There are many stops on the road before a divorce trial takes place.
For some time now, the General Assembly has been working towards amendment of the Divorce Code to reduce the waiting period for an unconsented no-fault divorce from two years to one.
From April 9 to April 12, I had the good fortune to be part of the Council on Foundations 2016 Annual Conference.
The recent Appellate Division case of Sirigotis v. Sirigotis, although unpublished (non- precedential), provides a great reminder of how important it is to know the “rules of engagement.”
As Juliet stated to Romeo in Shakespeare’s tale of star crossed lovers, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose.
A business, professional practice, or (until recent statutory amendments) license may be valued as a asset for divorce purposes based upon the amount of income it generates for the owner/holder.
The Discovery Rules account for all manner of need for obtaining evidence. Many of these rules are seldom, if ever, utilized by family law attorneys because either they are not germane to a family law case; not permitted by the Divorce Code (i.e. prohibition against discovery in simple support cases), or; family court cases have their own procedure for obtaining the information.
The interlocutory appeal in the case of Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec presented one question: “whether Delaware may exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation for claims having nothing to do with Delaware, as a price for the corporation agreeing simply to be able to do business in Delaware.”
36 days in trial after two years in the court system. $500,000.00 in legal fees, with one party owing the other almost $200,000.00 as part of those legal costs.
A lot of times when parents file petitions with the court regarding enforcing a custody order or contempt, they also want the court to adjust the custody order.