In terms of property issues, some spouses falsely assume that they can hide assets from the other. Divorce fraud is perpetrated when one party fails to inform the other party of all assets one owns. All searches conducted by Greg and his staff abide by laws and regulations set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, The Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Despite these hoops, they are able to locate bank accounts, cars, homes, boats, business interests, securities and any other tangible property interests held by your spouse.

Individuals asked to pay alimony often under report their income - in an attempt to persuade the court to believe that they don't make enough money to afford to pay. Similarly, a spouse seeking alimony may also under report their income - in an attempt to persuade the court to believe that they don't make enough money to meet their monthly expenses. Investigative methods can prove whether a subject has a place of employment not being reported or there is co-habitation involved (which could decrease alimony and monetary support decisions made by a court based on reduced financial need in your spouse).

Infidelity may be proven through surveillance. Keep in mind, the act of cheating is not a basis to seek a disproportionate award of marital property or custody of your kids. However, much can be learned about a person by knowing the company they keep. Does your spouse's lover have a criminal record? Are your children being neglected while your spouse is out with someone else? If the children form a relationship with this person, what sort of home environment will they be subjected to? Answers to these questions are relevant to the court in determining what is in the best interest of your kids. 

In addition to information relating to your spouse, investigators can help with trial preparation in the form of locating and interviewing witnesses, conducting public record searches, service of process, paternity testing and other background investigations concerning individuals associated with a case.

Our firm has retained Greg in numerous cases and the results are always amazing. He consistently provides us with reliable information that might otherwise have taken months to uncover - if we were ever able to recover it at all.

A parenting consultant is part mediator and part arbitrator. They can listen to parents and facilitate discussion, but also possess decision-making authority. Most are experienced family practitioners or child psychologists who work primarily in the area of parenting dispute resolution.

Parenting consultants offer the following benefits:

• Good decisions;
• Fast decisions; and
• Cheap decisions.

Most parties agree to employ a parenting consultant as part of their divorce decree and appreciate the ability to turn to someone with decision-making power with a simple phone call (try doing that with a judge) in the absence of ongoing legal fees. Most agree that the decision of the consultant is binding and may only be modified with an appeal to the court within 14 days from the decision. Parties typically split the cost of the consultant.

The most common expert we employ is a home appraiser. In most cases the most valuable asset for division is the marital homestead. If one party elects to remain in the homestead we must calculate the equity in the house to determine the value of the property settlement. Naturally, the first step to establishing equity involves the determination of the market value of the property.

A typical homestead appraisal costs around $350. They take approximately one (1) week to complete. Many clients ask if a realtor’s market analysis can substitute for an appraisal. If the parties agree, a market analysis is sufficient. However, a realtor’s market analysis does not hold the same evidentiary weight as a certified real estate appraisal. For that reason, the appraisal is usually preferred.

Suppose you are 40 years of age and your union pension indicates that at present you qualify to receive $1,000 per month at age 55. Those benefits, despite the fact they are not yet realized, have an economic value. It is the job of an actuary to calculate that value. Clients are often shocked to realize that their pension interest, in terms of present dollars, totals several hundred thousand dollars.

If the pension interest was accumulated during the marriage, it is subject to equal division. This may be done by a cash off-set or an award of future benefits to each party. If the cash buy-out is contemplated, then we must know the present value of the benefit. An actuary typically charges a couple hundred dollars for their services.

If custody is a contested issue in your case, a custody evaluator will be appointed by the court. This individual typically possesses a degree in psychology or social work. The custody evaluator will meet with each party individually, and meet with them in the presence of the children. They will gather documentation such as medical and school records involving the children. Custody experts often speak with counselors that might be involved with the family. Parents will often refer the evaluator to several acquaintances who can speak of their ability to affectively parent the children.

The process of completing a custody evaluation typically takes several months. Once all of the necessary information is gathered by the evaluator, a report is generated that addresses the information gathered in relation to the standard for an award of custody in Minnesota – the best interest of the child. These reports are often twenty (20) or thirty (30) pages in length and may include painstaking detail about the family situation. The final part of the evaluator’s report includes a series of recommendations. Most often, the court will adopt the recommendations of the evaluator.

There are two types of custody evaluators in Minnesota: court appointed and privately retained. There is no legal distinction between the two, but a private evaluator will typically charge more than $10,000 for their services. In some situations, a private custody evaluation will be done much more quickly than an evaluation conducted by court services. If court services performs the evaluation they, too, charge a fee. But it is typically much less than the fee associated with a private evaluation. 

We frequently employ business appraisers to ascertain the present value of a business owned by one or both of the parties to a divorce. There are a number of ways that a business appraiser calculates the market value of a particular business. The evaluator will look at the overall business revenue, profits, assets and marketability of the business.

The cost for a particular appraisal varies depending upon the nature of the business being valued. In most situations, a business appraisal will cost between $5,000 and $10,000. Once the appraisal is concluded, the evaluator will present a written report. The report will include the various formulas utilized for determining market value and offer an expert opinion concerning the value of the business based upon dozens of factors that have been taken into account.

In cases involving spousal maintenance, we often employ a vocational assessor. This individual is asked to evaluate a spouse’s capacity for employment and potential annual earnings based upon their educational background, skills and the market place. The person being evaluated will be asked to spend the day with the vocational assessor. An interview takes place and the individual is asked to complete a series of psychological tests, including the MMPI and other skills tests.

Once the evaluator has opportunity to get to know the individual, they will generate a report that discusses the skills and abilities of the individual, along with a host of potential careers that are available to them. The assessor we retain will take into account market conditions specific to the Minneapolis area. A vocational assessment typically costs approximately $1,500. The conclusions drawn by the assessor provide significant evidence for the court to consider in light of a request for spousal maintenance.

The foregoing experts are the most frequently retained individuals to assist our clients through the divorce process. Certainly there are others, such as vehicle appraisers, psychological experts, chemical abuse experts, accountants and others. The costs associated with retaining many experts is substantial. For that reason, we work very closely with our clients to balance the costs of the involvement of an expert against the benefit that we hope to realize in retaining that individual.
 

In Peterka v. Dennis, appellant sued respondents, an accountant and his employer, asserting that the accountant committed malpractice, for which his employer is vicariously liable, in evaluating businesses in connection with appellant’s dissolution action. Because the accountant was retained as an independent neutral evaluator of the businesses and a Hennepin County District Court Order required appellant and her husband to cooperate with and pay for the evaluation, respondents moved for summary judgment asserting quasi-judicial immunity. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that court appointment and public policy required that respondents be protected by quasi-judicial immunity. Because it concluded that respondent's accountant was not retained or appointed to perform a "judicial" function, the Minnesota Court of Appeals opted to reverse and remand.

The Court held that Dennis’ evaluation of business assets did not involve an "exercise of authority that is essentially judicial in nature." Dennis’ function was to apply sound accounting principles to develop factual bases supporting his expert opinion on the value of businesses in which appellant and her husband had an interest. Dennis had to exercise the same skill and judgment required by those in his profession; but exercise of that judgment did not equate to performing a judicial function. Dennis was retained, whether by appellant and her husband, or by the court, to give his expert opinion on the businesses’ value, not as a "decision-maker to determine competing claims" of appellant and her husband. For these reasons the Court concluded that even if Dennis was a court-appointed neutral, he was not appointed to perform a judicial function, and therefore is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Because Dennis is not entitled to such immunity, Baune Dosen is therefore not entitled to vicarious quasi-judicial immunity.