determine if one party should receive more or less of a particular asset or more or less of the debt burden of the parties.

Equitable distribution is not determinable in advance with any certainty and it would be unreasonable to expect any lawyer to give you a likely scenario of who will get what portion of the marital assets and who will be responsible for what portion of the debts.  As this blog article makes clear, equitable distribution is determined by the family court judge based upon the circumstances. 

If you as the client are to obtain any insight at all regarding what may happen if the distribution of your marital estate is made by a judge after trial then your best bet is to ask your Rhode Island Divorce lawyer (hopefully a regularly family court practitioner) about the process and what his or her thoughts are regarding your particular judge's ideas on distribution. 

A good Rhode Island divorce lawyer who regularly practices before the Rhode Island Family Courts should be able to give you some indication of where you may stand regarding asset distribution and debt apportionment.

Remember, the Right Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer can make a difference!  Call Chris at (401) 354-2369 and Get the difference!

Authored by:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Attorney-at-Law
PEARSALL LAW ASSOCIATES
571 Pontiac Avenue
Cranston, RI  02910