Part 6 Importance of case law in Divorce

Importance of case law, Crews v Crews, Lepis v Lepis, Mallamo v Mallamo understanding the importance of common law in divorce matters maybe go through these cases and get a good understanding of each case explanations all cases stress the importance of the Case Information Statement you need to read and interpret these cases and get them online. Case law is important, but I think it’s impossible for case law to apply 100% to any specific divorce. This is why I think that sometimes our opinion should supersede the law, which obviously is not very popular with attorneys and judges.     Crew v Crews 2000 case, importance of establishing lifestyle Talks a lot about standard of living; establishing a standard of living, and this can be viewed with the statutory standards, listed in the law. Both parties need to be treated fairly. A modification in alimony, based on a change of circumstances. This case stressed the importance of establishing a standard of living, lifestyle is critical. After all you can’t modify something unless you understand what you’re modifying. Based on the court testimony they lived lavish lifestyle that included vacations in Martha’s Vineyard yacht club membership etc. but it appeared to be paid from Mr. cruises business. Burden of proof was on Ms. Crews to show the change of circumstances. The modification was denied, change of circumstances is capped by the marital lifestyle Lepis v Lepis 1980 case modification married in 1961 at three children and divorced in 1974., Wife sort modification remember, supporting spouse’s obligation is mainly determined by the quality of economic life during the marriage. The moving party must demonstrate the change of circumstances child support needs to increase, must demonstrate that the original agreement did not provide for new issues Increase in support is necessary when change of circumstances substantially impair the dependent spouse ability to maintain the standard of living reflected in the original divorce decree. Once burden is met then they can decide if money spouse can support the increase payments wife won and court had to reopen the case Mallamo v Mallamo, 1995 case Pendente Lite, prima facie requirement on the party seeking the order “Pendente Lite preserves the marital status quo; this is unreasonable because it’s untenable to maintain the status quo in many situations were now the family has two households and is paying legal and other fees out. Court ruled that reduction in child support did not constitute a retroactive modification. Importance of establishing an appropriate dependent taillight payment at the onset of a divorce. Attorney may try and avoid PL alimony and child support, i.e. pay mortgage etc., may affect or reduce alimony amount or time period To me case law seems a little suspicious, it’s impossible for any case to meet the same exact facts and circumstances as another case. What this means to me is that an expert’s opinion should be able to supersede any of the case law. This gets attorneys and judges extremely upset because it upends centuries of legal thought.