Welcome to the State Line Lawyer! Thanks for dropping by. Feel free to join the discussion by leaving comments, and stay updated by subscribing to the RSS feed.
Contact Me Got a question, or need an answer? Send me an email, or let me send you one by subscribing to my email feed.
|
What happens to the house if only one spouse files bankruptcy? Unless the other spouse agrees otherwise, nothing. Mo. Rev. Stat. section 513.475.2 provides that neither spouse may sale, mortgage or alienate the marital home unless the other spouse agrees. Any attempted transaction is null and void. Also see In re Anderson, 12 B.R. 483 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1981), which held that a creditor may only recover against property held by spouses as a tenancy by the entireties when the other spouse consents.
– ksmolawyer
One of the major sticking points in any divorce is the “equitable” division of property. Missouri courts have broad discretion in making this determination. And an equitable division, does not always mean a 50/50 split. In fact, a Missouri court recently held that the court may consider separate property brought into marriage, even if the property was later converted into marital property. Moreover, the court does not have to specify which property the equitable division relates or with which the division should be satisfied from. An experienced Missouri family law attorney (i.e., divorce attorney) can help you navigate and prove what is an equitable division of marital property. [continue reading]
I’ve notice that I’ve gotten a lot of traffic over the past few days regarding child support obligations, in particular the modification of such obligations. I figured it is worthwhile to post a link to the relevant statutes: Title 30 of the Revised Statutes. I direct these readers to Chapters 452 (452.340) and 454.
– ksmolawyer
The short answer is “YES!” Even though the federal estate tax has been repealed, at least for a year, there are still countless other issues that need to be addressed by a proper estate plan. Naming a guardian for minor children or children with special needs, protecting assets from creditors, providing for the payment of certain expenses, providing for future generations, insuring children from a previous marriage are protected and provided for, are just a few of these reasons. Additionally, while the estate tax is down, it is not out. The estate tax is scheduled to return in 2011 with a lower exemption amount and a higher tax rate.
A recent article published by the New York Times highlights some of the concerns caused by the ever-moving target that is the estate tax regime. Here are some of the highlights as well as my commentary on the issue.
As many are aware, the federal estate tax is taking a one-year hiatus in 2010. While many predicted that the U.S. Congress would act to avoid this, it did not. Thus, for one-year, there is no federal estate tax, at least for now. In 2011, however, the federal estate tax comes back, and this time, the federal estate tax reverts back to the smaller $1 million estate tax exemption amount and the higher 55% marginal tax rate. While there are countless jokes about encouraging rich relatives to take advantage of this, this advice, while in jest, my be completely wrong. [continue reading]
Under Missouri law, parents must provide for their minor children. And if the child is continuously enrolled in an institution of vocational or higher education by the October following high school graduation, this obligation continues. Continous enrollment has been interpreted broadly as to encourage the pursuit of higher education.
Recently, the Missouri Court of Appeals got a chance to further define what is continuous regarding vocational schools. In this case, the father was obligated to make child support payments to his ex-wife, the mother. The term of these child support payments were effectively extended by the child upon his enrollment in a local vo-tech. After completing a 60 week course for a HVAC diploma, the child did not enroll in the school’s next ten week session, which began December 4, 2006. The child did, however, enroll in the ten week session beginning February 12, 2007. Thus, the child was effectively not in school for 10 weeks. The father claimed that this failure to enroll terminated his child support obligations.
The court reasoned that because the vocational school did not adopt a typical semester format with corresponding summer and winter breaks, the court could imply from the legislature’s “obvious intent . . . to treat vocational and college education equally” that the child’s failure to enroll was the equivalent of such a summer or winter break.
– ksmolawyer
|
|
