Online Parenting Time Exchange Tool: "Meet Me in the Middle"

Posted on February 28, 2009 by Jason Brown

From Alaska to Georgia to California (and now Minnesota) family law bloggers across the country have endorsed a useful new online tool to answer that age-old question: Where should we meet for our parenting time exchange?

A lot of fanfare, but stick with me.

The parties have divorced. Mom lives in Minneapolis while dad has relocated to Anoka. They agree to share transportation, but neither wants to drive more than the other. The answer rests at Meetways.com.

Meetways was established in August 2008 to help people easily find a halfway point between two locations. According to their website, they wanted to find a way that friends, colleagues, and business associates could quickly and conveniently find a place to meet between their locations. Divorce lawyers have found a great use for it too.

Free of charge and way too easy to use (just type in the respective addresses and it gives you a midpoint), check out Meetways.com if you must know precisely where to "meet in the middle."

Sources for this post: Alaska Divorce Blog, Georgia Family Law Blog and the California Divorce Blawg.

Tags:

Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Alimony Award of $13,000 Per Month Against Surgeon

Posted on February 20, 2009 by Jason Brown

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed a substantial spousal maintenance award.

In McCarney v. Hartleben, Ms. McCarney was stay-at-home mother who had taken some courses in an effort to obtain a degree in psychology. Dr. Hartleben worked as a surgeon, earning a net monthly income of approximately $30,000 on gross income of $600,000 per year.

Judge Stauber, in an unpublished decision, opined that the trial court did not err in granting McCarney monthly spousal maintenance payments of $13,000 conditioned on a reduction to $8,000 per month when she obtained the certification necessary to work as a licensed psychologist. Judge Stauber noted:

Findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. In order to successfully challenge a district court’s findings of fact, the party challenging the findings must show that despite viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings . . . the record still requires the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.

The court did reverse and remand an award of $800 per month to Ms. McCarney to pay her life insurance premiums.

As referenced in other posts on our blog, alimony awards are based upon several factors, including the length of marriage, the financial need of the spouse seeking maintenance (comparing their anticipated income against their reasonable monthly expenses) and the ability of the spouse being asked to pay alimony to make payments to their spouse. The reasonableness of the parties' budgets is based upon the standard of living the enjoyed during the marriage.

In this case, the court indicated that the parties lived a "lavish lifestyle" and had no difficulty accepting the wife's projected budget of $13,000 per month. Given the husband's substantial earnings and the length of the parties' marriage, the court required him to pay a rather significant figure each month.

The good news for husband? Alimony payments are tax deductible. Given his tax bracket, he'll probably only suffer an out-of-pocket loss of approximately fifty-percent of the payment made to his ex wife.

Tags: , , ,