The Iowa Supreme Court recently amended rules allowing attorneys to provide "unbundled" legal services to assist pro se litigants in filing and defending cases. This is particularly important in the family law and divorce setting because it allows individuals with limited financial resources to still obtain legal assistance in handling portions of the case whether it be drafting a decree or appearing at a contempt hearing.
While this concept is new to Iowa attorneys, it has been implemented by many other states for a number of years.
Please contact me if for more information about unbundled legal services that Sullivan & Ward, P.C. can provide.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Attempt to Murder Doesn't Waive Alimony
The Missouri Supreme Court recently affirmed the dismissal of an ex-husband's petition to terminate alimony based on his allegations that wife had sought to have him murdered. The couple had agreed to a non-modifiable maintenance term in their divorce decree. The Supreme Court noted that Missouri statutes provide that such an agreement, when found conscionable and incorporated into a divorce decree, binds the court. The Court reasoned:
"A non-modification provision can cut both ways. No one can know which party will need more or deserve less as time passes. As with all contract terms, a non-modification provision is an agreed allocation of future risk, bargained for and for which consideration is exchanged. The Missouri legislature has seen fit to allow such a clause to be elevated from contractual to judicial status by incorporation into the dissolution decree. We are bound to respect the statute and to enforce these documents as agreed to and ordered."
The Court rejected the husband's argument that a court may reconsider the conscionability of the agreement based on later events. It likewise found that waiver was inapplicable as the attempt to murder husband would not establish a "clear and unequivocal attempt to relinquish her contractual right to maintenance so long as [husband] is living." Finally, the court rejected the application of the public policy doctrine which prohibits an individual from receiving death benefits when they have murdered their spouse. Reasoning that wife would not benefit from the successful murder of husband, the court found these cases inapplicable.
"A non-modification provision can cut both ways. No one can know which party will need more or deserve less as time passes. As with all contract terms, a non-modification provision is an agreed allocation of future risk, bargained for and for which consideration is exchanged. The Missouri legislature has seen fit to allow such a clause to be elevated from contractual to judicial status by incorporation into the dissolution decree. We are bound to respect the statute and to enforce these documents as agreed to and ordered."
The Court rejected the husband's argument that a court may reconsider the conscionability of the agreement based on later events. It likewise found that waiver was inapplicable as the attempt to murder husband would not establish a "clear and unequivocal attempt to relinquish her contractual right to maintenance so long as [husband] is living." Finally, the court rejected the application of the public policy doctrine which prohibits an individual from receiving death benefits when they have murdered their spouse. Reasoning that wife would not benefit from the successful murder of husband, the court found these cases inapplicable.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Ones Left Behind
Imagine toddlers stranded at daycare centers. Children left at schools. Siblings suddenly left in charge of younger brothers and sisters. Children being handed over to ill-equipped relatives. This is what occurs to the youth of our country when illegal-immigrant parents are swept up in home and work-place raids resulting in children being left behind. This is a complication that underscores the difficulty in effectively enforcing immigration laws against families that have already established themselves and begun raising families in the United States.
Three million American-born children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant; one in 10 American families has mixed immigration status, meaning at least one member is an illegal immirant. This is an issue that affects our country whether or not you are for or against immigrant reform. These are the children your kids and/or grandchildren go to school with. To read about some of the real-effects see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Divided-Families.html?ex=1174363200&en=b96c2616c791a283&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Three million American-born children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant; one in 10 American families has mixed immigration status, meaning at least one member is an illegal immirant. This is an issue that affects our country whether or not you are for or against immigrant reform. These are the children your kids and/or grandchildren go to school with. To read about some of the real-effects see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Divided-Families.html?ex=1174363200&en=b96c2616c791a283&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
