Just because a couple has divorced doesn’t mean the acrimony or hostilities have ended – or paying monthly alimony or child support payments are any more agreeable. South Florida divorce and family law attorneys see it all the time: The ink is dried on the settlement, but the ex-spouse left to pay alimony or child support decides to flout the agreement or court order and decides not to pay. Bad idea.

Child support and post-dissolution obligations are requirements under the law. Not making these payments can affect the non-paying spouse – legally and financially. Non-payment can be reported to the courts, resulting in criminal legal action. It can be reported to the state, resulting on garnishing of wages or other means to compel payment.

Credit reporting agencies may be contacted. This could lower the debtor’s credit score, which then may negatively impact the ability to obtain credit or find a job.

In Florida, attorneys who withhold child support obligations can be disciplined.

This is a serious issue. But it still happens. What should you do if your spouse withholds alimony or child support payments?

First, discuss it with the ex-spouse. Make sure it wasn’t an oversight.

If it’s obvious the payments were willfully withheld, next, contact the divorce attorney who handled your case. The lawyer can ask the court to intervene. Courts can go so far as incarceration of the ex-spouse if willful non-payment and ability to pay is proven.

Finally, aggrieved parties also can contact the Florida Department of Revenue. Florida takes seriously non-payment of child support. The DOR can demand tax returns to ensure the spouse has the means to pay, and can enforce the order for child support through such remedies as suspension of the driver’s license or passport.

Non-payment of child support is a serious issue. It leaves children in limbo or without vital support – and can permanently harm the financial, legal and personal reputation and status of the non-paying parent. Parents in need of that money should seek remedies quickly should the situation arise.

It’s a scene played out in South Florida family law and divorce practices all the time… Imagine a couple marries. He works. She stays at home and becomes “Mrs. John Smith.” Her name appears on no financial documents – the home mortgage, the car loans or leases, even credit cards. To the credit reporting agencies, he’s building a solid credit history. And she’s a ghost.

As financial planners say, having no credit is as bad as having bad credit.

Whether happily married or in the midst of separation, non-working spouses always should be thinking of their credit. It’s especially important if the marriage is failing or divorce is on the horizon. Once on his or her own, the non-working spouse quite often will seek out credit or loans – for a vehicle, an apartment rental, or a personal credit card or utility service. Even employers are reviewing applicants’ credit history as part of the hiring process.

It’s a catch 22: With no credit, you cannot establish credit.

Here’s how to establish credit now – before you need it – or if already separated…

- Apply for at least one credit card. Use it – even sparingly – and pay the bill on time.

- Set up a personal checking or savings account – in your name. This puts your name on the credit reporting agencies’ radar.

- If you’re married and seeking a car loan, rental agreement or mortgage, insist that your name also be on the loan or mortgage agreements.

- If you’re divorced and need a co-signor for a loan, find someone (a family member or trusted friend) to co-sign. Make sure you’re the primary lessee or debtor. The goal is to start establishing credit history any way you can.

It’s never too soon to begin building your credit history. But it may be too late. Start today and protect your financial future.

For South Florida couples facing separation or divorce, whether to pay bills – or avoid them because you believe they’re your spouse’s responsibility – is a perpetual conundrum. It shouldn’t be. Not paying bills – either out of confusion as to whose responsibility it is or anger that the other spouse should pay – can be harmful to both parties’ credit scores.

In our family law practice, we’ve seen the result. Both parties dig in their heels out of frustration. Or a non-working spouse (often the wife) with no income of her own is left to manage household expenses – with only the supposed support of husband or ex-husband. Bills come due, and she thinks he’ll handle them. With court-ordered final or even temporary support not yet mandated, he stops putting money into the joint account they once shared. Bills go into arrears.

Both trod a slippery slope as late notices begin to arrive.

It’s not that the former couple doesn’t have the resources. They often do. More often, they don’t have the cooperation to see that bills are getting paid. Then creditors and bill collectors get busy. Soon, the three credit reporting agencies are notified – and credit scores begin to drop.

Our advice:

- Discuss between the two parties the need to ensure bills get paid – and the potential liabilities if they don’t. In fact, discussions revolving around finances and the importance of maintaining good credit should be held before and throughout the marriage.

- If separation is coming or has occurred, maintain the joint account, at least until the divorce is final, or other specific arrangements are made for the bills to get paid. Make sure the bills are getting paid.

- If the non-working spouse has been using a credit card for living expenses, discuss its continued use. The supporting spouse should not cut it off, especially if it’s used to support the existing household, child support or reasonable living expenses.

- If the situation grows dire, talk to your creditors. This may not help, but they might make short-term provisions before alerting the credit agencies.

Then, the potential complexities grew much deeper.

Putting aside the implications for Arnold’s and Maria’s young children (coping and recovery certainly will be tough for their kids), issues raised from this news include tricky paternity matters, including Arnold’s duty to support the child.

This includes how to establish true “paternity” – especially if the mother was married when she had the child, and if any husband (none the wiser regarding the child’s true lineage) treated the boy as his own. Much of this is unknown. As such, we’re speculating on a hypothetical situation.

The issue of “presumption of legitimacy” of a child of the marriage weighs large in most paternity cases.

We are not licensed to practice law in California, so we’ll use the family’s example as if the case were to be tried under Florida jurisdiction and law. Regarding Arnold’s duty to support, under Florida law, this falls to the presumed father of a child. Even if the husband is not the father (and had no reason to suspect he wasn’t), the presumption is that the child is the legitimate offspring of the husband. To that end, most courts would not disestablish paternity – essentially making the child a bastard in the legal sense. If the husband played the role of father emotionally and financially during the child’s life, courts generally will not strip him of that designation.

Given Arnold’s acknowledgment, though, under Florida law, the boy would expect every right and privilege as a child of a high-wage earner.

The father of this young child would have the duty and obligation to pay child support.  To be sure, if Arnold is determined to be the legal father, then the child support obligations would be steep.  He’d be expected to cover most of the child’s expenses including medical and dental expenses and extra-curricular activities.  He might also be expected to pay for private school tuition and related expenses such as books, uniforms, and any other ancillary costs.

These duties and obligations would remain until the boy turns 18 year of age, or if he has not completed high school by his 18th birthday, until he graduates or by the age 19.

The issue of children born as a result of extramarital affairs creates complicated situations.  Each case is different.  While it is interesting to wonder why celebrities, athletes, and politicians often find themselves in these situations, the truth is, they’re real people.  Their lives are made potentially more complex because they’re surrounded by sycophants and “yes women” who won’t ‘just say no.’

They’re often perceived as being above the law, and above the issues of morality.  Yet, Arnold’s tale proves otherwise.

Still, the story of Arnold Schwarzenegger, his mistress and their child is not unique.  As family law practitioners, we frequently see similar cases.  The takeaway: this situation is not unique.  The case of Arnold and Maria is just very public – and provides us a case study in how surrounding issues can play out in the court of law, if not the court of public opinion.

Year-end tax time requires special attention. When handled by an experienced family law attorney and a tax professional, returns can meet both the letter and spirit of federal or state filing guidelines. Since state law governs how divorce is handled, it’s important for Florida residents to hire a local divorce attorney.

Whether paying or receiving alimony, child support or mortgage costs, or settling real estate investments, the tax implications can be significant. Filing and reporting can be as simple as a line on a tax return, or as complicated as federal forms to be filed. Read this article by family law attorney Barry Finkel to learn more about how to be best prepared for tax time.

Actor Kelsey Grammer

Many family law or divorce attorneys strongly suggest a pre-nup for wealthy clients – especially those who wed later in life or to those much younger than themselves, or who have a history of failed marriages. Pre-nups protect the assets of both parties as they enter the marriage, and help ensure that property and support issues will be predetermined should the parties split, helping to avoid an expense and an acrimonious divorce.

Mr. Grammer, an actor who also owns a production company with wife, Camille, offered her $30 million. The offer was to be inclusive of alimony and child support for the couple’s children, ages 6 and 9. She rebuffed his offer and countered with at $50 million. Meanwhile, the divorce has grown acrimonious and very public.

Is Mr. Grammer, who was married to Camille for 14 years, setting himself up for a similar outcome? He reportedly has said it would be an “insult” to request a pre-nup from Ms. Walsh. Time will tell.

Typically, in a divorce action, the firms fund expenses associated with one side’s discovery and research needed to ensure that party – often the wife – gets her fair share of the couple’s holdings. If she prevails in court, the lender may take 20% of the judgment, depending on the agreement.

In our last blog, veteran family law attorney by Barry I. Finkel wrote a viewpoint supporting the practice. Today, Angela R. Neave, an associated in The Law Firm of Barry I. Finkel, P.A., presents an opposing perspective.

In theory, “lawsuit lending” is a great opportunity for clients, most often women, who lack funds to litigate complex financial issues. On the other hand, in most states, the spouse with money is required to pay for litigation costs. So, it baffles me that these women’s attorneys are incapable of obtaining fees for litigation – including costs of a forensic accountant – at a simple fee hearing.

If you have an attorney worth his salt, he’ll already have scheduled the hearing in hopes of convincing the judge that his client needs money to underwrite discovery and research. Since it’s unlawful in Florida for a family law firm to work on contingency or fund costs associated with a case, the resources needed to ensure a fair fight must come from somewhere.

Generally, that “somewhere” has been the fee hearing, where the court will award partial fees. This money then is spent on determining assets and properties held – and often hidden – by the other side. The role of the court is to ensure the wife gets sufficient money to conduct a fair case. In my experience, few are the cases where the wife is actually cut out of the family’s estate or proceeds.

My concern is the “slippery slope” effect these “lawsuit lenders” may be walking. To me, this smacks of corporate greed – of companies swooping in on the first whiff of blood and offering to pay now, in order to earn a sizeable sum later.

Other questions emerge. What if the wife is awarded alimony, child support, or money owed in arrears? Are those funds – which may go directly to supporting the family’s living expenses – likely to take the 20% fee hit? Bringing in a third party to finance a case – and walk away with a fifth or more of the judgment – could cause irreparable, long-term harm to the wife and children. Frankly, we’re not sure how that may play out.

If a lawsuit lender is brought in, who is the lawyer serving? The wife or the firm? The lines become even more blurry.

Then there are the ethical concerns. What if the firm, in its pursuit of higher awards, manufactures evidence? What if the firm encourages the wife to lie? The attorney may be left doubting his client’s honesty. The potential for fraud and abuse is a big issue.

Family law is not about “winning and losing.” That’s why we do not collect contingency fees. Our role is to zealously present the best case to achieve an equitable and fair settlement. No one wins; in fact, both sides should lose a little. That’s what “negotiations” often are all about.

Typically, in the case of divorce litigation, they’re underwriting expenses associated with one side’s discovery and research needed to ensure that party – often the wife – gets her fair share of the couple’s holdings. If their side prevails in court, the lender may take 20% of the gross proceeds or more, depending on the agreement.

“With some in the financial world willing to bet on almost anything, it should be no surprise that a few would see the potential to profit from the often contentious and emotional process of ending a marriage,” the Times wrote.

Over the next few days, we will present two sides to this trend. We’ll start with an argument supporting the practice, written by Barry I. Finkel, a veteran family law attorney.

Legal lending is a great idea. In some divorce cases among high net worth individuals, discovering the business holdings can be challenging – if not impossible. The couple, or just one spouse, may have numerous business entities, whose ownership, corporate structure, bank accounts or financing are convoluted at best, or deliberately muddled at worst. Such confusion often is conjured in an effort to throw off research – by business partners, the authorities, or a spouse.

In the case of a divorce case where one party – most often, the wife – must discover hidden assets, a family law attorney’s role is not to play Sherlock Holmes. His or her job is to make the best use of the available information to present the client’s strongest case.

Frankly, investigative firms can do a much better job uncovering hidden assets. Those findings then can be used by the attorney in the courtroom to support the client’s case.

Those firms and experts are expensive to retain. The process of investigation can take hundreds, even thousands of hours. Few law firms are prepared to invest that level of cost or man hours. Moreover, is many states, it’s illegal for a family law firm to finance a case or underwrite the costs of discovery in hopes of taking a percentage at the end.

Simply put, without these “lawsuit lenders,” the wife in the divorce case may never get her fair share.

Imagine an estate is worth $10 million, and because of the research, the wife is awarded half, or $5 million. I say she’s better off financially having paid $1 million to the lender, than possibly having never known what the estate truly was worth.

In essence, the lawyer gets paid, the lender gets paid, and the wife gets zealous, appropriate representation and what probably amounts to a more fair settlement or award than if she went into the negotiations or case blind or underfinanced.

It’s only fair.

A recent Wall Street Journal article on the place of prenuptial agreements among Baby Boomers — and others looking to protect existing assets — raises important questions.

As the article stated, “Baby boomers looking to protect their assets are increasingly turning to prenuptial agreements — legal contracts drawn up before a marriage that dictate what happens to assets in the event a couple should part ways, either by divorce or death.”

An interesting point about Baby Boomers who lost significant assets accumulated throughout a long career is that second marriages tend to bring up the subject, especially if one party has significant assets and adult children to whom they intend to leave their estate.

Pre-Nups are hopefully not the first time a couple talks about money and finances and how they plan to handle these items during the marriage, but it will certainly get the ball rolling. Discussing everyone’s assets, debts and what will stay with whom will allow for everyone to formulate realistic expectations about finances during the marriage.

In fact, money problems are one of the leading causes of divorce. In fact, Mexico, cleverly requires couples to declare separate or community property on their marriage license. This forces the couple to discuss at the time of applying for the license how they plan to handle finances of the marriage. If one party insists on separate property and the other does not agree, he or she then can determine whether they intend to apply for marriage or not.

The U.S. could learn from this practice.

Pre-nups generally are drafted for people with money. Because of their usefulness in starting the discussion about marital finances, pre-nuptial agreements should almost be required by states issuing marriage licenses.

Another point about pre-nuptial agreements: if the law changes after the fact, a carefully crafted pre-nup may not protect certain provisions because of the change in law. A pre-nup will not shield an asset after a change in the law.

If you have any questions about how a pre-nup can protect your assets or your family’s inheritance, contact a family law or divorce attorney before you say, “I do.”