April 2012
Family Law Newsletter
Proudly Serving Our Clients Since 1992
|
|
|
|
Spring is here, and even though it feels like winter, we are excited about our firm's current activities. First, we want to commend Tim Smanik on his participation in "Reach Out" with The Cleveland Metro Bar Association on March 29. Tim provided pro-bono counseling for the nonprofit attendees and will do so again on April 25. The article "Reach Out" details his experience and provides information on how to get involved with the program. Tim will be attending the remainder of this year's Reach Out sessions, and we support his participation in the nonprofit community.
We are also excited to announce our sponsorship of the Hillcrest Regional Chamber of Commerce's 2012 Business Expo. Fanger & Associates will have a table at the Expo and we hope to see everyone looking to make new business connections. The event will be held at 700 Beta Conference Center in Highland Heights on May 3 from 3-7pm.
As always we want to thank you for taking the time to read our newsletter and encourage you to stay up to date with the laws governing Ohio. Enjoy the month of April and feel free to contact us with your feedback or any legal questions you may have.
Jeffrey J. Fanger
|
|
Reach Out
Participation in the Nonprofit Community
The Cleveland Metro Bar Association held the first of four "Reach Out" seminars on March 29, which provide education and free legal counsel to nonprofit leaders and organizations. This session was entitled "Fundamentals of Nonprofit Governance," and featured John C. Goheen and Jennifer L. Adams of Ulmer & Berne LLP.
Tim Smanik, Fanger & Associates' resident nonprofit attorney, attended the March 29 seminar and said of his experience; "Cleveland is a really special city in terms of charitable organizations and the people who lead them. We also have a vibrant legal community, and the combination has real potential for Reach Out and the success of nonprofit organizations in general." Tim was pleased that he was able to give his undivided attention to the participating nonprofits, as there were fewer than expected at the first session. Reach Out is hoping and planning for a bigger turnout for the April 19 seminar since the first session had more than enough lawyers to go around. The legal turnout was, according to Tim, "reassuring." He said it was "good to see that other lawyers in the community will give up their time for something this valuable."
The next session held on April 19 will feature Linda A. Striefsky and Jacinto A. Nunez of Thompson Hine LLP and Cynthia A. Binns and John D. Moran of GrafTech International Holdings Inc. on the topics of contract basics and real estate challenges. To sign up as an attorney or a nonprofit leader, visit the Cleveland Metro Bar Association's Reach Out page at http://www.clemetrobar.org/ReachOut/ for full eligibility requirements.
We thank Tim for his contributions to the nonprofit community and we are proud to have him as a member of our legal team.
|
The State of Our State
Changes in Ohio Law
Family Law Legislation
H.B. 116
Bullying and cyberbullying are in the news more frequently and with more violent outcomes than parents want to hear. The recent suicide of Tyler Clementi is a major headline as his ex-roommate, Dharun Ravi, was found guilty of committing bias intimidation through his Twitter account and a webcam used to spy on Clementi's homosexual activities. The movie "Bully" set for release on March 30, 2012 details the lives of five children being physically, verbally and mentally abused by their peers. Ohio has enacted H.B. 116 with the following sections paraphrased from www.violencepreventionworks.org to become active on November 4, 2012 regarding bullying, cyberbullying and hazing.
Bullying/Harassment ORC 3313.666 (2012) requires the board of education of local school districts to establish a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying. "Harassment, intimidation or bullying" is defined as any intentional written, verbal, or physical act toward another student more than once that causes mental or physical harm and is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the harassed student. The policy must include a statement prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying of any student on school property or at school-sponsored events; a definition of harassment, intimidation, or bullying, a procedure for reporting prohibiting incidents; requirement that school personnel report prohibited incidents to school administrators; requirement for parental notification; documentation procedures; procedures for responding to and investigating incidents; strategies for protecting targeted students from additional incidents; disciplinary procedures; reporting requirements for district administration.
ORC 3313.667 (2006) encourages schools districts to form bullying prevention task forces, programs and other initiatives. It also encourages districts to educate students and to provide training, workshops or courses on the distric't's harassment, intimidation, or bullying policy.
Cyber Bullying ORC 3313.666 (2012) includes electronic act in the definition and prohibition of harassment, intimidation or bullying. Electronic act is defined as "an act committed through the use of a cellular telephone, computer, pager, or personal communication device, or other electronic communication device. The statute specifically requires local school boards to adopt a bullying, harassment and intimidation policy that expressly provides for the possibility of suspension of a student found responsible for harassment, intimidation, or bullying by an electronic act.
Taken from the Violence Prevention Works website.
To read the full bill, click here.
|
Article Corner 
Family Law Informational Articles
"Social Security for Spouses: Current, Divorced, Widowed and Disabled"
Your Money Matters
By Gail Buckner
March 12, 2012
As a concept, Social Security is fairly simple. In practice, the rules and regulations that govern it can turn an otherwise sharp mind to mush. This is especially true when you add in factors such as two incomes, divorce and widowhood. With the help of Dorothy Clark, a 40-year veteran of the Social Security administration, here are the answers to questions recently raised by readers. (NOTE: some questions have been combined) Hi, Gail, I'm divorced. Do I have to wait for my ex to file for Social Security in order to file for benefits based on his record? -Carol Dear Carol, You (and every other "ex" your husband might have) are eligible to receive up to 50% of the benefit he has earned. However, you must meet all of the following conditions: Your marriage lasted 10 years or longer; You are currently unmarried; You are age 62 or older; Your ex-spouse is entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits; The Social Security benefit you are entitled to based on your own work history is less than the amount you would receive based on your ex-spouse's record. If your ex-spouse has not applied for retirement benefits, but is eligible for them, you can still qualify for benefits based on his earnings provided you have been divorced for at least two years. Keep in mind that whether you apply for Social Security benefits as a current, divorced, or widowed spouse, if you have not reached your full retirement age when you file, you will receive a reduced amount. Dear Gail, I'm 64 and a retired public school teacher. My husband and I were married for 13 years, but we've been divorced for twice that long. Under the system in California, I didn't have to contribute to Social Security because we are covered by the public pension system. Am I still eligible for a divorced spouse benefit based on the fact that my former husband worked in the private sector and paid into Social Security his entire career? Will my check be reduced because I didn't pay into Social Security myself? Thanks, Jeannette Dear Jeannette, As a spouse, you don't have to personally contribute to Social Security in order to receive a spousal benefit from Social Security (otherwise there would be no benefit for a stay-at-home mom/dad). You are only required to meet the conditions listed in my response to the previous question. Clearly, you meet the first four. When you receive a pension for work not covered by Social Security- such as a job in local, state or federal government- the amount you are eligible to collect from Social Security is reduced. In the case of benefits paid to a dependent, such as a spouse, divorced spouse or a widow, the reduction is called the Government Pension Offset (GPO).(1) Under this provision, your benefit from Social Security is reduced by two-thirds of the amount of your civil service pension. For example, assume that your monthly teacher's pension is $900. Your offset is two-thirds of that, or $600. Now, let's say you are eligible for a divorced spouse benefit of $800 based upon the work history of your former husband. When you subtract the offset from this amount ($800-$600), you find that your monthly benefit from Social Security will be $200. Note that if the offset is larger than your divorced spouse or the widow's benefit, you will receive nothing from Social Security. According to Dorothy Clark, a senior press officer in Social Security's Baltimore headquarters, "There are some instances when GPO will not apply." Dear Gail, My husband and I were only married a year and a half when he died of cancer. It was the second marriage for both of us. Social Security told me that I'm not entitled to a widow's benefit because I'm still working and earning about $130,000/year. This doesn't seem right. Thanks, Natalie Dear Natalie, Unfortunately, this is correct. The length of your marriage is not the issue here. You only need to be married nine months to be eligible for a widow or widower's benefit. However, because you are under your full retirement age, you are subject to an "earnings test" due to the income you earn from your job. According to Clark, the earnings test applies to any non-disabled individual who is less than full retirement age and working. This includes the worker him/herself, current spouse, widow(er), divorced spouse, child, etc. If you earn more than a certain amount, Social Security withholds $1 for every $2 in excess of the annual limit. This year's limit is $14,640.(2) In your case, your income exceeds the earnings limit by $115,360. Thus, the amount that Social Security would withhold from your annual widow's benefit is half that amount, or $57,630. This amount more than wipes out whatever your widow's benefit might be because the highest Social Security benefit anyone is eligible to receive this year is roughly $30,000. However, once you reach your Full Retirement Age (either 66 or 67) there is no longer an earnings test. If you file for Social Security at that point, you will receive either your full widow's benefit (based upon the work history of your deceased husband) or the benefit you have earned yourself from the years you spent in the workforce. You will not receive both amounts. Instead, you will receive whichever one is higher. Taken from FOX Business' website. To see the original, click here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Update
Recent Court Decisions of Interest in Family Law
Jones v. Centex Homes, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1001
In a case from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County decided March 14, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided for two couples that hired Centex Homes as the builder of their individual houses.
Centex Homes built a house for Paul Jones and Latosha Sanders in 2004 and another house for Eric and Ginger Estep some time later. Jones, Sanders and the Estep's realized upon moving into their respective homes that their electronics were malfunctioning and alleged that magnetized metal beams in the house were causing the problems. Jones, Sanders and the Estep's separately filed suits against Centex homes, alleging breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranty, negligence and failure to perform in a workmanlike manner.
However, before construction of the homes had begun, Centex had Jones, Sanders and the Estep's sign a Limited Home Warranty that was included in the sales agreements for each couple. Both the trial court and the court of appeals affirmed that "as a matter of law the Limited Home Warranty is not unconscionable." The warranty that both couples signed before construction began covered "defects in materials and workmanship and...no other warranties either express or implied." This waiving of implied warranties was the basis for Centex's argument that they did not have to perform in a workmanlike manner.
When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, they cited that "the duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner has been imposed by law on all home builders in Ohio since at least 1966." In that case, Mitchem v. Johnson, the home buyers sued their contractor for building their house without a foundation drainage system while in the "low portion of a lot with surface-water problems." This caused water damage to the buyer's property, and although no written warranty covered the specific defect, the court determined that the buyers were entitled to compensation if "they could establish that the home builder had not constructed the house in a workmanlike manner." This case set the precedent for subsequent cases as builders have a defined "duty" by law to "employ such care and skill in the choice of materials and work as will be commensurate with the gravity of the risk involved in protecting the structure against faults and hazards, including those inherent in its site." Therefore, Centex had a duty under Ohio law to construct both homes in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care.
The question following this decision was whether or not Centex could argue that the Limited Home Warranty signed by both buying parties waived their right to workmanlike construction using ordinary care. In the Mitchem case, the court stated that it was "an 'implied term of the sale' that the builder would complete the house in a workmanlike manner" as well as a "duty." While Centex attempted to call this duty an implied warranty, and waive it with the Limited Home Warranty, the court concluded that;
[T]he duty to construct a house in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care is the baseline standard that Ohio home buyers can expect builders to meet. The duty does not require builders to be perfect, but it does establish a standard of care below which builders may not fall without being subject to liability, even if a contract with the home buyer purports to relieve the builder of that duty.
|
A Moment of Levity A Little Humor to Brighten Your Day
|
|
The opinions and views expressed in this newsletter are solely those of the author of the article and/or Fanger & Associates LLC. Articles appearing in this newsletter are intended to provide broad, general information about the law. This newsletter is sent to clients and friends of Fanger & Associates LLC, as well as Ohio businesses and Ohio nonprofit corporations as identified through their registration with the Ohio Secretary of State, including organizations with which Fanger & Associates LLC has no prior contact. Before applying this information to any specific legal problem, readers are urged to seek advice from an attorney. If you have any questions regarding any topic in this publication and you already have a lawyer, please contact your lawyer. If you do not already have counsel, please feel free to contact Fanger & Associates LLC and we will be happy to assist you. | ADVERTISEMENT ONLY
|
|
|