Financial Restraining Order on Assets

Financial Restraining Order Does Not Include Expectancy.  During the pendency of a divorce action, the Barnstable Probate and Family Court found that the wife’s restatement of her revocable living trust so as to longer provide the husband with a life estate in the marital home was not a violation of the automatic restraining order, Rule 411.  Central to the holding was that title to the home was not conveyed or transferred – and that the asset was not placed outside of the Court’s reach for purposes of equitable distribution.  The restatement only affected Husband’s expectancy of a future interest which does not implicate Rule 411.  To those who had wondered whether changing a will violated Rule 411, this case provides good ammunition that it does not.   Darden v. Darden (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-001-09) (October 15, 2009); (published in Lawyers Weekly February 15, 2010).