Family Law Cases

Hermesmann v. Seyer

(17 and 13 year old parents--statutory rape) RULE: The issue of consent to sexual activity under criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine the paternity and support of the minor child resulting from that sexual activity.

Mick-Skaggs v. Skaggs

(Adultery--people saw Colleen cheating on Will, and Will cheating on Colleen) Rule: to obtain a divorce based on adultery, a spouse must demonstrate the other spouse's inclination and opportunity to commit adultery by a clear preponderance of evidence that is sufficiently definite to identify the time and place of the adultery and the circumstances under which the adultery was committed.

Blevins v. Bardwell

(Airforce parent custody dispute. smoking. AIDS) RULE: The primary consideration in all child-custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the child. Father's smoking habit was enough for court to rule that staying with father was not in best interest of the child.

In Re Estate of Hunsaker

(Common law marriage: answering machine and grandfather clock. Great facts for exam) Rule: A party asserting a common-law marriage must demonstrate that the parties were competent to enter into marriage, assumed a marital relationship by mutual consent and agreement, and confirmed their marriage by cohabitation and public repute. The mutual-consent requirement need not be met by any particular or formal agreement or act, but may be implied from a couple's conduct. Anne has demonstrated that she was Maurice's common-law wife.

In Re Marriage of Cerwick

(Contentious custody dispute) RULE: Court can't award joint custody unless one party requests joint custody first.

Griswold v. Connecticut

(Contraception information) Rule: An implied "right of privacy" exists within the Bill of Rights that prohibits a state from preventing married couples from using contraception.

Williams v. Williams

(Didn't know she was still married to former husband) Rule: A putative spouse is entitled to the rights of a legal spouse upon dissolution of the relationship but is not eligible to receive spousal support.

Das v. Das

(Divorce based on cruelty--hitting, pinching, hair pulling) Rule: States should grant divorces when there is domestic violence, especially if it's likely to be repeated

Ketterle v. Ketterle

(Equitable distrib. MIT Professor with 200k salary, divorce) Rule: The ultimate goal of the distribution statute is an equitable distribution, rather than an equal distribution. In order to reach an equitable distribution, a trial court has broad discretion to apply statutory factors.

Obergefell v. Hodges

(Gay guys' marriage not recognized in some states) Rule: Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses and recognize lawful out-of-state marriages for same-sex couples.

Nicita v. Kittredge

(Jewish and Catholic parents) RULE: The court can modify a parenting agreement if the parents aren't following it, and the children are hurt as a result

Verheyden v. Verheyden

(Marital property--Honda car gift) Rule: to transmute property from community to separate, or vice versa, you need clear and certain proof. Clear and certain proof generally comes down to clear and certain WRITTEN proof.

Malmquist v Malmquist

(Mortgage payments on house purchased before marriage)

Mcguire v. Mcguire

(Mr. McGuire paid for three surgeries that she required but would not pay for new household furnishings or other items that Mrs. McGuire believed they needed. His financial assets were fairly substantial) Rule: One spouse may not sue the other for support and maintenance while the couple's marriage remains intact, they continue to live together, and the parties' home is (financially) maintained.

State v Holm

(Polygamy case--multiple marriages, including spouse's sister) Rule: Entering into more than one marriage—even if the marriage is religious in nature and not registered with the state—constitutes bigamy, which is not protected under Utah law or the United States Constitution.

Nack v. Edwards Nack

(Prenup where one party drove the other party's prenuptially excluded car as a primary vehicle) Rule: If separate property has been commingled with or contributed to marital property, resulting in the loss of its separate identity, the separate property becomes marital property in a divorce proceeding.

Gemma v. Gemma

(Time Rule - Pensions doesn't vest until the future) Rule: court declares the nonemployee spouse's non-vested community property interest, and decides when the interest shall be paid.

Smith v. State

(Uncle and niece incest, want right to privacy) Rule: The asserted "right" to participate in adult consensual incest is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Tennessee Constitution. Thus, the court applied rational basis. Protecting children, and the family unit is a legitimate purpose.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

(Vaginal Foam) Everyone has right to contraception regardless of marital status

Martindale v. Martindale

(Wanted to extend alimony payments beyond set term) RULE: An award of alimony can only be modified upon a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances.

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

(Wife cheated on husband and left their children to live with another man, and took 10,000 from their adult son's personal injury settlement. ) RULE: The only time fault is considered is if your marital misconduct damages the marital assets (a negative economic impact).

Palmore v Sidoti

(divorced. Wife got into interracial relationship. Husband protested custody) RULE: Cannot use race as the sole or decisive factor in awarding child custody. Notably, the Sidoti court did not flat out prohibit race from being a factor in awarding custody. Just can't be the sole or determining factor.

Rivero v. Rivero

(don't need 50/50 split for joint custody) RULE: Need to have an approximately equal share, not an equal share. Find out the number of days requirement.

Fredman v. Fredman

(ex-wife moved to Texas, and relocated the children) RULE: In order for a custodial parent to move with a child the moving must prove that the move is in the child's best interest. This includes showing that the relocating parent's quality of life will be equal or better, the noncustodial parent's ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child will still exist.

In Re Marriage of Nelson

(guy is in law school when divorce starts then starts working. Court increases child support and says it's more important than being able to pay off debts) RULE: A court may modify a child-support order if there is a substantial change in the circumstances of one or both parties. Doesn't matter if the change puts the parent into debt--the child's wellbeing is more important than remaining debt free.

Minnear v. Minnear

(handicapped child, wilfully underemployed father) Rule: Where evidence of willful underemployment preponderates, the court assumes that the reason for underemployment is that the parent is trying to avoid paying support. Once this presumption arises, the burden of proving willful underemployment for reasons other than avoidance of a support obligation will shift to the supporting parent.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

(housing development limited residents to members of a "single family") Rule: The right of related family members to live together is fundamental and protected by the Due Process Clause, and necessarily encompasses a broader definition of "family" than just members of the nuclear family.

McNabney v. Mcnabney

(husband's pay came from law firm. Unequal community property distribution) Rule: Just and equitable distribution of community property won't always be 50/50. There is no judicially created presumption favoring equal distribution of community property or any judicial mandate that community property be divided in an essentially equal manner.

Mcnee v. Mcnee

(intoxication voided the marriage contract. A Nussbaum favorite case) Rule: Unsoundness of mind which will invalidate contract must exist at very time contract is made, regardless of condition before or after, for it to be used as a defense. Marriage annulled.

Wright v. Osburn

(joint custody's effect on child support payments) RULE: when custody is shared equally: Calculate the appropriate percentage of gross income for each parent; subtract the difference between the two and require the parent with the higher income to pay the parent with the lower income that difference.

Sprenger v. Sprenger

(lawn care business split before divorce) Rule: Wife will probably receive more than half of marital property if she gives up her job etc, to raise children. The longer they are married the more this holds true. As soon as you see separate property business on the exam, do a Perreira/Van Camp analysis.

In re Estate of Hollett

(marriage prenup. 200 guests. Erin uneducated--dropped out of high school. Told John would not marry without prenup and presented two days before wedding.) Rule: A prenuptial agreement is not enforceable if the agreement was obtained through duress.

Rivero v. Rivero #2

(modifying joint custody and modifying primary custody has two separate standards) RULE: If you want to modify a primary physical custody arrangement, you need to show: 1. Change in circumstances; 2. Modification is in the best interest of the child. IF you just want to modify a shared physical custody arrangement, you have to show that the modification is in the best interest of the child.

Cord v Neuhoff

(multi-millionaire husband dies--wife waived rights to community property) Rule: Under Pereira, when a spouse devotes his time, labor, and skill to the production of income from separate property, or to the enhancement in value of that separate property, there must be an apportionment of any increment in value between the separate estate of the ower and the community.

Westgate v. Westgate

(no child support, no visitation. Molestation, flight attendant mom) RULE: failure to comply with the terms of a visitation agreement cannot be used as a reason to reduce a child support obligation or to refuse reducing child support arrearages to judgment.

In Re Estate of Santolino

(old guy on drugs marries gold digger then dies) Rule: If a party lacks capacity to consent to marriage, the incapacitated party is not capable of entering a contract for marriage, and the marriage is void ab initio.

Irving v. Irving

(penpal service--philipina spouse -- lied about ability to have children) Rule: Nevada courts will now require a party seeking to annul a marriage on the grounds of fraud to prove the fraud with clear and convincing evidence. Nevada law favors this higher burden of proof because of a strong public policy in favor of marriage and against annulment.

Love v. Love

(threesome case) RULE: Once you've accepted parentage you can't deny it

Lofgren v. Lofgren

(transferred money to father which wasn't paid back) Rule: NRS 125.150 requires an equal disposition of community property, unless "the court finds compelling reasons" for not dividing the property equally and "sets forth in writing the reasons for making an unequal disposition." Compelling reasons includes financial misconduct harming community property.

Kristen L v. Benjamin W.

(transgender child, modification primary physical custody) RULE: A child-custody award may be modified if the court determines that a significant change in circumstances requires the modification of the award in the best interests of the child.

Zepeda v. Zepeda

(wife cheated on husband and engaged in cybersex, child custody) RULE: Marital misconduct alone is not a controlling consideration in child-custody determination UNLESS misconduct results in demonstrable harm to the child

Michael H. v. Gerald D

(wife having sex with neighbor. Whose baby is this?) RULE: The right of a potential natural father to assert parental rights over a child born into a woman's existing marriage with another man is not a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case DOES NOT mean that biological parents who are not married do not have fundamental rights to parenting.