Author Archives: Blank Rome LLP

In the News

Posted on by

Below is a roundup of Blank Rome Matrimonial and Family Law Partners’ recent awards, recognitions, media coverage, and other accomplishments from around the country.

‘Meaningful Consultation’ Over Add-On Expenses in Divorce
July 24, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Alan R. Feigenbaum authored this New York Law Journal article discussing “add-on expenses” within custody agreements. 

Chambers High Net Worth 2025 Highly Ranks Blank Rome Matrimonial & Family Law Group and Attorneys
July 24, 2025 – Chambers High Net Worth 2025 has highly ranked Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law practice group in California and New York, as well as co-chairs Kristina Royce and Morgan Fraser Mouchette, and partners Marilyn B. Chinitz, Norman S. Heller, Lois J. Liberman, Sophie Jacobi-Parisi, Stacy D. Phillips, Mary T. Vidas, and Brett S. Ward. 

Stacy D. Phillips and Kristina Royce Recognized as Leading California Family, Matrimonial & Divorce Lawyers by Doyle’s Guide
July 23, 2025 – Blank Rome is pleased to share that partners Stacy D. Phillips and Kristina Royce have been recognized in the 2025 listing of Leading California Family, Matrimonial & Divorce Lawyers by Doyle’s Guide.

Here’s How Much Andy Byron’s Divorce Bill Could Be Following Coldplay Kiss Cam Debacle
July 19, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Jacqueline Combs was featured in this New York Post article discussing the potential fallout from Andy Byron’s recent incident at Coldplay’s concert.

Continue reading →

Attorney Spotlight: Michelle Piscopo—Philadelphia

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

With this edition of Attorney Spotlight, I am pleased to feature one of our esteemed Philadelphia colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group—Michelle Piscopo.

Michelle Piscopo
Of Counsel

With more than two decades of legal experience, Michelle is a highly valued member of our Matrimonial & Family Law team. A graduate of Widener University and the Temple University Beasley School of Law, Michelle has successfully handled numerous cases involving significant marital estates. Her skill, dedication, and deep understanding of family law make her exceptionally equipped to manage even the most complex matters.

Before pursuing her career in law, Michelle studied psychology—an academic foundation that continues to inform her empathetic and client-centered approach. She thrives on working closely with individuals, guiding them through some of life’s most challenging moments. Matrimonial law is a natural fit for Michelle, as it allows her to combine her legal acumen with her passion for helping people.

Read more on our website.

Modern Love: Redefining Relationships in a Dynamic World

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

Times are constantly changing. We tend to become comfortable with established norms, and relationships, including marriage, are no exception. When I was growing up, divorce was rare, so rare that I could count the number of divorced people I knew on one hand. Relationships were generally straightforward and often expected to evolve into marriage. However, today the landscape looks rather different.

When I notice those in relationships, many almost seem to lack the name or label of “relationship.” Couples are together, yes, but not quite fully present, and perhaps not indefinitely so. These arrangements also appear to be by choice of both parties in such a relationship. This seems far more common (though certainly not exclusively) within younger generations. This practice of not labeling a relationship with any official title, or people choosing to be together though with no intent to get married, has been colloquially named a “situationship.” There is no real science to it, and these situations are what they are. Yet it may be an indicator that our times, or at least what we traditionally understand as relationships, are indeed changing. 

The Elements at Play

If relationships are indeed evolving, there are, of course, many reasons why. For both the young and even the not-so-young, this world can be challenging. We simply cannot ignore that factors such as the current or future state of the economy will play a role in how we interact with one another. Life is expensive, and due to economic uncertainty as well as rising costs, more people are focused on their daily living and managing expenses, and if they can, save money for themselves, and perhaps are not as interested in having an official dependent or financial partner.

We cannot say that money and earning a living are the only factors at hand. Traditional marriage and relationships do indeed still exist. Yet some people have experienced pain in their past concerning relationships and may not be fully willing to commit to that level again. Wounds may heal, yet scars can remain. Many of us have been through it.

Being in relationships, getting married, and having kids, all of these things require commitment, Yet the very word “commitment” now appears to be undergoing a redefinition. These days, commitment can also mean choosing to remain single or engaging in non-traditional (whatever we once considered traditional) relationships that emphasize individual freedom as well as emotional satisfaction.

Read more on our website.

‘Meaningful Consultation’ Over Add-On Expenses in Divorce

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, July 24, 2025 —

In the framework of a divorce case, when divorcing spouses have agreed to joint decision-making (joint “legal custody”) over major decisions affecting their children, there is an intersection, or crossroads if you will, between the principles of joint custody and the payment of “add-on expenses” (private school tuition, extracurricular and summer activity expenses, unreimbursed medical expenses, as just some examples).

With that in mind, when divorce lawyers draft separation agreements that require one parent, or both parents, to contribute to the payment of add-on expenses, often times we draft language that is intended to condition the payment of those same expenses upon compliance with the requirement that decisions about those expenses—before they are incurred—are made jointly if the parties have agreed to joint custody.

Stated simply, in the context of a joint custody arrangement, the thinking is that one parent (typically, the parent whose obligation to pay for add-on expenses is lesser, or none at all) should not be able to unilaterally enroll a child, for example, in an extracurricular activity, and then stick the other parent (who has had no chance to weigh in on enrollment) with the bill.

That brings us to the insightful decision of Judge Lydia S. Antoncic in the Matter of MM v. FV, (Family Court, New York County, 2025, Case Number 263192). In MM, the petitioner sought to enforce a judgment of divorce ordering the respondent to pay, inter alia, 27 percent of the children’s add-on expenses, including summer camp, educational expenses, medical insurance and expenses, and extracurricular activity expenses. The parties’ divorce Judgment incorporated a binding term sheet and a stipulation of settlement.

At the conclusion of a fact finding hearing by a support magistrate, the support magistrate denied, without prejudice, the petition for arrears associated with add-on expenses, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction “in that the parties’ judgment of divorce included contractual provisions to interpret and that the interpretations of the terms of joint custody are so intertwined with enforcing the terms of support for add-ons in the judgment that this court lacks jurisdiction to enforce those provisions” (emphasis in original).

Read more on our website.

Practice Tip: Using Plain English in Divorce Agreements

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, June 26, 2025 —

In this author’s opinion, one of the great disservices that we, as lawyers, are told in law school is the notion that using “legalese,” pseudo-Latin prose, and/or long-winded lawyer sounding words and grammar somehow puts our ability to convey a written point in a manner that far surpasses the ability of non-lawyers to do the exact same thing.

My National Institute for Trial Advocacy Instructor once told me that it was not the polished prose of the “Bobby Donnell” character (Dylan McDermott) in the late 1990s television show known as The Practice whose advocacy skills were worthy of praise, but instead, the down to earth, Plain English advocacy of the less suave character known as “Jimmy” (Michael Badalucco).

The more that I draft separation or other agreements in divorce cases, the more I am convinced that the Plain English, “Jimmy” style of written (and oral) advocacy is a much surer bet in terms of trying to avoid future disputes over the meaning of written words in those same agreements.

That brings us to Justice Jeffery S. Sunshine’s recent decision in E.S. v. H.G., 2025 NY Slip Op 50610(U) (Kings Cty., 2025).

In E.S., the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “agreement”) resolving their divorce in 2006. At the time of the divorce (also in 2006), the parties had two minor children, ages four and six. Post-judgment litigation ensued when the mother sought to enforce the Agreement due to the father’s child support arrears.

At the time of the post-judgment application seeking enforcement on child support that is the subject of E.S., the parties—“who are both attorneys”—represented themselves. The father claimed that after the mother sought enforcement, he paid $82,400.37 in child support and “owes no other arrears for child support”. The mother disagreed.

Read more on our website.

In Divorce Trials: Credibility Is King

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, May 22, 2025 —

In my commercial litigation days, I recall marathon preparation sessions with witnesses before depositions. Often times, I heard far too much emphasis being placed on the “I don’t recall” answer, i.e., if your witness is faced with a challenging question, he or she can always default to “I don’t recall.”

Let me begin by saying that that is, unequivocally, terrible matrimonial legal “advice” which can—and does—lead to dismal consequences in divorce trials for those witnesses who believe that a knee-jerk “I don’t recall” answer will somehow persuade the finder of fact.

To be clear, if “I don’t recall” is the truthful answer, then it is the truthful answer. What it cannot be—unless one wants to see their divorce case go up in flames at trial—is a means to try to disguise the fact that one’s case-in-chief is lacking in facts.

Why am I making such a fuss over the credibility of a divorcing spouse’s testimony at trial? To answer that question, look no further than Justice Jeffery S. Sunshine’s recent decision in Khalil v. Mahmoud, 2025 NY Slip Op 50348(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. 2025).

In Khalil, the court granted a third-party intervenor’s application to declare that the intervenor had a 50 percent ownership interest in the two-family marital residence, where the intervenor entered into a joint venture agreement with the plaintiff-husband more than 20 years ago.

The defendant-wife argued that the intervenor had no ownership interest in the marital residence and was instead a mere tenant who paid rent; she further claimed that the husband was attempting to effectively remove 50 percent of the marital residence from the marital estate and therefore carve it out of equitable distribution.

The court heard testimony from the intervenor’s husband, the husband, a real estate attorney who prepared the joint venture agreement, a real estate agent who at one point rented out a portion of the marital residence at the request of the intervenor’s husband, the intervenor herself, the wife, and other witnesses.

In this article, I will focus on the wife’s testimony. She testified that she did not believe the joint venture agreement was legitimate because “there was a typo in the house number on one (1) page of the agreement.” However, on cross-examination, “she conceded that the house number is accurate in all other parts of the joint venture agreement.”

Read more on our website.

In the News

Posted on by

Below is a roundup of Blank Rome Matrimonial and Family Law Partners’ recent awards, recognitions, media, and other accomplishments from around the country.

Divorce, Pensions, and Survivorship Benefits: A Deadly Combination
April 25, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Alan R. Feigenbaum authored this New York Law Journal article discussing concerns surrounding survivorship benefits in separation agreements.

Kristina Royce Joins the Chiquis and Chill Podcast
April 23, 2025 – Kristina Royce, Blank Rome partner and co-chair of the Matrimonial & Family Law group, joined host Chiquis Rivera on the Chiquis and Chill podcast to discuss important topics such as marriage, divorce, and prenuptial agreements.

Kristina Royce Named Top 100 Lawyer by the Los Angeles Business Journal
April 22, 2025 – Blank Rome partner Kristina Royce, co-chair of the firm’s Matrimonial & Family Law group, has been recognized in the Los Angeles Business Journal’s Top 100 Lawyers 2025.

Continue reading →

Attorney Spotlight: Dylan Mitchell—New York

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

This edition of Attorney Spotlight highlights one of our valued New York City colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group: Dylan Mitchell.

Dylan S. Mitchell
Partner

Dylan has been practicing law for nearly 30 years and is a valued member of our Matrimonial & Family Law team. He is a trained and efficient mediator and has helped parents and families resolve disputes without the need for continued litigation on many occasions. As a lawyer, Dylan has never had a desire to represent anyone other than a human being. A lawyer is a problem solver. Practicing family law provides Dylan with the opportunity to work with clients facing human issues. Many of his clients feel that they are experiencing the worst points in their lives when going through a divorce. Dylan is there to help clients solve problems and ultimately assist them in moving forward to better things. This experience can be rewarding for both the client and legal counsel.

Lawyers working in family law often walk a line between providing the necessary legal services and managing the ever-present emotions surrounding family matters. When it comes to family matters and high emotions, to pardon a pun, it is rather rare to be able to divorce these two factors. They are inextricably intertwined. 

Read more on our website.

The Silent Divorce. Understanding the Sounds Beneath the Quiet.

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

When we think about a marriage on the rocks, or one that is perhaps nearing its final moments, we often paint a picture of frequent, rancorous disagreements and yelling between the two parties involved. It is easy to assume that these are the sounds of a failing and soon-to-be-terminated union, but this is not always the case. Some—perhaps more than some—marriages do not end with a bang, but more of a muffled sob, or sometimes, silence. In some cases, there is no actual legal divorce.

This phenomenon is often referred to as silent divorce, where a relationship never actually comes to an end, yet silently, the couple drifts apart over time after the bonds they once shared have faded away. They hardly spend time together, even in shared living quarters, and essentially lead separate lives. While this arrangement can be regarded as sad, even unhealthy, there are reasons for such a “divorce” to exist.

Read more on our website.

Divorce, Pensions, and Survivorship Benefits: A Deadly Combination

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, April 25, 2025 —

Our artificial intelligence overlords tell us that in America we have a “death-denying culture.” Translation: generally speaking, death is a topic that is presumptively uncomfortable, swept under the rug, and not talked about in this country.

When you draft a separation agreement in a matrimonial matter, you had better sweep the “death-denying” milieu under the rug. Instead, it is critical that matrimonial lawyers who draft separation agreements confront how we are going to address the possibility that one spouse could die after an agreement is signed, but before all its provisions are implemented.

If you ever needed proof of how important it is to get comfortable with the possibility of death when drafting separation agreements, look no further than Justice Joseph H. Lorintz’s recent decision in A.F. v. D.F., 2025 NY Slip Op 50160(U) (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., 2025).

In A.F., the parties were married in 1990, and they have three emancipated children. A divorce action was commenced by the wife in 2010 and settled pursuant to a Marital Separation and Property Settlement Agreement (“agreement”) in 2010. The parties were divorced by Judgment in 2010.

The agreement directed the division of the Husband’s pension via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”). A QDRO was signed simultaneously with the Judgment which directed that the wife (the “Alternate Payee”) would receive survivorship benefits in the event of the husband’s (the “Participant”) death.

In 2011, the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYSCERS) sent a letter advising the husband that the “DRO is unacceptable in its current format,” including that the numerator (number of months of retirement credit earned during the marriage) was incorrect.

In 2024—more than a decade after the letter from NYSCERS—the husband filed an Amended Domestic Relations Order that was identical to the 2010 QDRO “except for the deletion of the ordered paragraph directing the [husband] to select a survivorship option.”

Read more on our website.