Page 1ImageboxSite LogoLeft ArrowRight ArrowShapeMenuGroup 4Group 6Group 7SearchGroup 9Google PlusLinkedInYoutube
Shah Law Group
Menu
Shah Law Group
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Why Shah?
    • What You Can Expect
    • Faqs
    • Testimonials
    • History
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Divorce
    • Custody
    • Spousal & Child Support
    • Alimony
    • Property Distribution
    • Wills & Trusts
    • Estate Administration
    • PFAs
    • General Practice
  • Team
    • Overview
    • Barbara J. Shah
    • Kristen Anders Bojarski
    • Carole Adams
    • Beth Ciolli
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Faqs
  • Blog
  • Contact

Serving Pittsburgh, PA, Washington, PA and surrounding areas.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter Username

412.835.3050
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Why Shah?
    • What You Can Expect
    • Faqs
    • Testimonials
    • History
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Divorce
    • Custody
    • Spousal & Child Support
    • Alimony
    • Property Distribution
    • Wills & Trusts
    • Estate Administration
    • PFAs
    • General Practice
  • Team
    • Overview
    • Barbara J. Shah
    • Kristen Anders Bojarski
    • Carole Adams
    • Beth Ciolli
  • Blog
  • Contact
Blog

Gerrymandering in Wisconsin – The U.S. Supreme Court looks at the issue on October 3, 2017

Posted on October 3, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

The term “Gerrymandering” has been the subject of a great deal of discussion this year throughout the nation. The term “gerrymander” (pronounced “Jerry-mander”) was introduced into the language more than 200 years ago, when this technique was used by then Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry to produce a voting district shaped like what news organizations compared to a salamander; they then began calling it a “gerrymander.”

The practice occurs when a state with weak laws regarding the power of the state legislature to set boundaries for both state legislatures and U. S,  Congressional districts, and the party with the majority uses their power to reshape those election districts to favor voters from that party, usually by “packing” (drawing district lines so that other party’s voters are all crammed into districts together often producing a 85-90% percentage of those party’s voters), or “cracking”, in which the not-in-power party’s voting districts are broken up and put in with districts where their voting power is overwhelmed or diluted by the in-power-party’s voters. Although gerrymandering has been going on for more than 200 years, the advent of computers which can assist in drawing these lines finely has made the practice nearly universal in those states whose laws give loose permission for the state legislature to draw district lines.  PA is one of them, and is considered one of the most-gerrymandered states in the nation.

This problem arises for two reasons:  there are only 435 seats in the U. S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. population increases and/or moves around.  So every 10 years we have the U.S. Census, which determines how many persons are in each state, and therefore how many representatives should be “apportioned” to each state.  PA las lost representative in the past 2 censuses (which have been gained by the Western and Southern U.S.), and it will probably lose one or two representatives in the 2020 census.  As a result each state affected must “reapportion” its voting districts to divide them up, so that each voting district within the state will have approximately the same number of voters. (Voters also move around in states, so this in-state migration also must be taken into account).  Within each state, the number of state legislators remain the same, but in states where the laws regarding how districts are weak, the state legislative district lines are often gerrymandered as well, as they apparently are in Wisconsin.

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently decided in challenges to election districts in Texas and North Carolina, that districts gerrymandered along racial lines are unconstitutional.  However, the issue about voting districts gerrymandered along political lines has so far not been seen by the U. S. Supreme Court as a question they could resolve. The Gill v. Whitford case, brought by voters who complained that gerrymandering of voting districts in Wisconsin has deprived them of their rights.  In a New York Times article on October 2, 2017, Michael Wines discusses the issues at stake.

 

The background of the Wisconsin case is that in 2010, after taking control of Wisconsin’s legislature and State Capitol, the Republicans used computer models and voting data to redraw political boundaries for the Wisconsin Assembly.  This map insured that Republicans would continue to control the majority of the seats in that legislature.  In 3 elections since the map was redrawn, Democrats have never won more than 39 of the 99 seats in that body, even though statewide the Democrats won a majority of the votes cast for Assembly candidates.

The theory behind the Wisconsin case is that in 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political districts must contain approximately equal numbers of people, thus dividing the districts unevenly violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The plaintiffs in this case, a group of Democrats represented by an advocacy group, the Campaign Legal Center, are hoping to expand that one-person-one-vote principle of partisan gerrymandering.  They argue that by banishing Democrats into gerrymandered districts that make their votes effectively useless, the Republican line-drawers have violated the 1st Amendment (Equal protection clause), along with the 14th Amendment, because it “punishes” Democrats for expressing their political views by their votes.

This is not a new argument; in the past some decisions of the Supreme Court have indicated that there might be some situations in which partisan gerrymandering could violate the Equal Protection clause, but also that some partisanship is unavoidable and therefore acceptable.   In his NYT article, Wise notes that that makes the real question – the one which has “tied the court in knots” for 3 decades—tougher: Can the justices devise a yardstick that reliably measures when a gerrymander oversteps constitutional bounds?  Or would that overstep the court’s own bounds and plunge it deeper into the political thicket of legislative duties?”

Opponents of gerrymandering, such as the Fair Districts PA organization in PA, believe that the answer is clear.  Among the 54 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in this case, the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law argue that “precisely because extreme partisan gerrymandering subverts normal politics, it cannot be addressed by normal politics.”  In another brief submitted by the Republican State Leadership Committee, they argued that a holding in favor of the Wisconsin plaintiffs “would politicize the courts and would go far beyond intervention in the ‘political thicket:’ it would impale the judiciary on its thorns.”

On the U.S. Supreme Court there are 4 justices who are likely to vote in favor of the Wisconsin plaintiffs, and four, including the new Justice Gorsuch, who are likely to disapprove of their position.  Justice Kennedy, the potential “swing” vote, has publicly stated his distaste for partisan gerrymandering, but has wrestled with the question of whether the Court could find a way to remedy it. Approximately 20 U. S. states, including PA, would be affected if the court found in favor of the Wisconsin plaintiffs.

Wise in his article quotes Richard H. Pildes, a professor of constitutional law and an election-law expert at NYU, who said in an interview, “I think this is a very important moment for the democratic system, in the United States. That’s not to say a court decision striking this gerrymander down is going to address all of the problems we’ve got, but in the absence of some sense of constitutional boundaries the pathologies of this process are just going to grow and grow.”

The question posed by anti-gerrymandering groups like Fair Districts PA is: “Shouldn’t the voters pick their legislators rather than letting the legislators picking their voters?” Many eyes and ears in the U.S. will be tuned in on the argument on this case at the Supreme Court. Much is at stake.

Read More

Practical Advice in Choosing the Right PA Divorce Lawyer

Posted on September 19, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

Choosing the right lawyer to handle your divorce is not an easy one, and it certainly isn’t a decision one should make lightly.  But with the thousands of lawyers that are currently practicing law in Pennsylvania, how do you make the right choice?  Read on for some practical advice in choosing the right PA divorce lawyer for you:

Beware of Lawyer Rating Services

Many younger PA divorce-seekers do a lot of divorce research on-line, or they assist older divorce-seekers in finding information online.

Most of the online lawyer rating services are unreliable, IMHO. We don’t know all of the lawyers in our area of Southwestern, PA who do divorces, but we pretty much know who the good ones are.  We see that some lawyers have high ratings that we believe are totally unjustified in terms of our knowledge of their expertise in handling divorce matters.  It seems old fashioned, but word-of mouth referrals are usually your best bet.  Ask people you know who’ve been through a divorce for a referral!

Insist on Meeting your PA Divorce Lawyer in person

Many divorce seekers (or seekers of divorce information) don’t know what to expect from lawyers during their consultation appointment, or thereafter.

It is virtually impossible to conduct an effective consultation appointment over the telephone, or in an internet chat; we need to look each other in the eye and gauge whether we are getting accurate information or whether the information we are giving the potential client is getting through. Some clients lie…

You Get What You Pay For

If a divorce lawyer is offering you a “free consultation,” they must not be busy enough; there may be a reason for this…

If the divorce lawyer has no support staff, or works out of his or her basement, maybe they are building up a practice (hey, I started by sharing law office space with an established lawyer), but bear in mind that it is likely they may not be available to you when needed, as they have to go to court, write pleadings, answer telephone messages, etc. all by themselves. Yes, voice mail and text messaging is handy, but if you have a burning question, it may be cold comfort to you.

As a corollary to the above, then, bear in mind that a lawyer whose fees appear to be “cheap” or much less expensive than others, may have insufficient support staff. Personnel and offices and computer systems cost money, but they make the lawyer much more available to answer important client questions and take action in emergencies.  If you don’t get a response within 24 hours to an urgent question, (it should be the same day), it brings a level of anxiety into the process which experienced lawyers want to avoid.

Just because a lawyer is expensive, however, it doesn’t mean that they are the lawyer for you. Ask around, find out how satisfied friends or relatives or co-workers have been with their divorce attorneys (or how impressed they were with the skill level of their spouse’s attorney).

Real, practical advice = Good Advice

The right lawyer for you will take in a great deal of information about you and your marriage, your children, and your spouse, and they will educate you on the divorce, support, and custody laws of Pennsylvania. They will tell you hard truths, truths you may not want to hear but need to know.

The right lawyer will have a sense of humor, be able to relate, but will not feel sorry for you. We must analyze the situation as the court would and work to develop a strategy to reach an outcome that is acceptable, in the long run. As changes occur, they will keep you informed and will modify the strategy, with your approval.

Communication is Key

The right lawyer will keep you informed and will communicate with you regularly, usually by email, and will want your input and response to actions and communications in your case.

Your lawyer will charge you for all communications, telephone, email, written, etc., because he or she has nothing to “sell” but his or her time. Don’t expect them to work for free, particularly when they have an office, staff, and other overhead expenses.

Divorce Lawyers should be Tough, but Professional (even if you secretly hope they beat your ex into a pulp on the courtroom floor)

Your lawyer will very likely know and hopefully have a cordial relationship with your spouse’s lawyer. Our job is not to hate or scorn the other side; our job is to get the best result for our client, and we have learned that cooperation, not flame-throwing, is the best way to achieve this with a minimum of expense.

Few Surprises

It is possible but unlikely that you will be unhappily surprised by developments in your case, if you have been listening to your lawyer and following their instructions. Most experienced divorce lawyers are fairly good predictors of outcomes and are trying to save you attorney fees and anxiety by attempting to settle your case, along lines you have already discussed and are prepared for.

Choose Wisely

 

If you hear someone complaining that divorce lawyers are money-grubbing thieves, it is possible that they have had a bad experience with their lawyer.  We have met many of those people, and we have performed case “rescue missions” more times that we can count.  Or it is possible that they had unreasonable expectations or are trying to get something for nothing.  Choose wisely.  Your future may depend on it.

 

 

Read More

Rethinking Equally Shared Custody Arrangements

Posted on September 14, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

In Pennsylvania, until the 1970’s, when parents of children under the age of 18 separated, the “tender years doctrine” applied.  That meant that there was a presumption in the law that children “of tender years” were better off with their mothers as their primary custodians.  It also meant father were relegated to the role of “visitors,” and that the custody arrangements for fathers were known as “visitation,” generally something like every other weekend and a dinner visit or two during the week, and some sharing of holiday custody.   In order to obtain  “primary custody” of his children, a father had to prove that the children’s mother was “an unfit mother.”  Do these phrases sound familiar?  Well, they shouldn’t, because for the last 40 years or so, the “tender years doctrine” has been outlawed in Pennsylvania, since PA adopted an equal rights amendment to its constitution.

That is not to say that PA courts enthusiastically accepted the demise of the “tender years” doctrine automatically.  The same judges who had been automatically awarding custody of children to mothers were still on the bench, some of them for many years thereafter.  It was as if even though a new custody law was adopted which required that “the best interests of the child” be considered by the courts in awarding custody, the scales seemed to tip in favor of mothers for quite a while.   After all, mothers could proudly claim, they had been the stay-at-home parent for the children for their whole lives, and the fathers didn’t know the first thing about parenting.  Well, that was then and this is now.

As we know, married women with children have been entering the workforce in great numbers during the last 40 years.  More good-paying jobs have opened for women, and women have for some time been a growing part of college and professional education students.  When I began my college education many years ago, the ratio of “boys” to “girls” on campus was something like 4 to 1.  Now is it often 50-50, and in some areas of higher education women outnumber men.  Men have in many cases stepped up to the task of co-parenting children with their wives.   However, another trend that has affected families is the sheer number of divorces and out-of-wedlock births which have made the old profile of mother-father relationships nearly obsolete.

Judges have changed too.  The old judges have died or retired, and the new breed of judges, raised in the latter part of the 20th century or the first part of the 20th century, don’t usually tip the scales in favor of mothers any more.  Despite the shrill claims of “Fathers’ Rights” groups, there is no presumption based on gender.  Ask any lawyer who practices family law primarily (or solely); they will tell you that when they first meet a judge or other court officer in a custody situation, the judges expect them to offer some kind of equally shared custody arrangement between mother and father, or be prepared to explain/fight for some other arrangement.   The “Ackerman plan,” or 5-5-2-2- custody arrangements, came into vogue around the turn of the century, and these have been enshrined as ideal custody arrangements for all children, along with shared legal custody (shared decision-making) of the children.

.  Another development which pushed this movement along was the adoption in PA of modified child support guidelines that gave a break in child support payments to support obligors with 40% or more overnights with the children.

So this social experiment has been happening for some time, and how it is working?  As lawyers concerned for the welfare of children involved in custody disputes, our observation is that the results are mixed at best.  We are delighted when we are able to assist an involved and caring parent in obtaining substantial custody time with the children, be it the mother or the father. What we are less delighted with is that the less experienced judges whom we appear in front of in child custody cases seem to have adopted a general presumption that equally shared custody is best for everyone. What that means is that when equally shared custody does not appear to fit this family well, we have to work (and spend large quantities of clients’ money) to overcome this unspoken “presumption.”  It was not contained in the recently-modified PA custody law. One size fits all is not for every family.  What the 5-5-2-2 schedule means for children is that they have a lot of adjustments to make, and they bear the brunt of the going back and forth between households several times a week.  In a recent article in the local legal journal, a Pittsburgh area family lawyer recounts the experience of being one of those children in a situation where the parents or the court adopted a 5-5-2-2 custody schedule for her and her younger siblings.  In her case, her parents refused to communicate directly, and it put the crushing burden on her, a young teenager, trying to find her place in the world, to make any schedule changes or accommodations between the parents, to make this schedule “work.”  In her mind, because of non-cooperation and non-communication between her parents, this schedule was unfair to the children.  Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of advantages to children of a custody schedule which permits them substantial contact with both caring and loving parents, when they are able to cooperate.  Children’s mental health is more stable when both parents are actively involved in their lives. It’s when one parent is so angry or bitter at the other parent and insists on sharing “his” or “her” side of the marital dispute with the children in an attempt to turn them against the other parent, that this kind of arrangement breaks down.  Cooperation and co-parenting is a must for shared custody arrangements to work well for the children.

It would be good if judges, rather than reflexively suggesting an equal overnight custody schedule for every family, took the parents’ ability and/or willingness to cooperate and communicate into account more often, in thinking about custody arrangements.   That would be in the children’s’ best interests.

Read More

How is PA Child Support Collected and Enforced?

Posted on August 25, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

PA child support is collected by the state, once an order for support is          entered.  The process of filing for support and establishing a support order  are subjects of other posts.   This post assumes that you are the payor/obligor of a PA child support order which has been entered and is being enforces by PACSES, the PA State Child Enforcement System.  The arm of this system which collects and disburses support payments is called PASCDU, the PA Support Collection and Disbursement Unit.  Once a child support order has been entered, a case number is assigned to the case (and separate identification numbers are assigned to each party and child involved in the order.)  A wage attachment goes out to the payor’s employers from PASCDU, to enforce the order.  If there are arrearages, the wage attachment is generally increased to collect any arrearages.

PASCDU keeps a close watch on support orders and payments – they are required to by the Federal Government, which funds most state child support collection efforts.  Once an obligor falls 30 days in arrears on the amount of the order, collection efforts begin, which can include scheduling a contempt hearing, notifications to credit rating agencies, seizing bank accounts, and even suspending driver’s licenses and professional licenses.  If an obligor files a tax return and expects a refund, but owes arrears on child support, the refund will be used to pay any outstanding arrears.  It hasn’t always been this efficient; years ago, arrears were often accumulated in large amounts for various reasons.  Nowadays, because of penalties imposed by the Federal government and massive computer databases, those cases are much more rare.

In cases where the obligor is self-employed, wage attachments may not be effective in collecting the full amount of support, but the PASCDU computers and collection system are on the case 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  A contempt hearing is likely to be scheduled, and at that hearing, the obligor is given an opportunity to make arrangements to pay the arrearages, and make on-time payments thereafter, but it is not uncommon for the court to order the obligor to jail if the obligor does not comply with the payment arrangements set by the court. PASCDU does not care if the obligor is able to pay rent or car payments; its first goal is to collect support ordered by the PACSES system.

There is no statute of limitations on court-ordered child support payments, nor can they be avoided by moving to another state or by taking another job.  PASCDU will track the obligor through their social security number and will obtain assistance from the state the obligor has moved to, to collect the order.  States are required by the Federal government to cooperate and assist other states in collecting support payments from persons who reside within their borders.

The moral of this story is:  if you owe a Pennsylvania child support order, you must pay it as ordered.  If for some reason the amount of the order is not correct, or circumstances have changed which make the existing order no longer appropriate, you must file a petition for modification in the state which entered the order, to change the amount.  Shah Law Group is experienced in working with Pennsylvania child support cases and can assist in this process.  Give us a call!

Read More

Bifurcation is Still Alive and Kicking in PA

Posted on June 28, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

Last month we posted a blog article on bifurcation of divorces in PA.  As we explained, the term “bifurcate” means to divide something into two parts.  When applied to a divorce, to “bifurcate” means to grant a divorce, giving a person the right to legally remarry, while other issues, such as property division and alimony, remain pending.  While bifurcation can happen in PA, for divorces granted after 1980, it has become relatively rare since the divorce law was amended in 2004 to require that all claims related to a divorce be resolved before a divorce is granted, except in rare and unusual circumstances.

Last week, the PA Superior Court, the appeals court which decides on appeals from PA trial courts (called Common Pleas Courts) posted a decision that reminds Pennsylvanians that bifurcation is alive and well for divorces granted between 1980 and 2004. The divorces to which this concept applies is the “3301(d)” divorce, the divorce in which one spouse files for divorce (the “plaintiff”)  and then files and serves a notice on the other spouse (the “defendant”) that the parties have lived separate and apart for two years (or 3 years prior to 1987 divorce law amendments), and the other spouse takes no action other than to file a response (called a “counter-affidavit”) saying they agree on the period of separation, but they want to raise claims (such as for property division, alimony, etc.).   In this recently-decided case, the plaintiff  (husband) served the divorce complaint and the 3301(d) affidavit on the defendant (wife) in 1998, and the wife, apparently unrepresented, filed a counter-affidavit stating that she wanted to raise a claims for property distribution.  She didn’t file any claims, however.  The husband’s attorney filed the paperwork to make the divorce final, indicating that “property distribution” was still pending.   The divorce was granted by the court, noting in the decree that the court retained jurisdiction to resolve any issues raised but not settled before the divorce.

Fourteen years later, the ex-wife apparently saw an attorney who reviewed the court records and decided that ex-wife might still have a valid claim to ex-husband’s pension.  The attorney filed the paperwork to raise a claim on ex-wife’s behalf for property distribution.  Ex-husband’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss ex-wife’s claim on the grounds that she had never actually raised the claim before the divorce was granted, and that it had been too long since the divorce to raise any claims.  The trial court judge agreed with ex-husband and dismissed ex-wife’s claim. Last week, the Superior Court reversed the trial judge and reinstated ex-wife’s claim for property distribution.

Creative lawyering strikes again!

Read More

Bifurcation in a Pennsylvania Divorce Proceeding

Posted on May 30, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

The term “bifurcation” means to divide something into two parts.  When this term is applied to a divorce, it generally means, “Can I get divorced – legally free to remarry and file my taxes as single – while other issues such as property division are still pending?”  Before 1980, the term did not apply to PA divorces.  The only kind of divorce allowed before that was a “fault” divorce (where the spouse who wanted a divorce had to allege “grounds” for divorce – that they were entirely innocent and the other spouse had committed such bad acts as to cause the marriage to fail – and then prove those grounds in a trial). If they were successful, or if the other spouse simply didn’t put up a defense, the divorce was granted. Property division was easy, as it followed “title.” that is, if a bank account or a pension or a piece of real estate was in your name, you owned it after the divorce, free and clear of any claims by the other spouse.  If an asset was owned jointly, it was to be split between the parties 50-50.  There was no post-divorce alimony.

If you thought that was still the law in PA, you are more than 35 years behind the times!  The Divorce Code of 1980, which became effective that year, revolutionized divorce law in PA. Many Pennsylvanians had been living separate and apart for many years, resigned to fact that that if they were not the “innocent and injured spouse,” they could not get a divorce from their former loved one.   Suddenly in 1980, the floodgates opened. “No-fault” divorce became legal in PA.  As originally written, the law granted the right for a “guilty” spouse who had been living separate and apart for 3 years or more to request a divorce from the “innocent” spouse by filing an affidavit alleging a 3 year or more separation, and serving it on the other spouse.  Suddenly there was no defense to the divorce, and the best thing the defendant/spouse could do was to request from the court a fair property distribution and some alimony.  For other just then separating couples, it gave the left-behind spouse a 3-year window to get ready for the divorce.   In 1987, the law was changed to turn the 3-year separation requirement into a 2-year separation.  By 2016 it left PA one of the few states in the US with a long separation requirement, possibly the longest one.  However, in 2016, the PA legislature again changed the law to allow a party to request a divorce from the other spouse after only a 1-year separation (so long as that separation began after December 3, 2016).   Of course, if both spouses agreed to a divorce under the 1980 Divorce Code, they could file their consents to the divorce at any time after 90 days from the date the divorce was served on the other party.  That portion of the law has never changed.

However, this entire discussion about “no-fault” divorce involves the divorce only; property division, (called “equitable distribution” by the new divorce code”), alimony, and requests for attorney fees could not be addressed until grounds for a divorce had been established.   Unlike the previous “title” approach to property division, equitable distribution assumes that everything acquired during a marriage by either party, regardless of title, is “marital property” and will be divided between the parties according to what is “fair,” by the courts, if the parties are unable to agree.

During the period when a “no-fault” divorce could only be requested after a 3-year separation (or even a 2-year separation) in PA, bifurcation was a hot topic. In addition, those couples who had been separated for (sometimes many more than) 3 years at the time the new Divorce Code became effective, were anxious to move on with their lives.  They wanted a mechanism whereby the divorce itself could be granted while property division was pending.   Initially, the courts often “bifurcated” divorces as a matter of course.  However, because of the problems of dividing pensions, pensions beneficiary designations, the loss of health insurance, and a host of other issues, the courts began to deny bifurcation if one spouse said no.  In 2004, an amendment to the Divorce Code put an end to bifurcation of divorces.  Although under certain extreme circumstances divorces can still be bifurcated, especially now that the one-year separation rule has gone into effect, requests for bifurcation are less and less likely to be made, and less likely to be granted by the courts.

Read More

Free Internet Child Support Calculators – Worth the Cost?

Posted on May 22, 2017 by Kristen Anders Bojarski

The internet offers a wealth of information that is easily accessible, literally at our fingertips.  If you don’t know something, just pull up Google on your smart phone, type in a question and receive an instant answer.

So when a client comes into my office for the first time, I’m not surprised when they tell me that they already know what they will receive/pay in child support because they calculated it themselves using a free child support calculator they found online.  Unfortunately, many are surprised when I tell them that the child support calculator did not give them accurate numbers.  This happens for a lot of different reasons.

First, an internet child support calculator arrives at numbers based on the figures and information that you input into it.   If you don’t know child support rules, chances are that you will be inputting wrong information.  For instance, the calculation of one’s net income.  Many people do not know that bonuses, overtime pay, vested stock options, etc., are considered income for purposes of calculating support.  Many people also miscalculate the amount of custody time they have; they think they have primary custody when they actually have shared custody meaning that a shared custody deviation likely applies.  The incorrect calculation of a person’s income or amount of custody time they have can make a huge impact on the child support calculation.

Second, there are a lot of legal issues to consider when calculating child support.  Perhaps the most common is earning capacity.  When a party is not working outside of the home, or they left one job for a lower paying job, it might be appropriate to calculate the child support not on what they are currently earning (or not earning), but by what they could potentially earn based on their education and experience. A free internet child support calculator cannot make this kind of determination.

Third, deviations from the child support guidelines are sometimes warranted when there are extraordinary expenses or needs.  For instance, perhaps a child has a substantial amount of medical expenses due to a medical condition; an upward deviation from the guidelines may be warranted.  Internet child support calculators cannot calculate this.

The lesson here is not to completely avoid free child support calculators you find on the web– I have no problem with clients doing their own research – but don’t depend on them as a source of free legal advice.  Hiring and consulting with a lawyer may be an expense that some people want to avoid, but ignorance can be much more expensive, particularly over the months or years the child support obligation may run.  You just might find that the “free” internet calculator was not worth the cost.

 

Read More

3 Mistakes to Avoid When Hiring a Family Law Attorney

Posted on May 22, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

Family law attorneys are experts in many different issues. They’ve dedicated their practice to helping families solve problems and create solutions. Whether you’re facing divorce or are in the process of adopting, an attorney can assist you. When seeking the help of an attorney, there are a few common mistakes that people make. Avoiding these mistakes ensures that you retain proper representation and that your legal troubles are handled correctly.

Waiting too long to hire an attorney

Many people wait too long to hire an attorney. Instead of searching out the right representation as soon as the situation calls for it, they wait to see how things play out. Maybe they think that they can work things out without an attorney or maybe they spend too much time researching which attorney to hire. Either way, it’s important to hire an attorney quickly to ensure that you’re treated fairly throughout the process.

Hiring an attorney that doesn’t specialize in Family Law

While it’s important to hire someone quickly, it’s more important to hire the right person. There are dozens of attorneys out there. Chances are you probably know an attorney. Not every lawyer should be trusted with your case. It’s important that you find an attorney that specializes in family law, has passed the bar, and has experience in dealing with cases like yours.

The attorney that you do hire should be able to give you some basic answers up front. Many people make the mistake of hiring an attorney that looks good on paper, but doesn’t give them the right information from the beginning. Whether it’s their financial policy or their strategy, a good attorney will always be transparent.

Hiring an attorney that you don’t trust

Finally, don’t make the mistake of hiring an attorney that you don’t feel comfortable with. You’re trusting your finances and the future of your family to your chosen lawyer. It’s important that you trust them and feel confident in their ability to represent you.

The Shah Law Group, located in Bethel Park, is your source for legal representation. Our practice was built on the philosophy that each client interaction should be handled carefully and efficiently. We continually strive for exceptional communication and compassion. No matter what your legal issues may be, trust the Shah Law Group to handle them.

Explore your legal options by visiting www.shahlawgroup.com.

Read More

The PA Supreme Court – Policy Maker and Administrator of PA Courts and Disciplinary Enforcement for Attorneys: Part 5 of the series, “Why do we Elect Judges, and Why Should I Care?”

Posted on May 15, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

Although it sounds like the PA Supreme Court is the court that makes the final “call” on appeals in PA (and that is technically true), but its duties extend far beyond supervision of the outcomes of appeals decided by PA appellate courts.  The PA Supreme court is one of the oldest courts in the nation, having been established in 1722, when PA was a colony of Great Britain.  The “modern” PA Supreme court was established in 1864. There are 7 judges (called “justices”) on the Court, all elected in partisan elections for 10-year terms, and thereafter are subject to non-partisan “retention” (yes-no) elections by the voter every 10 years.  The current make-up of the court is 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans, three of the Democrats having been elected in 2015.  One seat is up for election this year due to the resignation of Justice Michael Eakin. Currently, interim Justice Sallie Mundy, a justice appointed by the governor and confirmed by the PA legislature after Eakin’s resignation, is serving until the election this November. The salary for 2017 (adjusted annually for the cost of living) for Justices of the PA Supreme Court is $206,054, and they are eligible to participate in PA’s generous defined benefit pension plan.

Although the PA Supreme Court can rule on appeals from the Superior and Commonwealth Courts, their acceptance of appeals is strictly discretionary (except for appeals of death sentences). Statistics published by the Supreme Court indicate that for the years 2008 – 2014, an average of 2,000 requests for appeals were filed each year. The highest number of appeals which the Supreme Court accepted for consideration averaged less than 125, and the number of appeals granted (reversing the ruling of a trial or appellate court) in any year during this period was 52 in 2012.

A substantial portion of the work of PA Supreme Court justices is administrative. Through the AOPC (Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts), they oversee the work of every court in PA, including the district judges throughout the state, Common Pleas and Appellate Courts, and traffic court.  They write and enforce the rules relating to judges’ conduct through the Judicial Conduct Board, and they admit, regulate, and discipline lawyers who practice in PA.  The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA enforces the Rules of Professional Conduct which all PA lawyers must follow, and they administer penalties, including suspension, disbarment, and fines.  If the Disciplinary Board recommends a punishment for a lawyer, the PA Supreme Court handles all appeals and makes the final decision on these punishments – sometimes they even increase the severity of the recommended punishment!  An annual fee paid by lawyers each year is put into a fund to cover client funds mishandled or stolen by lawyers, which is also administered by the Supreme Court.

A little-known fact about the administrative duties of the PA Supreme Court justices is that they write the PA Rules of Civil (and Criminal) Procedure, which provide the framework within which the laws passed by the PA Legislature are enforced, and to make sure that the procedure afforded litigants and defendants by the courts is constitutional.  In a case where there is a conflict between the court rules and the law, the PA Supreme Court has ruled that court rules override the law.  There is a statewide computerized case tracking system for both civil and criminal cases, although for now individual courts of common pleas determine how and whether the court filings in their courts is available to view online.

One of the additional roles of the PA Supreme Court relates to election districts for PA state senate and legislative districts.  PA law does require that they be fairly compact and contiguous, but crafty politicians still manage to gerrymander election districts to favor one party over another.  In PA, not only does the PA Supreme Court determine whether the redrawn election districts comply with the law, they have the power to appoint the chairman of the redistricting commission, which is otherwise divided evenly between the two parties. (This commission does not draw PA Congressional Districts, which are among the most gerrymandered in the nation.)

Dwayne Woodruff, a former Pittsburgh Steelers player and a judge of the court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County for a number of years, is the only Democrat seeking the nomination for Supreme Court Justice in 2017.  He is a person of color and has a history of strong advocacy for juvenile justice; if elected, he would only be the second minority judge elected to any appellate court in PA. Sallie Mundy, the interim justice currently serving, is running as the only Republican candidate for the office.  It seems likely that a substantial amount of money will be spent for the general election this November, since there is no limit on expenditures for judicial races.

Rocked by scandal and the resignation of two justices over the sharing of pornographic emails and videos in recent years, as well as the resignation of one justice after her conviction for public corruption, the PA Supreme Court would surely benefit from a merit-based system of judicial selection (which would require an amendment of the PA
Constitution), but as of now, there appears to be no move in that direction.  Until then, the voting public must rely on the ratings of the state and local bar associations to properly “vet” their choices.  For 2017, Judge Woodruff has been rated as “recommended” by the PA Bar Assn, and Justice Mundy has been rated as “highly recommended.”

 

 

Read More

Superior and Commonwealth Courts in PA – Courts of Last Resort: Part 4 of the series, “Why do we Elect Judges, and Why Should I care?”

Posted on May 12, 2017 by Barbara J. Shah

“I’m going to appeal…” How often do we hear this declaration when a litigant is disappointed in the decision by a civil court or jury, or when a defendant is convicted in a criminal case in Common Pleas Court?   The good news is that there is a court which will automatically grant the disappointed litigant or defendant the right to appeal the decision they are complaining about.  The bad news is that the chances of being successful on appeal are slim.

The court with the widest jurisdiction for appeals is the PA Superior Court, which was created by the PA Constitution in 1895.  It is the general appeals court from almost all civil and criminal cases tried by Common Pleas courts in PA, including the Orphans Court (wills, estates, guardianships, adoptions, mental health commitments, trusts, and probate issues); criminal courts (cases brought by the district attorney against individuals who are accused of breaking one or more PA laws); and Civil cases (for money damages relating to contract disputes, auto or other accidents, landlord-tenant disputes, employer-employee disputes (except for unemployment compensation cases), and most other types of disputes between individuals or corporations who reside or do business in PA.  In addition, the civil docket includes divorce, support, custody, property division and alimony, and juvenile court cases.

Anyone who is unhappy with a final verdict or judgment in Common Pleas court has the automatic right to appeal to the Superior Court; all that is necessary is to file a “Notice of Appeal” with a copy of the docket (court listing showing the outcome for that case) and pay the required fee (usually less than $300) at the Prothonotary or court clerk office for that county in which the decision was made.  There will be additional paperwork to fill out to proceed with the appeal, and once the trial court has explained the reason for its judgment or verdict, the appellant will have to file a brief (legal argument giving the reason why the trial court’s decision was not in accordance with PA law or procedure.) Then argument will be scheduled before a panel of 3 Superior Court judges (there are 18 judges in all).  Superior Court sessions are usually held in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, but occasionally they are held in other parts of the state.

At the argument, a formal appearance before the 3-judge panel by the litigant, defendant, or his lawyer, and the opposing side (a District Attorney in criminal cases), the parties can argue ONLY matters of record, that is, testimony, evidence, and rulings made by the court on or before trial in the Common Pleas court.  This is often a surprise to the party taking the appeal – they want to put in testimony and evidence not contained in the original trial record.  Even the issue of credibility of witnesses cannot be argued, except in a few extreme cases, as the court rules specify that the trial court’s decision on credibility of witnesses cannot be disturbed on appeal.

What, then can be appealed?  Procedure, rulings on evidence or testimony, claims that the judgment or verdict was not proper under existing PA law.  Since our law consists both of what is written in our statutes AND on court rulings on these issues in prior cases on the same or similar issues, often the law is not as clear cut as it may seem.  And, unfortunately, this is an area where non-attorney litigants who try to represent themselves rarely succeed.  The legal standard for most appeals to Superior Court is “abuse of discretion,” that is, from reading the trial record and hearing the argument, the 3-judge panel finds that the trial court’s judgment or verdict is “manifestly unreasonable.”

It does happen now and again that there is a “rogue judgment” from a Common Pleas Court judge which needs to be corrected, or that a good judge has made a mistake of law. Not all appeals are rejected; however, the rate of success on appeal is poor.  In 2014, published statistics by the Superior Court indicate that 79% of the trial court decisions were affirmed, and only 13% totally reversed, with the balance some other type of disposition, such as being dismissed or partially granted.

Superior Court judges, like Common Pleas Court judges, are elected in political contests when there is a vacancy.  This year in PA, there are 4 vacancies among the 18 Superior Court positions.  Judges are elected in these partisan elections for a 10-year term, and at the end of their term face a non-partisan “yes or no” retention election to keep their seats on the bench.  Most of the candidates are unknown to the voters, who must depend on word of mouth, political party affiliation, or judicial rankings by a newspaper or local or state bar association.

Commonwealth Court, a very unique court in the U.S. state judicial system created in 1965,  is similar in almost every way to the Superior Court, except that they hear appeals from Common Pleas court cases in which the Commonwealth of PA or any of its political subdivisions, including cities, counties, townships, water districts, etc., are  litigants (other than criminal appeals); in addition they hear appeals from administrative courts such as workers compensation  and unemployment compensation decisions.  In some cases where the Commonwealth of PA itself is a litigant, Commonwealth acts as a trial level court. There are 15 Commonwealth Court judges; there are two vacancies which will be filled by voters this year.

Although it is technically possible to appeal Superior and Commonwealth Court decisions to the PA Supreme Court, the PA Supreme Court takes very few appeals, and even those almost always relate to public policy questions, rather than the facts and rulings in a specific case. This means that the “buck” literally stops with these appellate court judges. Their salaries for the year 2017 are $194,422, (most for administrative judges of these courts), along with health insurance and a defined benefit pension plan similar to that of Common Pleas Court judges, except that since their pension benefit is based partially on their final salaries, they will normally get a much larger pension than Common Pleas Court judges when they retire.

Although there have been some attempts over the years by groups trying to institute a merit selection system for appellate judges, so far, these efforts have failed to gain traction.  However, in a recent interview, one sitting PA appellate court judge indicated that with the U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision which allows huge amounts of money to pour into PA judicial races, the possibility of “stacking” our courts with judges who have strong connections to interest groups means that it is time to give merit selection greater consideration.

 

 

 

Read More

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

Have a question or ready to get started? Let’s talk.

Contact Us Now

Quick Contact

Categories

  • Alimony, Alimony Pendente Lite, Spousal Support
  • Child Support
  • Custody
  • Divorce
  • Firm News
  • Industry
  • Laws
  • Other
  • Practice Areas
  • Strategy
  • Uncategorized
  • Wills and Estate Administration

Archives

  • Home
  • About
  • Faqs
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Facebook
  • Twitter Username

5824 Library Road
Bethel Park, PA 15102

Phone:

(t) 412.835.3050

Fax:

(f) 412.835.6241

Email:

info@shahlawgroup.com

Make an online payment

© 2019 Shah Law Group.

Website by ImageboxImagebox