The VLW Blog

The nexus between debt and divorce has occupied the Virginia Court of Appeals this week.

In a published opinion out of Hanover County, the appellate court said in Marvin v. Marvin that a husband’s debt of attorney’s fees to wife in her proceeding charging violations of a court visitation order could not be discharged in husband’s bankruptcy, because the fee award to wife is “in the nature of child support.”

In Stacy v. Stacy, a wife tried to insulate the husband’s ongoing mortgage payments from a possible bankruptcy by calling them “in the nature of support” in the parties’ PSA. But a panel majority said the husband still could terminate the mortgage payments when wife admitted to cohabitation with another man. Judge Elizabeth McClanahan dissented in the unpublished opinion in the case out of Buchanan County, saying the parties expressly waived their rights to spousal support in the PSA and the trial court had no authority to terminate the husband’s obligation to a third party, the mortgage lender.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Really, really rich older guy marries a much younger woman. His relatives don’t like the situation so they take legal action. Acrimony ensues.

Okay, the late Anna Nicole Smith isn’t starring in this particular movie. It’s a just-completed case in South Florida. A lawyer friend of mine who was on the winning side sent along the item from the Miami Herald.

How many first marriages take place at age 92? Alfred Kreisler, a life-long bachelor, a lawyer and an industrial-claims judge worth more than $22 million, waited a long time to walk down the aisle. So long that when it finally happened, they had to wheel him down the aisle.

Last October, he married a woman named Yvette Penichet, who was 43 and described by the Herald as “a Miramar divorcee.” Alfred’s older brother Seymour, age 95, was in the other room when the officiating rabbi wed the happy couple and signed the Florida marriage license.

Just two days before the wedding, Alfred parked $7.7 million in a joint bank account with Yvette. According to court testimony, Yvette sought on her wedding day to withdraw $400K to buy a Rolls-Royce, but the bank wouldn’t clear the funds. Right after she and Alfred said “I do,” she wired $30,000 to her son.

Two of Alfred’s nieces went to court, aided by my buddy and three other lawyers. They claimed Alfred “did not have the capacity to manage his own affairs or marry.” A judge appointed the nieces as their uncle’s co-guardians and took Yvette off the bank account.

Last week in a document called an “agreed final judgment,” a different Miami-Dade circuit judge pulled the plug, declaring the marriage void. The parties settled out the dispute. Yvette got to keep the 30 grand; she returned her wedding ring and waived any claim to Alfred’s millions.

The nieces signed a “non-prosecution form,” pledging not to press charges or to call in the authorities to investigate any claims of elder abuse.

And all is well that kind of ends well: The brothers Kreisler, Alfred and Seymour, are now the residents at an assisted living facility in South Florida, reports the Herald.

It’s tough to prove adultery as a ground for divorce in Virginia.

It helps to catch the wayward spouse emerging from his girlfriend’s home in his underwear.

In Toth v. Toth (VLW 008-8-071), a Fairfax Circuit Court said a wife proved adultery with evidence from a private investigator who observed the husband grocery shopping with his alleged paramour, coming and going from her home, staying late, and twice emerging from her home partially dressed, once in pants and no shirt and once in a t-shirt and boxer shorts.

As Judge Michael McWeeny recounted, the husband and his girlfriend went into her home at 5:54 p.m. on Sept. 3, 2006. Less than 45 minutes later he was seen coming out in only tee-shirt and boxer-style underwear. His wife “confirmed and identified the clothing as his underwear,” wrote the judge.

The husband took the Fifth.

Although the husband hadn’t appeared in the all-together, McWeeny put it all together and said the wife’s circumstantial evidence proved adultery.

What difference did it make? The husband, who was retired, wanted spousal support, but the court denied that request.

So you got one of those EZ-Pass things that you stick on your windshield, allowing you to zip through a toll plaza and avoid a long line.

Better stay on the marital straight and narrow.

The Associated Press has a story that may strike fear among philanderers: Divorce lawyers have discovered that records for E-ZPass, originally known as Smart Tag in Virginia, can be useful to prove where a cheating spouse was.

Or as Jacalyn Barnett, a New York divorce lawyer, colorfully put it, “E-ZPass is an E-ZPass to go directly to divorce court, because it’s an easy way to show you took the off-ramp to adultery.”

Okay, that’s a nice turn of phrase, but per the AP, lawyers are finding the E-ZPass info to be a useful tool to prove or disprove a wandering spouse’s whereabouts, or a way to impeach credibility.

Twelve states, mostly along the Atlantic coast, are on the E-ZPass system. State agencies in seven of those states, including Virginia, will turn over records in response to a court order in either a criminal or civil case, including a divorce. Four states will let the records be used only in criminal cases; West Virginia doesn’t have a policy.

Moral of the story, if there is one: If you’re going to stray, pack that E-ZPass away.

It hasn’t been a good month so far for the image of lawyers.

First there was the judge in DC who filed the $67 million lawsuit over a lost pair of pants. Amazingly, his claim is going forward, with a June trial date. The latest on that story: Supporters have rallied around the Korean couple that runs the defendant cleaners, starting a defense fund in their behalf.

Now there is a billboard in Chicago that counsels, “Life’s short. Get a divorce.” The billboard is located in an upscale area known as “Viagra Triangle” for its trendy singles bars and restaurants. It features two hot bodies: A babe with heaving cleavage and a hunk with rippling abs.

For the record, lawyers and bar leaders in Chicago have blasted Corri Fetman, the divorce lawyer behind the billboard. Fetman counters criticism by saying lawyer advertising is boring and that her billboard “promotes happiness.”

So what would the Virginia State Bar’s advertising committee do if someone posted one of these here?

And what would lawyers here think if it showed up in Virginia Beach or Alexandria or Richmond? The floor’s open.

_uacct = “UA-1564523-1″;
urchinTracker();