Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC MemphisDivorce.com E-Newsletter May & June 2010

The MemphisDivorce.com e-Newsletter is a service provided by Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC to clients, friends, and persons requesting family law updates through e-mail from: www.MemphisDivorce.com. with offices in Shelby County and Memphis, Tennessee we serve Middle and West TN and Eastern Arkansas.

Thank you to Sharon Mason, John Snyder, Michael at Wilder Systems, Matthew Smith, Jenn, Catherine, and Kristen and Amy at CS2 and everyone else who have helped with our transition. More changes are coming, but hopefully none as drastic.

These days parents are asking about alternating weeks with their minor children after the divorce. Can alternating weeks with your children really work? I have been divorced for over six years. My children were 5, 3, and 1 at the time of the divorce. We are making it work. It’s hard. But, it can be done. There is a lot more to it than parents think.

First, it is double the work. Typically you have one parent that heads up shopping, school work, sports, extracurricular activities, etc. This is true for both married parents and divorced parents. When parents alternate weeks, both parents have to be on top of all school work and projects, all sporting practices and games, and all extracurricular activities for each child. Both parents become responsible for ensuring school work is being completed, practices are being attended, and other activities are being covered for each child. The divide and conquer attitude of married parents gets thrown out the window and both parents must be responsible for keeping up with everything.

Second, it requires effective and frequent communication. Both parents must be willing to communicate more when alternating weeks. There is simply no way around it. In order to maintain stability and continuity, the parents must relay information regarding behavior, skills, and interests of the children to the other parent. In order to parent one week, you need to know what happened the week before and what to expect the week after. Does this mean you have to like your former spouse? No. Its means you have to put the interests of your children first and communicate with the other parent.

Third, be prepared to spend more money. Unless you want your children living out of suitcases, both homes need full wardrobes and other necessities for the children. Children should be allowed to transport items back and forth but they should not be expected to carry their wardrobes. And then, there is sporting equipment! Be prepared to make sure all equipment is transferred with your children each week.

This should all be the responsibility of the parents, not the children. After all, the parents decided on two homes and alternating weeks, not the children. Don’t put the burden and responsibility on them to communicate or transport belongings.

All of this extra effort and expense allows your children to spend equal time with each parent. It’s a balancing act that so many of us were forced to face during marriage. Only now, during your week with the children, you can focus on your children. During your off week you can focus on your career, running errands, household chores, and rest. You can also have lunch with your children, you can attend practices or games, and depending on your plan, you can have dinner with them during your off week.

No parenting plan is perfect. You and your spouse need to decide what is the best plan for your circumstances. However, the best parenting plan is one that neither parent ever has to pick up again to read after the divorce.

Jeffrey Wayne Cansler vs. Karen Louise Kirk Cansler - E2008-01125-COA-R3-CV View Hamblen County - Jeffrey Wayne Cansler (“Father”) and Karen Louise Kirk Cansler (“Mother”) were divorced in 2005. Since that time, the parties continued to disagree about almost everything and have filed numerous petitions for contempt. In this appeal, Father claimed the Trial Court erred when it: (1) denied his motion for relief from the judgment; (2) distributed the marital property; (3) entered two judgments nunc pro tunc, (4) offset two findings of civil contempt against Mother with two findings of civil contempt against Father; and (5) sentenced Mother to community service for two remaining counts of civil contempt that were not offset. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court except as to the six findings of civil contempt as the alleged contempts were criminal rather than civil in nature. Those six findings of civil contempt were vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court’s Opinion.

Lynette Linton Strange vs. Craig Pierrepont Strange - E2008-01841-COA-R3-CV View Knox County - This appeal involved a wife’s effort to set aside or modify a final judgment of divorce after learning that the husband had concealed the receipt of pension benefits prior to wife signing the marital dissolution agreement. The trial court granted the wife’s Rule 60 motion and the trial court awarded her attorney fees and interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee ex rel Kelly Debusk vs. Alan Debusk - E2008-01659-COA-R3-CV View Blount County - Kelly DeBusk (“Mother”) and Alan DeBusk (“Father”) were divorced in November of 2007. The State of Tennessee (“the State”) was granted leave to intervene in post-divorce matters involving child support, among other things, because Mother and Father’s minor children had been enrolled in TennCare. Father filed a motion to reconsider or modify child support and, after a hearing, the Trial Court granted Father a credit against his child support payments for mortgage payments and other property related payments. The State appealed alleging that allowing the credits against child support was improper. The Appellate Court affirmed.

Debra A. Goodwin vs. John A. Goodwin, Jr. - E2009-01085-COA-R3-CV View Blount County - In this divorce action following a long-term marriage, John A. Goodwin, Jr. (“Husband”) appealed the value placed by the trial court on a company owned and operated by Husband known as Interstate Steel Corporation (“ISC”). More specifically, the trial court adopted the value testified to by Wife’s expert witness, that value being $1,650,000. Husband was awarded that entire asset, with Wife being awarded other assets roughly totaling that same amount. Husband appealed claiming the trial court erred when it adopted the value placed on ISC by Wife’s expert and that the trial court should have used ISC’s value at the point in time when Wife’s employment with ISC was terminated by Husband almost two years before trial. Husband also claimed the overall property distribution was inequitable and further that he should have been awarded certain bedroom furniture. The Court of Appeals agreed with Husband as to the bedroom furniture and modified the final judgment accordingly. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Ellen Jane Simon Barnett vs. Robert Lynn Barnett - E2008-02679-COA-R3-CV View Washington County - Ellen Jane Simon Barnett (“Wife”) initiated this litigation by filing her complaint for divorce from Robert Lynn Barnett (“Husband”). Husband answered and coupled it with a counterclaim for divorce. By agreement, Wife was allowed to amend her complaint to add allegations that a trust created by Husband during the marriage was null and void and to add Karen Lewis, in her capacity of trustee, as a party defendant. On February 19, 2008, again by agreement of the parties, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce, certified as final pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, reserving ruling on all other issues. Shortly thereafter, the court granted a motion filed by Wife to declare that the trust was void ab initio, and that any property held in the name of the trust would be treated as the property of one or both of the parties. The court referred all property and child support issues to a special master who held an evidentiary hearing and issued a report and recommendation. Both parties lodged objections to portions of the special master’s filing. On August 28, 2008, the trial court entered a judgment dealing with all property issues and incorporating a permanent parenting plan. On September 25, 2008, Husband, then proceeding pro se, filed a motion for new trial in which he re-argued almost every issue in the case. In an order filed November 6, 2008, the trial court denied Husband’s motion for new trial, and ruled on other matters related to contempt of Husband and enforcement of the judgment. On December 4, 2006, Husband filed his notice that he was appealing from the judgment of “11/6/08.” Wife asked that the Court of Appeals find Husband’s appeal to be frivolous and charge Husband with her attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and awarded Wife her reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses for defending a frivolous appeal.

Johanna L. Gonsewski v. Craig W. Gonsewski - M2009-00894-COA-R3-CV View Sumner County - The wife in this divorce action contended the trial court erred in the division of the marital property, in denying her request for alimony, and in denying her request to recover her attorney’s fees. The Appellate Court determined the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay alimony in futuro, to be the amount of $1,250 per month, and determined that she was entitled to recover attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court regarding alimony in futuro and remanded the issue of attorney’s fees, leaving it to the discretion of the trial court to determine an amount that is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of this case. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects.

Debra Corpier Stockman v. Gaylon Lamar Stockman - M2009-00552-COA-R3-CV View Giles County - In this divorce proceeding, Husband challenged the trial court’s awards of spousal support, child support, and attorney’s fees. Finding that the evidence preponderates against the court’s findings regarding the parties’ voluntary underemployment, those findings are reversed and the award of child support was vacated and remanded for reconsideration; the award of spousal support was also vacated in part and remanded for reconsideration. Finding that the court abused its discretion in setting the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, that award was vacated and remanded for reconsideration.

Evan Ethelread Arrindell v. Gail Marvita Shipp Arrindell - W2009-00575-COA-R3-CV View Shelby County - This is a divorce appeal. The parties had a twenty-one-year marriage and one minor child at the time of divorce. For the majority of the parties’ marriage, the husband owned a business, and the wife was a homemaker. After a trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced, designated the wife as the child’s primary residential parent, divided the martial estate, and awarded child support, transitional alimony, and alimony in futuro. The wife appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court as modified.

Jack Marler Van Hooser v. Susan McCreight Van Hooser - W2009-01191-COA-R3-CV View Shelby County - This is an appeal from the trial court’s award of alimony, division of marital property, and grant of divorce. Husband filed the initial complaint for divorce. Subsequently, wife filed a counter-complaint seeking a decree of legal separation. Wife later amended her counter-complaint to alleged fraud and sought damages based on her fraud claim. Because the trial court failed to rule on the wife’s claim of fraud, no final judgment existed. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

LinkedIn is the world's largest professional network with over 50 million members and growing rapidly. LinkedIn connects you to your trusted contacts and helps you exchange knowledge, ideas, and opportunities with a broader network of professionals. Expand your store of professional contacts by networking with Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC at LinkedIn!

Miles Mason, Sr. is speaking across the country in 2010. Miles will be an instructor again with the National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts' (NACVA's) Forensic Accounting Academy. Miles usually teaches Day 5 on Fridays, teaching Matter-Specific Applications. This day covers the intersection of law and forensic accounting. You can find out more information on the course here. The schedule is as follows:

July 26 - 31: Orlando, FL
August 9 - 14: Newport Beach, CA
September 20 - 25: Dallas, TX
October 25 - 30: Washington, DC
December 6 - 11: Las Vegas, NV

Miles will also be teaching the International Business Appraiser's (IBA's) Business Valuator Accredited for Litigation (BVAL) Workshop, covering report writing, deposition, and testifying skills for business valuation experts. You can find out more information on the course here. Dates are as follows:

Miles is also a co-chair of the Matrimonial Litigation Tack of the National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts (NACVA) and Institute of Business Appraisers (IBA) 2010 Annual Consultants' Conference June 2-5, 2010 in Miami Beach, Florida at the Fontainebleau Hotel. At the conference on Friday, June 4, 2010, Miles is also co-presenting "10 Ways Attorneys Kill Their Own Experts" with Michael G. Kaplan, CPA CVA CFFA, from Los Angeles, CA. Michael is a great speaker and one of the nation's most respected forensic accountants and business valuation experts. You can find out more information on the presentation here and information on the conference here.

Finally, this year Miles serves on the Tennessee Society of CPA's Business Valuation, Forensic & Litigation Services Committee which plans the TSCPA's Conference on Business Valuation, Forensic Investigation & Litigation Services in October 2010 in Brentwood, Tennessee.

On May 21, 2010, Miles Mason presented Day 5 of Forensic Accounting Academy in the Big Apple. Located at the Millennium Hotel, we were one half-block from Times Square. Always filled with tourists, the area is not a favorite of true New York fans, but it was an opportunity to take a few photos. And, the class was great – large and enthusiastic.

One in four homeowners is underwater on their mortgage. Homeowners with "underwater" mortgages—where the amount owed on the mortgage exceeds the value of the home—are more prone to default on their mortgage and end up in foreclosure. What options do you have?

If you received a benefit from this free service of the Miles Mason Family Law Group PLC, please consider making a donation to St. Jude's Children's Hospital: http://www.stjude.org/donate.

To unsubscribe from the MemphisDivorce.com E-Newsletter
reply to this email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

View More MemphisDivorce E-Newsletters Here