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).
- Alimony
- Arbitration of Family Law Issues
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Attribution of Income
- Beneficiary Designation
- Child Support
- College
- Contempt
- Dependency Exemptions
- Division of Assets
- Earned Bonus
- Earning Capacity / Imputed Income
- Earnings in a Sub-S
- Emancipation
- Financial Restraining Order on Assets
- Foreign Custody
- Grandparent Visitation
- Health Insurance
- Imputing Income
- Income Equalization
- Income of Second Spouse
- Inheritance
- Inherited Assets
- Joint Legal Custody
- Judicial Discretion
- Jurisdiction
- Life Insurance
- Marital Estate
- Mediation / Unauthorized Practice of Law
- Merger and Survival
- Modification
- Non-Disparagement Provision
- Parent Coordinator
- Parental Fitness
- Parenting Time
- Plan Document Rule
- Postnuptial
- Prenuptial
- QDRO
- “Real Advantage” Standard
- Restraining Order
- Retained Earnings
- Retroactive Support
- Rights of Unmarried Partners
- Same Sex Marriage
- Self-Employment Income
- Stock Options
- Valuation Date
