DOCSLIB.ORG

The Marren Page Case List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Marren Page Case List Foreword to Second Edition When I was appointed as Nevada’s first Domestic Relations Referee (a precursor to the Family Court) in 1986, I immediately became aware there were very few case resources available for the domestic relations practitioner and the court. Accordingly, I started an effort to collect and analyze the most which quickly became my compilation of “Notable Domestic Relations Cases.” The effort began with the landmark cases. Almost every current domestic relations case from 1986 forward was included. In 1994 or so, an alphabetical case list and topical digest were added to make Notable Cases more navigable. I left the Family Court in 1998. Shortly after, I was approached by the Boyd School of Law about continuing Notable Cases on to a law school project. Unfortunately, that effort did not succeed. I was delighted to learn recently that Notable Cases would again be updated and maintained. My hope, as it always was, is that this resource will again be of help to attorneys and judges in domestic relations cases. Terrance P. Marren Rev. 7/6/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword to Second Edition ................................................... -1- ADOPTION, equitable....................................................... -24- Frye v. Frye ......................................................... -24- Hermanson v. Hermanson .............................................. -24- Russo v. Gardner ..................................................... -25- ADOPTION, specific adoption v. agency adoption and sufficiency of form used . -25- Birth Mother v. Adoptive Parents (In re Adoption of a Minor Child) . -25- ADOPTION, visitation by birth mother.......................................... -26- Birth Mother v. Adoptive Parents ........................................ -26- ADOPTION, grandparental visitation ........................................... -27- Bopp v. Lino ........................................................ -27- ALIMONY, abuse of discretion................................................ -27- Johnson v. Steel, Inc .................................................. -27- Smith v. Smith ....................................................... -27- ALIMONY, adequacy ....................................................... -27- Cunningham v. Cunningham ............................................ -27- Wilson v. Wilson ..................................................... -28- ALIMONY, bankruptcy as a basis for modification . -28- Martin v. Martin...................................................... -28- Siragusa v. Siragusa ................................................... -28- Allen v. Allen........................................................ -29- ALIMONY, cohabitation ..................................................... -29- Watson v. Watson .................................................... -29- Gilman v. Gilman..................................................... -29- ALIMONY, extension ....................................................... -30- Schryver v. Schryver .................................................. -30- Siragusa v. Siragusa ................................................... -30- ALIMONY, factors ......................................................... -31- Lake v. Bender ....................................................... -31- Buchanan v. Buchanan................................................. -31- Wilford v. Wilford .................................................... -31- Sprenger v. Sprenger .................................................. -32- Rodriguez v. Rodriguez ................................................ -32- ALIMONY, just and equitable................................................. -33- Krick v. Krick ....................................................... -33- Rev. 7/6/2005 -2- Winn v. Winn........................................................ -33- Gardner v. Gardner ................................................... -34- Kerley v. Kerley...................................................... -34- Wright v. Osburn ..................................................... -34- ALIMONY, fault ........................................................... -35- Heim v. Heim........................................................ -35- Rodriguez v. Rodriguez ................................................ -35- ALIMONY, inadequate award................................................. -36- Rutar v. Rutar........................................................ -36- ALIMONY, interpreting modification of award . -36- Murphy v. Murphy.................................................... -36- ALIMONY, lump sum....................................................... -36- Jacobs v. Jacobs ...................................................... -36- Shane v. Shane....................................................... -37- Fenkell v. Fenkell..................................................... -37- Sargeant v. Sargeant................................................... -37- Kishner v. Kishner .................................................... -38- Daniel v. Baker ...................................................... -38- ALIMONY, modification .................................................... -39- Folks v. Folks........................................................ -39- Day v. Day .......................................................... -39- ALIMONY, modification of non-merged property settlement agreement prohibited . -39- Ballin v. Ballin....................................................... -39- Jones v. Jones........................................................ -40- ALIMONY, permanent ...................................................... -40- Ellett v. Ellett ........................................................ -40- Heim v. Heim........................................................ -41- Waltz v. Waltz ....................................................... -41- Sprenger v. Sprenger .................................................. -42- ALIMONY, pleading ........................................................ -42- Morris v. Morris...................................................... -42- Woodruff v. Woodruff................................................. -42- Forrest v. Forrest ..................................................... -42- ALIMONY, property settlement, factors in awarding . -43- Shydler v. Shydler .................................................... -43- ALIMONY, reducing arrears to judgment........................................ -43- Folks v. Folks........................................................ -43- ALIMONY, rehabilitative .................................................... -44- Rev. 7/6/2005 -3- Alba v. Alba......................................................... -44- Fick v. Fick ......................................................... -44- Kerley v. Kerley...................................................... -44- ALIMONY, right to ......................................................... -44- Sweeney v. Sweeney .................................................. -44- Estin v. Estin ........................................................ -45- Freeman v. Freeman................................................... -45- Kraemer v. Kraemer................................................... -45- Farnham v. Farnham, .................................................. -45- Portnoy v. Portnoy .................................................... -46- ALIMONY, setting aside separate property....................................... -46- Ormachea v. Ormachea ................................................ -46- Lewis v. Lewis ....................................................... -46- ALIMONY, termination, abuse of discretion for not considering tax consequences . -46- Ford v. Ford ......................................................... -46- ALIMONY, terminated by death of party ........................................ -47- Foy v. Estate of Smith ................................................. -47- ALIMONY, termination of upon cohabitation . -47- Spector v. Spector .................................................... -47- ALIMONY, termination upon remarriage ....................................... -48- Shank v. Shank....................................................... -48- ALIMONY, willful underemployment .......................................... -48- Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum.............................................. -48- APPEALS, acquiescence to terms, notice of entry of order . -48- Culbertson v. Culbertson ............................................... -48- APPEALS, death abates appeal as to status....................................... -49- Foy v. Estate of Smith ................................................. -49- Lemp v. Lemp ....................................................... -49- Morrow v. Morrow ................................................... -49- First Nat’l Bank v. Wolff............................................... -50- APPEAL, death does not abate as to alimony on appeal . -50- Daniel v. Baker ...................................................... -50- APPEALS, remand pending appeal ............................................. -50- Lewis v. Lewis ....................................................... -50- Huneycutt v. Huneycutt ................................................ -51- APPEALS, sanctions ........................................................ -51- Miller v. Wilfong ..................................................... -51- Rev. 7/6/2005 -4- APPEALS, transcript .......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MATRIMONIAL AGREEMENTS Including an Introduction to the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA)
    MATRIMONIAL AGREEMENTS Including an Introduction to the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) Revised and updated by: Christina L. Sittner, Esq. Dimascio & Associates, LLP Garden City September 2014 Revised and updated by: Dolores Gebhardt, Esq. September 2013 Original Outline by: Ronald A. Phillips, Esq. Previously updated by: Mitchell Y. Cohen, Esq. and Susan G. Yellen, Esq. Charles P. Inclima, Esq. Richard B. Alderman, Esq. Benjamin E. Schub, Esq., Stephen W. Schlissel, Esq., Ronald F. Poepplein, Esq., Jennifer Rosenkrantz, Esq., Joseph A. DeMarco, Esq. and Lisa R. Schoenfeld, Esq. Mastery of the art of drafting a comprehensive marital agreement that clients can understand and follow years later is one of the most important skills a matrimonial attorney can have. The majority of matrimonial cases settle eventually - most litigants will agree that it is far better to reach a negotiated agreement than to be ordered to do something; and most attorneys will agree that it is more cost effective to reach an agreement than to go to trial. A separation agreement is the one place where you can address specific issues that a judge may not address and your one opportunity to make sure that the language is tailored to meet your client’s needs and desires. This article focuses on the statutory requirements for an enforceable and valid agreement and offers some practice tips. I. WHAT IS A MARITAL AGREEMENT? The statutory definition of “marital agreement” is contained in DRL §236, Part B, 3. In order to be enforceable, an agreement between the parties must be (1) “made before or during the marriage”, (2) “in writing” and (3) “subscribed by the parties and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded.” II.
    [Show full text]
  • Parental Separation and the Child Custody Decision: Toward a Reconception
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 1989 Parental Separation and the Child Custody Decision: Toward a Reconception David G. Duff Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Roxanne Mykitiuk Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Family Law Commons Citation Details David G Duff & Roxanne Mykitiuk, "Parental Separation and the Child Custody Decision: Toward a Reconception" (1989) 47:3 UT Fac L Rev 874. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Parental Separation and the Child Custody Decision: Toward a Reconception DAVID G. DUFF AND ROXANNE MYKITIUK Contemporary debates regarding the appropriate way to resolve custody and access disputes reflect deeply rooted conceptions of both the family and the proper relationship between the family and the state. The prevailing "best interests ofthe child" test and judicial presumptions favouring sole custody embody a traditional definition of the family and a communitarian image of familial relationships. Conversely, current joint custody legislation adopts a liberal-contractualparadigm, in which the family is viewed as a joint partnership and children are conceived as assets to be equally divided upon termination ofthe spousal relationship. The authors reject both notions of the family and the standards for custody determination associated with each. Instead, they advance a feminist vision of the family and a feminist approach to the resolution ofaccess and custody disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • Premarital (Antenuptial) and Postnuptial Agreements in Connecticut a Guide to Resources in the Law Library
    Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2002-2019, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2019 Edition Premarital (Antenuptial) and Postnuptial Agreements in Connecticut A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Section 1: Current Premarital Agreement Law...................................................... 4 Table 1: Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act: House Debate ........................ 14 Section 2: Postnuptial Agreement Law .............................................................. 15 Section 3: Prior Premarital Agreement Law ........................................................ 22 Table 2: Three Prong Test ............................................................................ 25 Section 4: Premarital Agreement Form and Content .......................................... 26 Section 5: Enforcement and Defenses ............................................................... 32 Table 3: Surveys of State Premarital Agreement Laws ..................................... 40 Section 6: Modification or Revocation ............................................................... 41 Section 7: Federal Tax Aspect .......................................................................... 44 Section 8: State Tax Aspect ............................................................................. 47 Appendix: Legislative Histories in the Connecticut Courts ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Crisis of Child Custody: a History of the Birth of Family Law in England, 11 Colum
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2002 The rC isis of Child Custody: A History of the Birth of Family Law in England Danaya C. Wright University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Common Law Commons, Family Law Commons, and the Women Commons Recommended Citation Danaya C. Wright, The Crisis of Child Custody: A History of the Birth of Family Law in England, 11 Colum. J. Gender & L. 175 (2002), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/219 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CRISIS OF CHILD CUSTODY: A HISTORY OF THE BIRTH OF FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND DANAYA C. WRIGHr Ask-may the victim of a hasty vow Ne'er seek release nor remedy? Ah no! A maiden once enclosed in nuptial ties Must wear herfetters till she sins or dies; And suffer as she may, within these bounds, No curefor sorrows and no balm for wounds. Such finished torture England'scode can boast; A formalframework, which at woman's cost, Flings a disguise o'er ruthless tyranny, And drugs men 's conscience with a special tie. 1 -Harriet Grote (1853) Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre- and Postnuptial Agreement Tips and Traps
    PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY FUND www.osbplf.org MALPRACTICE PREVENTION EDUCATION FOR OREGON LAWYERS PRE- AND Represent Only One Party. Repre- sent only one party to a prenuptial agree- POSTNUPTIAL ment, and insist that the other party have AGREEMENT TIPS AND independent counsel. Even if the parties TRAPS say that they agree about every term of the agreement, their interests are ad- Many couples wish to define their verse, and it is not permissible for one at- marital rights and responsibilities by en- torney to represent both parties. Inde- tering into prenuptial or postnuptial pendent representation for each party agreements. The impetus for such an will increase the likelihood that the agreement is frequently a reaction to a agreement will be upheld and will provide bad dissolution of a prior marriage or a re- an often-helpful second set of eyes dur- sult of parental pressure. Some people ing the drafting process. It is good prac- simply wish to carefully define their finan- tice, although not required, to have both cial relationship. Whatever the couple’s attorneys sign a certificate stating that motivation, approach these agreements they have fully explained the agreement with caution. to their clients and that they believe that the clients understand the terms and how In Oregon, prenuptial agreements are their rights are being altered. There is no authorized by ORS 108.700 to 108.740. required format for such a certificate. You Postnuptial agreements are not authorized can find an example in the OSB CLE Fam- by statute, and their status is consider- ily Law, Volume II (Dissolution Practice), ably less certain than that of prenuptial Chapter 14: Formal Agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • To BE Or Not to BE: Postnuptial Agreements in New Hampshire
    TO BE OR NOT TO BE: Authors Nadine M. Catalfimo is a law student at the Massa- Postnuptial Agreements chusetts School of Law and anticipates practicing in the area of probate, trust and in New Hampshire estate planning. Charles A. DeGrandpre is an officer and director in the firm of McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A., Portsmouth, New Hampshire. This article explains the postnuptial agreement, a fairly new trend By Nadine M. Catalfimo and in the law, and discusses general requisites for a valid postnuptial Attorney Charles A. DeGrandpre agreement should New Hampshire join the majority view by a judicial determination or legislation. Importantly, this article closely examines New Hampshire case law regarding postnuptial agreements and ar‑ I. INTRODUCTION gues that they are enforceable and valid contracts under contract law Today, postnuptial agreements are popular in the United principles. Finally, for informative and illustrative purposes, secondary States, but they are not commonly used in New Hampshire. sources are discussed from jurisdictions where postnups are frequently This begs the question: Can they be? This article focuses utilized by wealth advisors, estate planning attorneys and family law on the status of postnuptial agreements under current New practitioners, without hesitation. Hampshire law and if it is possible for the postnup to be valid and enforceable. “To be, or not to be: that is the ques‑ A. WHAT IS A POSTNUPTIAL AGREMEENT? Simply put, a postnuptial agreement is a contract made between tion.” a husband and wife after marriage. The contract defines the marital According to a recent survey conducted by the American rights and obligations in the event of separation, divorce and or death.6 Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, forty‑nine percent (9 Some jurisdictions limit the scope of the postnup to a division of as‑ percent) of family law attorneys have seen an increase in sets upon the death of the parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Equality in Marriage and Parenthood: Sharing the Burdens As Well As the Benefits
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 29 Issue 3 Spring 1980 Article 11 1980 Financial Equality in Marriage and Parenthood: Sharing the Burdens as Well as the Benefits Agnes Pek Dover Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Agnes P. Dover, Financial Equality in Marriage and Parenthood: Sharing the Burdens as Well as the Benefits, 29 Cath. U. L. Rev. 733 (1980). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol29/iss3/11 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FINANCIAL EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE AND PARENTHOOD: SHARING THE BURDENS AS WELL AS THE BENEFITS Gradual judicial rejection of years of socially accepted sex discrimina- tion has enabled women to increase dramatically their economic indepen- dence both within and without the home.' Historically, courts have been reluctant to impose financial responsibilities on women. On the premise that women were innately less competent to function independently in the business world, courts excluded women from certain male-dominated pro- fessions2 as well as from specific civic3 and employment-related4 obliga- tions borne by men. Judicial reluctance to require women to assume duties formerly performed by men alone has also colored domestic rela- tions law. Traditionally, the burdens of alimony5 and spousal support6 1. A number of classifications based on sex have been declared unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Virginia Supreme Court Cases on Domestic Relations: 1970-1980 Peter N
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 15 | Issue 2 Article 6 1981 Overview of Virginia Supreme Court Cases on Domestic Relations: 1970-1980 Peter N. Pross University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Courts Commons, and the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter N. Pross, Overview of Virginia Supreme Court Cases on Domestic Relations: 1970-1980, 15 U. Rich. L. Rev. 321 (1981). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol15/iss2/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE OVERVIEW OF VIRGINIA SUPREME *COURT DECISIONS ON DOMESTIC RELATIONS 1970-1980* I. Introduction ........................................... 322 I. Annulment and Divorce ................................ 323 A. Annulm ent ........................................ 323 B . D ivorce ........................................... 325 1. Grounds for Divorce ............................ 325 2. Defenses to Divorce ............................. 330 3. Jurisdiction over Alimony, Child Support and Property ....................................... 331 4. Separation Agreements and Property Settlements 340 5. Alimony or Support and Maintenance of Spouse 345 6. Child Custody .................................. 355 7. Child Support Orders ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Trial Judges'
    NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL JUDGES’ BENCH BOOK DISTRICT COURT VOLUME 1 FAMILY LAW 2019 Edition Chapter 1 Spousal Agreements In cooperation with the School of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by Cheryl D. Howell and Jan S. Simmons This chapter is one of ten chapters in North Carolina Trial Judges’ Bench Book, ISBN 978-1-56011-955-5. Preparation of this bench book was made possible by funding from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, as administered by the School of Government. Copyright © 2019 School of Government, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill blank TOC This page intentionally left blank chapter opening 1 TOC Chapter 1: Spousal Agreements I. Premarital Agreements . 3 IV. Separation Agreements . 20 A . Applicable Statutes . 3 A . G S . 52-10 1 . 20 B . Matters That May Be Included in a Premarital Agreement B . Jurisdiction . .. 21 under the Uniform Act . 4 C . Form of the Agreement . 22 C . Construing a Premarital Agreement . 5 D . Requisites and Validity of Separation Agreements . 27 D . Modifying or Revoking a Premarital Agreement . 7 E . Construing a Separation Agreement . 29 E . Effect of a Premarital Agreement on Various Rights or F . Effect of a Separation Agreement on Various Rights or Interests of the Parties . 8 Interests of the Parties . 31 F . Enforcing a Premarital Agreement . 11 G . Modifying a Separation Agreement . 40 II. Postnuptial Agreements . 13 H . Reconciliation . 49 A . Generally . .. 13 I . Enforcing a Separation Agreement . 54 B . Requisites and Validity of Postnuptial Agreements . 14 J . Effect of Bankruptcy . 78 C . Enforcement of a Postnuptial Agreement .
    [Show full text]
  • Breastfeeding in Custody Proceedings: a Modern-Day Manifestation of Liberal and Conservative Family Traditions
    BREASTFEEDING IN CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS: A MODERN- DAY MANIFESTATION OF LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE FAMILY TRADITIONS Kate Baxter-Kauf In the past decade, popular and medical opinions have coa- lesced around the conclusion that breastfeeding an infant for at least the first year of life,2 preferably to the exclusion of infant formula or * Law clerk to Justices Page, Meyer. and Dietzen, Minnesota Supreme Court. J.D., magna cum laude, University of Minnesota Law School, B.A., magna cum laude, Macalester Col- lege. Special thanks to Professor Jill Hasday for her helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article, and to Baxter and Kiernan, without whom this article would not be possible. 1 There appears to be no standardized spelling for the act of breastfeeding, at least in legal opinions. Various court decisions use "breast feeding." "breastfeeding" or "breast-feeding." Additionally, medical experts do not seem to differentiate between the giving of breast milk to an infant via the breast or via pumping expressed milk. This Comment will use the term "breastfeeding," in accordance with the spelling chosen by La Leche League International ("LLLI"), and uses it to refer to both traditional nursing and the feeding of expressed breast milk. See, e.g. LA LECHE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL, All About La Leche League, http://www.lli.org/ab.html?m=1 (last updated Apr. 26, 2010). This Comment also uses the terms "nursing" and "breastfeeding" largely interchangeably, though "nursing" seems to be more typically used to describe the act of feeding an infant from the breast itself. For a dis- cussion of the potential inappropriateness of using the terms interchangeably in the legal context, see infra note 87 and accompanying text.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Parenting in the Modern Family from a Feminist View
    36 JIS Journal of Interdisciplinary Sciences Volume 3, Issue 2; 36-54 November, 2019. © The Author(s) ISSN: 2594-3405 Shared Parenting in the Modern Family from a Feminist View Hanna David Tel Aviv University (Emerita), Israel [email protected] Abstract: There is a wide consensus that Shared Parenting after parental separation is beneficial for the children involved. We are to demonstrate that in most cases shared parenting is the preferred solution for women as well. This conclusion relies on the assumption that the best interest of the child is the best interest of the mother too. For mothers, the main advantage of shared parenting is that it helps preventing burnout and allows women more free time for themselves; shared parenting also improves father-child relationship, which is a feminist goal as well. From a financial point of view, shared parenting increases employment prospects, and improves work conditions for both mothers and children. Consequently, it contributes to the physical and mental well-being of children. Shared parenting rules out the guilt versus innocence concept in custody debates, which might be poisonous for children. It also rules out women’s sexual behavior or appearance and discussions about their morality. It also enables mothers to establish new relationships in general and new intimate ones in particular. Shared parenting has a potential to help minority women, including women of color, women belonging to various religions, and women from traditional backgrounds; it has a potential to decrease women’s abuse and divorce-related conflicts. Keywords: Shared parenting; Shared custody; Mothers’ advantages; feminist issue Introduction Shared parenting, or joint physical custody, shared care, shared custody, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuptial Agreements for Estate Planners
    Nuptial Agreements for Estate Planners Meighan A. Harmon and Kim Kamin Meighan Harmon is a Partner I. INTRODUCTION with Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP, in Chicago. Her practice focuses on complex family law A. A nuptial, or marital, agreement cases. In 2011, she was elected by is an agreement entered into by a her peers to be President of the couple before or during marriage, Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial whereby they contractually agree (i) Lawyers. In 2004, the Law on how their assets would be divided Bulletin Publishing Company upon divorce or upon the death of named Meighan as one of the “40 Attorneys Under 40 in Illinois one party, (ii) on spousal support or to Watch,” and she has since been named in Best Lawyers alimony in the event of divorce, and in America, Leading Lawyers Network, and Illinois Super (iii) sometimes even on economic re- Lawyers. A frequent lecturer on family law topics, she is also a published author, she co-authors a chapter for the Illinois sponsibilities during the term of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education and has published marriage. articles in the Matrimonial Strategist, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, The Family Advocate, and other publications. B. If a married individual does not Kim Kamin is a Principal at Gresham have an enforceable written agree- Partners, LLC where she serves ment, generally he or she has certain as Chief Wealth Strategist and a Client Advisor. In that capacity, she rights in the property of the other leads Gresham’s development and upon termination of the marriage implementation of estate, wealth under state law, whether by death transfer, philanthropic and fiduciary planning activities, and advises or divorce.
    [Show full text]