1. Flexibility and Availability: If you are in a time zone 17 hours from Pacific Standard Time, you need a lawyer who’s available on your schedule and can handle international communication. Is your lawyer willing to “meet” with you after or before normal US business hours to accommodate your schedule? When we represent international clients, we start a google clock that shows the local time with the client’s name so we know where our clients are in their workday in their local time.
2. Technological Competence: How is your lawyer going to communicate with you? Many law offices are still dinosaurs in the digital world and have not adopted scanning and electronic communication. To speed communication, we scan all incoming documents and correspondence, and communication by email is preferred.  How are you going to communicate if you need to talk and the phone isn’t enough? To accommodate clients, we are set up to Skype and video conference.  How are you going to exchange large packages of documents (like discovery) that may not fit as a attachment to an email? We maintain a user friendly FTP account to send and receive large files to clients.  Being tech savvy matters.
3. Professionalism: Finding a professional lawyer is critical, especially if you don’t have the opportunity to establish rapport by a face to face meeting at the beginning of the case.  Has the lawyer or firm embraced a statement of professionalism? (We have).  Are there reviews online about the lawyer so you know what it is like to work with them? Our lawyers use tools like  AVVO (Dan Margolin, Sean Stephens) to communicate to clients what it is like to work with us when they can’t meet us face to face.
4. Responsiveness: Deadlines come and go quickly, especially across timezones. Negotiations are time sensitive. If you are out of state, you need to know that your call will be taken and that your email will be responded to. Ask the lawyer about how responsive they are.
5. Experience With Expat Cases: Does the lawyer of firm have experience in representing out of state clients, or are you the first “experiment” for them? Is the staff accustom to working with different time zones and cultures? With our technology,  have structured our office to make the client’s location irrelevant in providing exceptional legal services. Ask your lawyer if they have handled many Oregon divorce  cases for expats and out of state clients.

The lawyers at Stephens Margolin PC have extensive experience in representing clients who live out of State and abroad in divorce and family law matters.

As a Portland Oregon based divorce law firm, the attorneys at Stephens Margolin P.C. have seen the impact of the housing crisis and the declining stock market on clients. In recent litigation, we have seen courts ordering one spouse to pay the other to keep a house that is underwater. Parties contemplating divorce are well served to consult with lawyers trained in both traditional litigation and collaborative divorce to ensure that all resolution options are available.

There are two important things to note when attempting to modify support, whether as the party paying support, or the party receiving support. The first is this: courts can only make support modifications retroactive to the filing of a motion to modify support. In other words, if your suffering to make support payments, taking action sooner rather than later is extremely important. Next, for those who are receiving support, if circumstances haven’t panned as anticipated at the time of dissolution, your right to modify support expires when the support obligation is over. In other words, you must move to modify (either to extend the duration of support, or to modify the amount, or both) before the time when your right to receive support under the original judgment has passed.

There are a number of considerations which go into any request to modify spousal support. This blog is specific to the current recession. It must be remembered that a decrease in income, or the inability to find a job, is but one consideration among potentially many others in a modification case. Nevertheless, it may well be an important consideration. There aren’t many people who anticipated the current economic downturn. If the payment of support under a judgment drafted when things were good has become near impossible, or if the support being paid under an old judgment has proven inadequate, then you may need help to modify the situation. If you are like the “regular guy” who I overheard while watching basketball, you shouldn’t feel bad about circumstances that may be out of your control. Spousal support is not meant to be a punishment (though it may seem that way to some). It is not meant to leave a party with no resources. If the economy has caused an impossible situation for you, whether you are paying or receiving support, you may want to contact an attorney to see what can be done about it.

If you would like more information on spousal support modification, please contact Stephens Margolin P.C. in order to schedule a consultation.

Please view parts 1 and 2 of this post:  Part 1 (http://oregondivorceblog.com/wordpress/?p=404); Part 2 (http://oregondivorceblog.com/wordpress/?p=407)

“I don’t know what to do… I won’t be able to make my spousal support payment this month… I feel horrible.” The man who spoke these words was well-dressed, middle-aged and an obvious sports fan. By all accounts, he was a “regular guy.” This does not surprise me, because if there is one near constant among family law matters it is this: folks don’t like paying spousal support.

The payment of any monthly obligation can be tedious; keeping up with consumer obligations (paying high interest credit cards), or even providing for more basic needs (paying the mortgage), is a dreary process which is constantly eating away at our disposable income. Nevertheless, whereas we have presumably derived some benefit from accruing consumer debt (e.g., the purchase of new clothes, an automobile, vacation, etc), and whereas we derive current and future benefits by making our monthly mortgage payment, there does not appear to be any comparable benefit derived from the payment of spousal support. This seemingly thankless obligation, coupled with the probability that the person to whom this obligation is owed is often someone who we may not particularly like very much, can make the payment of spousal support particularly loathsome.

And so this is exactly what struck me about the comment made by this “regular guy.” I got to thinking that, perhaps, for some, once the obligation to pay support has “sunk in”, and after the pain and hurt feelings associated with divorce have passed, the payment of spousal support may appear different to the person paying it then it once did. Perhaps the notion of helping out a former (or maybe even a current) loved one starts to feel pretty good.

The economy is clearly in bad shape and the downturn has affected everyone. While many companies are trying to avoid lay-offs by reducing employee salaries, other employers are having to take more drastic measures. For some, this means lay-offs and severance packages. For others, it means unemployment checks. Whatever the situation, for many, the economic downturn means a decrease in income.

Please continue to parts 2 and 3 of this post:  Part 2 (http://oregondivorceblog.com/wordpress/?p=407); Part 3 (http://oregondivorceblog.com/wordpress/?p=409)

On February 18, 2009, the Oregon Court of Appeals published an opinion in Talik and Talik. The case is an appeal from a divorce judgment. Husband objected to the trial court ruling on three issues: 1. That the court erred in calculating child support; 2. That the court erred in not awarding him compensatory spousal support; and 3. That the court erred in limiting his parenting time.

The parties were married for 16 years. During the marriage, Husband worked for a period of time while Wife attended medical school. The parties moved around in order to meet Wife’s needs. The parties had three children.

With regard to the limitations on Husband’s parenting time, the court of appeals agreed with the trial court. There was evidence at trial that husband hit and kicked two of the children. The trial court found that Husband’s behavior negatively affected the children. In addition, a custody evaluator made recommendations regarding parenting time that the court agreed with. Husband provided no compelling argument to the court of appeals to deviate from the court’s decision.

With regard to Husband’s argument that he should have been awarded compensatory child support, the court of appeals disagreed with Husband and agreed with the trial court. The court explained that compensatory spousal support is available where the party requesting the support shows that they made a “significant financial or other contribution” to the factors set forth in ORS 107.105(1)(d)(B)(i) to (vi). The significant contribution is not limited to enhancing the earning capacity of the other party because that is only one of the “areas to which a spouse may contribute in order to meet the threshold requirement for compensatory spousal support.” A contribution to the education, training, or career of the other party is sufficient. If a party meets the initial threshold, then the court must determine whether a compensatory spousal support award is “otherwise just and equitable in all of the circumstances.” Here, the court of appeals found that while Husband had met the threshold requirement of a significant contribution that such and award would not be just and equitable in the circumstances of this case.

With regard to Husband’s claim that the court erred in calculating child support, the court of appeals disagreed. The trial court had the opportunity to hear witnesses and obtain a clear understanding of the parties’ finances.

The entire opinion can be found at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A134376.htm

The case teaches us that trial court factual findings are key in any appellate case. While the court of appeals does review these cases de novo, it relies on the court’s factual findings.

The lawyers, including Daniel Margolin, who focuses part of his pratice on family law appeals, at Stephens Margolin P.C. can assist parties going through a divorce or appeal from a divorce judgment. As this case shows, it is crucial to have a competent attorney at the trial court level. If you have any questions about Oregon appellate law please contact Daniel Margolin or C. Sean Stephens at Stephens Margolin P.C.

Client’s ask me all the time about taping conversations and other forms of snooping in the opposing party’s life.  There are legal and illegal methods for doing so.  For instance, taping a phone call between yourself and your ex-wife without her consent is a misdemeanor in Oregon. 

The laws in Oregon regarding wiretapping are as follows:

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 165.535, 165.540: It is illegal to obtain or divulge a telecommunication or radio communication, unless one is a party or has obtained consent from at least one party to the conversation. It is illegal to obtain or divulge an oral communication unless all parties to the communication are informed that their conversation is being obtained. Certain enumerated exceptions apply. Violations are punishable by a maximum sentence of $5000 or one year in jail.

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543: It is also a misdemeanor to intercept a wire or oral communication where one is not a party to the communication, and none of the parties to the communication have consented.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.721.

The state’s highest court ruled in1996 that interception, without consent of any of the parties, of the radio portion of a cordless telephone call through use of a police “scanner” is illegal under Oregon’s wiretapping laws. Oregon v. Carston, 913 P.2d 709 (Or. 1996).

Using a hidden camera to record another person “in a state of nudity” without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy is a misdemeanor. Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.700.

Before taking any action like this, it is best to consult an attorney to find out whether the evidence you gained would be admissible in court, whether the method of gaining that evidence is legal, and how such behavior could affect your case, either negatively or positively.

Oregon’s legislature created a discovery shortcut in enacting ORS 107.088 and ORS 107.089. This “statutory discovery request” can be an efficient tool to get basic financial documents from the other side. The statute provides that if you serve a copy of ORS 107.089 on the other party, both sides shall provide the other party copies of the following doucments in thier possession or control:

• (a) All federal and state income tax returns filed by either party for the last three calendar years;
• (b) If income tax returns for the last calendar year have not been filed, all W-2 statements, year-end payroll statements, interest and dividend statements and all other records of income earned or received by either party during the last calendar year;
• (c) All records showing any income earned or received by either party for the current calendar year;
• (d) All financial statements, statements of net worth and credit card and loan applications prepared by or for either party during the last two calendar years;
• (e) All documents such as deeds, real estate contracts, appraisals and most recent statements of assessed value relating to real property in which either party has any interest;
• (f) All documents showing debts of either party, including the most recent statement of any loan, credit line or charge card balance due;
• (g) Certificates of title or registrations of all automobiles, motor vehicles, boats or other personal property registered in either party’s name or in which either party has any interest;
• (h) Documents showing stocks, bonds, secured notes, mutual funds and other investments in which either party has any interest;
• (i) The most recent statement describing any retirement plan, IRA pension plan, profit-sharing plan, stock option plan or deferred compensation plan in which either party has any interest; and
• (j) All financial institution or brokerage account records on any account in which either party has had any interest or signing privileges in the past year, whether or not the account is currently open or closed.

The documents requested must be produced within 30 days of service of a copy of the statute. Failure to exchange discovery after serving the statute on the opposing party can have serious consequences.

The court can establish custody or parenting time in divorces, annulments, legal separations, modifications, custody actions, filiation actions, and third party custody cases. If custody is established in these cases at the time of the final hearing, it may take months between the filing of the petition or motion and the court’s final decision. But what do you do if a child is in danger now, and a full evidentiary hearing is months away? Oregon courts provide for an emergency remedy if a child is in immediate danger of harm.

Oregon courts can award emergency custody even if there is no previous custody determination between the parties. ORS 107.097 provides in part that “[a] court may enter ex parte a temporary order providing for the custody of, or parenting time with, a child if:

• (A) The party requesting an order is present in court and presents an affidavit alleging that the child is in immediate danger; and
• (B) The court finds, based on the facts presented in the party’s testimony and affidavit and in the testimony of the other party, if the other party is present, that the child is in immediate danger.”

Oregon courts can also award emergency custody even if there is already a custody judgment between the parties. ORS 107.139 provides in part that “[f]ollowing entry of a judgment, a court may enter ex parte a temporary order providing for the custody of, or parenting time with, a child if:

• (A) A parent of the child is present in court and presents an affidavit alleging that the child is in immediate danger;
• (B) The parent has made a good faith effort to confer with the other party regarding the purpose and time of this court appearance; and
• (C) The court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the facts presented in the parent’s testimony and affidavit and in the testimony of the other party, if the other party is present, that the child is in immediate danger.”

The main difference between the two provisions is that pre-judgment no notice is required; while post-judgment you must make a good faith effort to talk to the other party about the appearance. If the court grants an emergency motion, the non-moving party is entitled to a hearing. The issue at the hearing is limited to whether or not the child was in an immediate danger at the time the emergency order was issued.

If you already have a parenting plan, you need the court’s permission to change it. You cannot simply refuse to return a child in violation of the parenting plan. The consequences for refusing to follow parenting plans are serious, and can include jail time in some situations. The emergency custody statutes do not offer much guidance to the courts, and judges in the same courthouse can have different interpretations of what both “immediate” and “danger” mean. You should immediately consult with an experienced family lay attorney if you believe your child is in danger of harm with the other parent.