Author Archives: Blank Rome LLP

Attorney Spotlight: Jacqueline Combs—Los Angeles

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

For this edition of Attorney Spotlight, I am proud to feature one of my esteemed Los Angeles colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group: Jacqueline Combs.

Jacqueline Combs
Partner

A graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Chapman University School of Law, Jackie has proven to be an indispensable member of our firm’s Matrimonial & Family Law practice group. Formerly an associate at the firm, Jackie was recently elevated to partner at Blank Rome. I am thrilled that she has achieved this very distinctive honor. 

Having been practicing law for more than 12 years, Jackie began her legal career as a corporate counsel for private and publicly traded companies and worked with clients on high-stakes business and legal issues. Over time, she found she wanted more direct ways to help people through her practice, which led Jackie to pursue family law. Jackie has integrated her experience as corporate counsel into her family law practice. A successful lawyer must excel in negotiation, especially in family law cases. Jackie exemplifies this by consistently bringing her exceptional negotiation skills to every client and case she handles.

Read more on our website.

Prenuptial Agreement Spousal Support Waivers: Proceed with Caution

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, February 14, 2025 —

When you utter the words “prenuptial agreement” to a matrimonial lawyer, more often than not you might instantly feel a sense of dread in the air. Some matrimonial lawyers are so adverse to prenuptial agreements that they tell me “I won’t do them anymore”. Other matrimonial lawyers I talk to say that prenuptial agreements should be banned altogether. 

Alas, prenuptial agreements remain alive and well in New York, and so we, as matrimonial lawyers, must confront their ever-present complexities. 

With that in mind, we turn to the critically important decision of Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine in J.M. v. G.V., 2025 NY Slip Op 25004 (Kings Cty., January 2, 2025). 

In J.M., the parties married in New York on May 23, 2018. One week prior, on May 16, 2018, the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement. The parties had one unemancipated child, born in September 2020. After the plaintiff-wife commenced an action for divorce, the defendant-husband moved for summary judgment to, inter alia, set aside the prenuptial agreement on the basis that the agreement “is unconscionable, fraudulent, and/or the result of overreaching”.

The husband was not represented by counsel during the negotiation and consummation of the prenuptial agreement. He asserted that the wife informed him that “if he wanted to marry her it was required by her family that he signed a prenuptial agreement.” According to the husband, when the prenuptial agreement was signed, the husband had a net worth of $27,000, and the wife had a net worth of over $455,000.

While the focus of this article will be spousal support waivers in prenuptial agreements, there are a multitude of important legal concepts that can be learned from reading the J.M. decision.

Read more on our website.

Relationship Expectations. Expect the Unexpected.

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

In any relationship, especially marriage, managing expectations is crucial for achieving and maintaining overall success with your partner. Expectations are dynamic and play a significant role in our lives, defining who we are and shaping our relationships. These expectations come in various forms and magnitudes, influencing how we interact with our partners.

That said, it is not too bold of a statement to say many marriages fail due to our experience with these expectations, and how we react when those expectations are not met is of no less significance. Indeed, it feels great when our expectations are met, and that feeling of being gratified and reciprocated in life is what we have been looking for all along. However, living life by measuring relationships by our own expectations can be harmful, and how we manage these feelings and expectations will often be the determining factor of success or failure.

Read more on our website.

529 Accounts Are Not Your Divorce Piggybank

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, January 10, 2025 —

Matrimonial law is derived from judicial decisions (i.e., “caselaw”) and statutes. As well intentioned and precise as those statutes and the caselaw interpreting them, are and can be, the fact remains that how matrimonial courts apply the law is by and large case specific.

This is a long-winded way of saying that because each matrimonial case tends to depend upon its own unique set of facts, courts are often compelled to reexamine and reevaluate the legislative intent underlying the statutory framework otherwise known as the Domestic Relations Law (the “DRL”).

That brings us to Justice Edmund M. Dane’s recent decision in LKF v. MTF, 2024 NY Slip OP 24312 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty. 12/9/2024), which addresses the “novel issue” of “how to classify a 529 account under the Automatic Orders” and “whether or not a party’s post-commencement withdrawal of money from a 529 account to pay their own counsel fees violates” the Automatic Orders.

Preliminarily, as the decision explains, a “529 Account is a type of investment account that someone can use for higher education savings (emphasis added).” See www.nysaves.org. In general terms, inter alia, the Automatic Orders, codified at Section 236 of the DRL, prohibit transfers/withdrawals/sales/encumbrances of various assets while a divorce action is pending absent written consent of the parties or a court order.

Notably for purposes of this discussion, with regard to the restraint on the transfer of assets such as real estate, personal property, cash accounts, stocks, mutual funds, bank accounts, cars, and boats, there is a carve out for transfers made “in the usual course of business, for customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorney’s fees” in connection with the divorce action.

Read more on our website.

New Year’s Mandate: Respect Our Matrimonial Judges

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, December 12, 2024 —

When the legal historians write about the year 2024, one has to wonder what will be said. Only time will tell.

What we do know is that the dynamic between divorce litigants and matrimonial judges has been disrupted in ways that are cause for concern. More specifically, in 2024, we have seen various decisions of interest wherein divorce litigants flouted court orders with impunity.

With that in mind, we turn to the recent decision of Justice Edmund M. Dane in Y.R. v. A.O.R. 2024 NY Slip Op 51487(U) (Sup. Ct., Nassau County).

The Y.R. divorce saga involved a “tortured litigation history.” The parties married in 2000, had no unemancipated children, and an action for divorce was filed in 2011.

The parties’ June 2012 stipulation of settlement resolving the divorce action required the wife to either list and sell a residence in Great Neck, New York by March 1, 2017, or purchase the husband’s interest in the residence for $75,000. In short, she did neither.

The husband moved for a warrant of eviction, and the court granted the motion to the extent of setting a date certain by which the wife is to vacate the Great Neck residence, failing which a warrant of eviction “shall be issued” directing her removal by a sheriff.

Read more on our website.

In the News

Posted on by
Below is a roundup of Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law partners’ recent awards, recognitions, media, and other accomplishments from around the country.

Reconciling the Law of ‘Cohabitation’ with Social Realities
October 10, 2024 – Blank Rome partner Alan R. Feigenbaum authored this New York Law Journal article about alimony payments and when they should be terminated. 

Marilyn B. Chinitz Joins the Women Winning Divorce Podcast
October 7, 2024 – Blank Rome partner Marilyn B. Chinitz joins the Women Winning Divorce podcast to discuss how to handle and divide complex assets, tips for receiving alimony, and strategies to safeguard assets during divorce. 

Continue reading →

Attorney Spotlight: Pauline M. Martin—Los Angeles

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

For this edition of Attorney Spotlight, I am proud to highlight one of my esteemed Los Angeles colleagues in Blank Rome’s Matrimonial & Family Law group: Pauline M. Martin.

Pauline M. Martin
Of Counsel

A graduate of the University of California, Irvine, and the UCLA School of Law, Pauline has been practicing law for more than 20 years. She is an indispensable member of our firm’s Matrimonial & Family Law practice group. 

Pauline’s journey as a lawyer is remarkable in many ways, and it is notable that she did not begin her career working in family law. Initially, out of law school, Pauline began her practice in a large civil litigation firm. Within 10 years of working in this field, Pauline recognized that she wanted to get more of a “hands-on” legal experience that she felt she had not experienced quite yet as a lawyer. In 2008, Pauline became a mother and realized a new focus in life: family. Pauline spent a few years caring for her son and helping her husband with entrepreneurial ventures. She decided that in becoming a parent, she understood what was important in life and thus began her career path in family law.

Read more on our website.

The Story of Divorce. How It Has Evolved, and Where It Is Going.

Posted on by

Stacy D. Phillips ●

Every experience has a story, even the unpleasant ones. The story, or even the entity of marriage and divorce, whether our own or “divorce” at large, evolves with time. A simple fact is that the longer we have been around, the greater the opportunity to take a look and contemplate where we have been and perhaps even glean where the often lamentable (or, in some cases, welcome) phenomenon of divorce is going.

There was once a time when a divorce that occurred on any basis would be considered unthinkable, even unacceptable, throughout any aspect of life, personal or professional. It is fair to say that the many characteristics of marriage, as well as its potential dissolution, have changed since I first began practicing family law. One important factor I have learned over time is that it takes courage to make marriage work, and divorce is no different. We can also find courage in asking what has changed and why. 

Continue reading →

What It Means to Have ‘Joint Legal Custody’

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, November 1, 2024 —

As divorce lawyers, when we break down the parameters of “physical custody” and “legal custody,” we tend to proceed on autopilot.

Meaning, we immediately begin to determine what could be a workable “regular schedule” (which parent is with a child, when, and for how long, in a 14-night cycle, i.e., 7-7, 8-6, 9-5) and a “holiday/vacation schedule,” i.e., who has this holiday versus that holiday in “even-numbered” vs. “odd-numbered” years.

We then get to work on how “major decisions” affecting a child’s welfare will be made, e.g., sole decision-making, joint decision-making, joint decision-making with a parenting coordinator as a “tiebreaker” of sorts, etc.

Continue reading →

Reconciling the Law of ‘Cohabitation’ with Social Realities

Posted on by

Alan R. Feigenbaum ●

New York Law Journal, October 10, 2024 —

Many statutes have been on the books for decades in the State of New York. Some of those statutes have been amended over time to bring them current with evolving social realities. Other statutes, however, have remained the same.

An example of a statute that has largely remained untouched for years on end is Section 248 of the New York Domestic Relations Law (DRL). In general terms, DRL §248 empowers New York courts to modify a final judgment of divorce or order made with respect to alimony—termed “maintenance” in New York—upon proof that the payee “is habitually living with another person and holding himself or herself out as the spouse of such other person, although not married to such other person.”

The interplay between DRL §248 and current social realities was on display in the recent decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Justice Stacy D. Bennett) in the matter of Ceppos v. Ceppos.

In Ceppos, the parties married in 1987. They executed a Stipulation of Settlement in 2019, and they were officially divorced in 2020. The Stipulation of Settlement provided that the wife’s alimony payments “shall immediately terminate” upon the first to occur of several events, one of which was “Cohabitation by the [wife] pursuant to DRL §248.”

In support of the ex-husband’s motion to terminate his alimony payments, he argued that his ex-wife “habitually cohabitated” with her present fiancé “for years”, and that before the Stipulation of Settlement was signed, the ex-wife “acknowledged residing with her then-boyfriend but she represented that her cohabitation with her boyfriend was temporary and that she would secure an alternate residence in the event she received maintenance from the ex-husband.” The ex-husband claimed that his “reliance” on the ex-wife’s “misrepresentation was pivotal to the negotiation process.”

It comes as no surprise that the ex-wife argued that her ex-husband “knew that she was living with an unrelated male yet continued to make payments to her for a substantial period of time.” Further, while the ex-wife conceded that she was engaged to be married, she “never held herself out as married to her fiancé.”

Read more on our website.