News Releases
-
No Fault Divorce? – How can Anything Be Nobody’s Fault?
January 27, 2012 by admin
-
Signs that Your Spouse May be Planning a Surprise Divorce Attack
January 18, 2012 by admin
-
Legal Disclaimer
by adminThe information on this website is not legal advice and is not intended to be legal advice to you. The information is intended to provide only general legal information. The information is not intended to encompass all of the issues related to the topics addressed. There is no representation or warranty made regarding the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The specific facts that apply to your situation may impact the outcome of your case and legal decisions that you might choose.
No Attorney Client Relationship. The information provided does not create any attorney client relationship and is not a solicitation to provide legal services to you. You are encouraged to seek and consult with an attorney that is competent in the legal issues you face and qualified to practice law in your country and state. BY USING THE WEBSITE, YOU AGREE THAT ANY COMMUNICATIONS VIA COMMENTS OR EMAIL THROUGH WEBSITE DO NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, AND ANY AND ALL INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL NOT BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
Copyright Notice. All content, materials and information published on elseylaw.com are protected by copyright and are owned by or licensed to Elsey & Elsey. All rights are reserved. Unauthorized alterations, copying, duplicating, posting, republishing, reproduction, or transmitting of any content, materials, and information without prior written permission is strictly prohibited.
Applicable Laws. Any claim arising out of or related to access or use of the website shall be governed by, construed and enforced under the laws of the State of Texas. Any action arising out of or related to access or use of the website shall be filed only in the appropriate state or federal court in Denton, Texas. Access or viewing of the website constitutes the user’s express permission and consent to the jurisdiction of appropriate state or federal courts in Denton, Texas.
-
Why are Divorced Holidays so Damn Hard
by admin
-
Gender Discrimination and the Working Mother
January 19, 2009 by chadMeet Elana Back. She was a school psychologist at a New York elementary school, who may be able to help you answer this question. Ms. Back took a three-month parental leave and claimed that upon her return her female supervisors made discriminatory comments regarding her motherhood, suggesting such things as waiting to “get pregnant until she retires,” or until “her son was in kindergarten.” They also suggested that she may not have the ability to work because she had “little ones” at home and it may not possible to be a good mother and perform her job.
She was denied tenure and terminated. The school alleged that she was terminated because she “lacked organizational and interpersonal skills.” Her position was that she was termination because her employer felt that she could not succeed in her job while being a mother of young children. Back v. Hastings-On-Hudson Union Free School District (2004).
In a 2004 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that the use of motherhood stereotypes of female employees is gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in public employment. The appeals court found that Back’s factual allegations regarding the comments made about “a woman’s inability to combine work and motherhood” constituted direct evidence of gender discrimination.
A rationale for the decision may have been the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003). In Hibbs, the court ruled that “notions that mothers are insufficiently devoted to work, and that work and motherhood are incompatible” constitute gender discrimination. The basis of their finding was that it was easy to determine that stereotypical statements that a woman cannot be a “good mother and have a job that requires long hours,” or that a mother who received tenure “would not show the same level of commitment [she] had shown because [she] had little ones at home” were discriminatory.
Generally, discrimination cases require that the Plaintiff show that others not in their protected class are treated differently. Back failed to offer such evidence as 85% of the teachers in her school were female. The court agreed that Back’s case would have been stronger had she offered comparative evidence about men but the court held that such evidence was not required.
This decision was rendered based on Ms. Back being a public employee (Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment). Our hypothetical could be in the public or private sector. In either event though, the legal rationale should be consistent and any presumption by your employer that combining work and motherhood are incompatible and make you a less capable or devoted employee, may constitute gender discrimination.
-
Women in Business
by chadWomen In Business
The Force is with You!
Are you interested in partaking in a statistical experiment?
If the approximately 20 million firms that exist in American were each assigned identification numbers and you were selected to randomly select a single phone number to call from those firms, odds are that when you were patched through to an owner, the voice on the other end would be female. Surprised?
According to the Center for Women’s Business Research, nearly 10.4 million firms are owned by women and they generate $1.9 trillion in sales! Of those firms, 7.7 million (74%) are controlled by women (who own 50% or more). Majority women-owned businesses grow at around two times the rate of all firms. Women have clearly arrived!
Statistically, women tend to be risk takers, employe more relationship focused management styles and belong to more formal business organizations or networks. They are also more likely to rely on external professional services such as accountants, financial advisors and attorneys (YEAH!)
Armed with this information, you may say to yourself, “Self, I’m a capable woman, why don’t I start my own business?” Good question. Then your next thought might be, “What do I need to consider in starting a business?” I’m glad you asked.
Although, a comprehensive list of considerations would be quite extensive, we’ll discuss some of the more important issues. First, is your idea or concept new and proprietary and does it merit patent or copyright consideration? Regardless of the answer, have you determined the level of personal risk you and/or your family are willing to take to be in business? You should be aware that if you choose to be a sole proprietor and not form a corporation, limited liability company or limited partnership, you expose yourself to potential personal liability that may be protected in properly structured, managed and papered alternative entities.
There are simple items that need to be addressed such as understanding the land use or zoning for the location you may select for your business, other than your home. If you locate a business outside your home you may need a certificate of occupancy from the city or town. Entering into a lease agreement for your office or retail space? You may want to understand what’s contained in those twenty-five pages. Are you familiar with triple net leases, CAM charges, guarantor obligations?
You would want to speak with your insurance agent to understand what insurance coverage’s might be available to protect you and your business. A visit with a CPA will help you be aware of tax implications related to the entity structure you choose for your business. Subchapter S corporations, limited liability companies and partnerships can all be designed to allow income and expenses to “flow through” to the owner(s) own personal tax statement. You need to understand how you account for franchise taxes, guaranteed payments and distributions?
If you are going to have employees there are a number of issues in which your CPA and attorney can advise you including employment and contractor law and agreements as well as payroll, franchise, withholding taxes and the like.
What about purchasing a franchise or an existing business? Again there are a multitude of items to be examined and details to be comprehended. The purchase of a business should involve a seasoned attorney who can assist you in contract preparation and the orderly transition to ownership. There are far too many considerations to leave this to chance. One of the saddest situations that we deal with are individuals and entrepreneurs who enter into agreements without the counsel of an attorney only to find out that they did not get what they thought they’d bargained for or they got trapped by a contractual nuance that they thought they understood but didn’t.
Another issue you may want to address, whether starting a business or as a part of an existing business is what happens to your business in the event of death, divorce, or disability. If you have a business partner do you want to have their spouse as a partner if your partner dies or is divorced? Many times the answer is no. These issues can often be dealt with at the time your entity is formed in the by-laws or regulations that govern the operations of the entity. You can also create buy-sell agreements that provide for an orderly transition in the event of death and, if backed by life insurance, can provide a funding mechanism for the purchase of a partner or shareholders interest.
Forming, managing, documenting and operating your business can seem like a daunting task, but with proper advise and attention to detail, you should do fine.
Remember women of corporate America, you’re already at the wheel of the business ship at least half the time. You’re risk takers with compassion. You are succeeding in record numbers. You are the force!
-
Do You Have the Will Power – Estate Planning
by chadDO YOU HAVE WILL (POWER)
What you should know
Do you want to hear an amazing statistic? More than sixty per of the eligible people in the U.S. have no will (power). No, I’m not talking about the willpower it takes to be able to push away from the table; I’m talking about the Will power that ensures your loved ones are taken care of after you are gone.
The fact is most people just do not want to deal with their own mortality. Consequently, they avoid thinking about it, talking about it and certainly planning for it. Guess who suffers? Your spouse and yours kids.
Who needs a will you ask? Just about everyone who has a job, an asset or a minor child.
You should know that if you do not have a will the sate of Texas has one for you. In the event you die intestate (without a will) your estate will be distributed according to an inflexible plan, which must be adhered to by the probate court. These intestacy rules may or may not reflect how you would prefer your assets to be distributed or how you’re minor children will be cared for.
You should know that your will controls the entire distribution of your estate except for the community property of your assets that are already owned by your spouse, jointly owned assets with the right of survivorship, where an asset has a specific beneficiary designation (think life insurance policies) or where an asset has a automatic transfer on death designation (think checking and savings accounts).
You should know that your spouse is taken care of. A will may designate that all of the deceased spouse’s assets pass to the surviving spouse. Without a will, this would not be true as both your spouse and your children would have a portion of the estate pass to them by law.
You should know that without a will your children will be treated equally regardless of need or special circumstances. They will also be entitled to receive their full inheritance upon turning 18 to spend as they see fit. Admit it. An eighteen year old with money might be just a bit unsettling. And by the way, who’s in charge of the minor children in the event both parents should die? Without a will a judge you have never met that doesn’t know your kids or your sister or any family member, may make that decision for you.
You should know that if you have elderly parents who depend on you for support that they may be left with no options upon your death. Also, that college fund money or that classic pick-up that you had designated for your grandchild becomes part of the probate estate to be distributed according to the intestacy laws if you do not have a will.
You should know that without a will that your sister, whom you dearly love except when she’s with her domineering, overbearing husband, may be appointed executor by the court to make decisions for the estate, to administer the distribution of the assets and possibly to help the judge decide that it is in the best interest of the children to live with she and her husband. Yes that’s the same husband that you won’t even leave your kids with for an afternoon.
There are many other issues to consider, including tax implications in the event your estate is reasonably substantial.
One other tidbit for you to consider, situations change; your assets grow, you have another child, you get an inheritance, your kids are all adults. Does your current will cover your current situation? If not, you should consider a visit to your lawyer to address the changes that have occurred in your life since your last will was drafted.
Remember this; the long-term well-being of your spouse and your children is tied up in your decision to have a will or to die intestate. Only you know what is in the best interest of your family and the only way that you can ensure what happens after you have departed is to have WILL (POWER) while you are still with them.
-
Community Property – The Stories Men Tell
by chadYOU AND THE LAW
(The Stories Men Tell)
A repeating scenario that plays itself out in the offices of lawyers throughout Texas goes something like this:
A woman, distraught over the eminent break-up of her marriage arrives at the offices of her chosen attorney for the initial consultation. Before the attorney has a chance to glean the details of her situation, the woman, hump-shouldered at the conference table, tears welling in her eyes, says, “I don’t know what I’m going to do. My husband has always handled the finances and I know nothing about divorce, very little about what we own or our investments, what’s in our bank accounts or how much money we have. I can’t even afford an attorney.
“He says he can prove I’m a bad Mother and get custody of the kids. He says the business he owns but that we started together is his. He even says he’ll get possession of the house. He’s got a huge retirement account that he says I can’t touch. What am I going to do.”
First, stop listening to your husband! It’s likely that he doesn’t know any more about divorce law and property rights than you. (This may be true of your well-intentioned friends as well.)
Second, do not agree to any settlement without consulting an attorney. Bet your money that he’ll be represented and if your not, you probably fair poorly.
Texas is a community property state and often refereed to as an “equitable distribution” state. That’s important for you to remember. The concept of “community property” in Texas was spawned from Spanish Civil Law and continues to this day in Texas as its civil law process. The community property system is driven by both the “operation of law” and case law decisions and does not require voluntary agreement from the spouses. Spouses do not have the option not to be governed by the laws of community property and in Texas the presumption of the community estate is automatic. Although courts have discretion in dividing property in a divorce and may not divide property “equally”, they typically make their decisions equitably along “community property” lines. Married couples may though, during the marriage and by agreement, choose to divide their community property into separate property (this is a topic for another day).
During the marriage, neither the wife nor the husband acquires ownership of community assets through the other. The community interest occurs at the moment assets are acquired and continues so as long as the couple owns the asset. In the event that the legal ownership to an asset is vested solely in the name of one of the spouses, that spouse generally holds the property for the community estate (half for the other spouse), during the term of the marriage. Accordingly, in Texas, the wife and husband share equally in assets acquired during the term of the marriage. (This does not apply to assets owned prior to and brought into the marriage and may be different if assets were acquired while living in another state.)
So how does the woman in our example respond armed with this knowledge?
She smiles and says, “Well, Mr. Man, I happen to know that Texas is a community property state. Half of anything we acquired during our marriage, including our house, our investments, our savings and cash, as well as ‘your business’ may already be mine. Oh, and don’t forget the retirement account too.”
“As for the kids, talk to my attorney.”
-
Tort Reform
by chadTORT REFORM
GOOD OR BAD?
By Chuck Elsey
Most of us are aware of the McDonalds case where a 79 year old woman was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages because she spilled a cup of McDonald’s hot coffee in her own lap. I’m sure like most Texans you were immediately shocked by the size of the award. Cases such as this fostered cries for tort reform.
George Bush was and is a huge supporter of tort reform and began pushing the issue when he was Governor of Texas. Effective September 1, 2003 Texas adopted a medical malpractice bill that limited non-economic damages to a total of $250,000 from all doctors and other individuals, $250,000 from each hospital or other institution and a total of $500,000 from all institutions.
Tort reform is a controversial issue that divides the country mostly along party lines. If you like tort reform, get ready, because there’s a good chance more is on the way.
An important development that may well be the deciding factor in determining the extent of tort reform is the “new”, more conservative, Supreme Court’s apparent sympathy to business.
There seems to be a new willingness among the justices to become involved in business litigation which could have a substantial impact on tort reform. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed friend-of-the-court briefs in 15 cases on behalf of its corporate members, winning 13 of those cases, the highest winning percentage in its 30-year history. According to Akin, Gump, a law firm with an active Supreme Court practice, 40% of the cases heard by the court during the current term involved issues significant to business compared to about 30% during the previous two terms. Nearly 50% of cases for the next session involve business. Given recent decisions by the Court, there is a current push to have it go beyond its recent decisions and set out a formula to cap punitive damages.
America’s current tort system has been under attack for being too costly and incapable of administering fair and timely awards. A recent actuarial study by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin indicates that tort costs rose 125% ($67 to $152 billion) from 1984 to 1994. The costs of litigation have burdened American families and businesses with higher insurance premiums, reduced incentives for auto safety features, and higher medical costs. In addition, it often costs plaintiffs 33 percent of their awardl (lawyer’s contingency fees) just to have access to the current American tort system.
Although primarily a Republican backed cause, Senator Joe Lieberman, a prominent Democrat, supports tort reform. A spokesman for Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, told the Wall Street Journal that the tort system “drives up costs, stifles innovation, limits products available to consumers and undercuts the competitive advantage our leading companies have.”
Conversely, Senator and former V. P. candidate John Edwards asks what happens when a child is blinded or paralyzed for life because of someone’s negligence? “He [Bush] proposes what they get for that is $250,000.” (Mike Allen and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post, Jul. 26). This seems to be a sound argument but as Edwards knows, damages to cover future earnings, the costs of care, and other identifiable damages, would often amount to millions of dollars in actual damages in such a case and would be collectable even given proposed tort reform. Current tort reform is focused on only that portion of the awards which covered “non-economic” elements such as pain and suffering and punitive damages.
The fact that awards for punitive and pain-and-suffering damages are at this time calculated at two to three times actual medical costs sometimes lead to excessive use of physician and chiropractor services. Proposed legislation prevent the system’s current payment of two dollars paid out for every dollar paid by an injured party for actual damages and out-of-pocket costs, and would radically reduce attorney’s estimated $15 to $20 billion annual take from auto cases.
The arguments against further tort reform are many. Most injured parties in a tort action cannot afford to pay to prosecute a lawsuit (which can range from several thousand dollars to millions in large complex litigation cases) and therefore they may have no access to the court system given the limitations of proposed tort reform. Accordingly, lawyers have often accept these type cases on a contingency fee bases where they can earn 33% up to 45% of the settlement or verdict. Lawyers take great risk in accepting cases on a contingency fee bases. If they lose they earn nothing for their efforts. Therefore they deserve to be rewarded for both their work and incentivized for their risk.
Also, minimization of pain and suffering and punitive damage awards eliminates much of the upside for lawyer’s who, heretofore, have been willing to take such risks. To realize the downside to you, the individual, of this type tort reform, one only need find a patient who has tried to find a lawyer to take a medical malpractice case since the law changed in 2003. With the upside incentive statutorily eliminated, many lawyers have reduced or abandoned their practice in this area of law. The same could be true if tort reform creeps in to other areas of litigation.
The question for each of us to answer as a voter is whether we are willing to have a tort system that many think has been unfair and resulted in unfathomable verdicts be overhauled, knowing that we are being asked to sacrifice our individual rights to make the world a better place for business and to lessen the drain on the economy?
Hopefully, sound minds prevail and the “new” tort reform system will be constructed to create equilibrium between the overall economic benefit to the country of such reform and the need for individuals to have adequate entrée into the court system to recover reasonable damages for pain and suffering and some modicum of punitive damages for the negligence of others.
This information is not intended to be legal advice and is intended to provide general information only. Do not assume that any information contained herein applies to your specific situation without consulting an experienced attorney. Sending e-mail or requesting an initial consultation does not create an attorney client relationship.
Chuck Elsey is the senior member of Elsey & Elsey, a general practice law firm located in Flower Mound, Texas (972-906-9695). In 2006 Elsey & Elsey was voted the “Best Law Firm in Denton County” by readers of The News Connection.
-
To Drill or Not to Drill
by chadTO DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL…..
The issue of urban drilling has become a political maelstrom tearing at the fiber of our peaceful community.
The Town of Flower Mound, known to have one of the strictest oil and gas drilling ordinances in north Texas, recently supported a decision by its Oil and Gas Board of Appeals standing by the Boards ruling regarding the denial of fifteen variances requested by Red Oak Gas to permit a drill site on the property now known as the “River Walk.” The decision was unanimous and the Board will defend its decision in Denton County court.
The Town’s decision on this particular application does not seem to be arbitrary given that as of May, the Town has already provided drilling permits for 21 wells on 9 separate drill site locations, most in less densely populated areas.
Passions related to urban drilling in Flower Mound run deep on both sides from the “just say no to drilling” campaign to mineral owners who feel overly restrictive Town ordinances are denying them their rights which they say constitute an undue taking of their property. Conversely, citizens who have invested significantly in their residences feel that urban drilling without tight restrictions threaten the value of their properties and the beauty of their environment. This may sound intransigent; but ask yourself how much you would pay for a home with a four acre production facility 300 feet from your backyard?
There is no doubt that the atmosphere in Flower Mound is supercharged and battle lines are being drawn around this topic.
Obviously, the issues are complex, both politically and legally. Texas was built on oil and gas and consequently there is strong case law that supports the right to extract minerals. To the confusion of many, the law is consistent in holding the mineral estate as the dominant estate, and as such, it takes precedent over the surface estate.
Many legal and energy experts opine that several area cities could face costly litigation if they don’t reconsider their seemingly recalcitrant setback rules separating homes from gas wells. Those supporting 1,000 foot setbacks cite noise reduction, safety, property values and a pristine Flower Mound as reason enough to prevent the proliferation of “sub-division” wells.
The genesis of any such litigation would be in the undue taking of property, in this case the minerals, which could result in millions of dollars of potential liability related to the value of the unrecoverable minerals. It stands to reason that if an individual owns property that has significant value and a company has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for the right to capture that value, that city policies rendering both the minerals and the investment valueless will be challenged.
Many other cities who have been confronted with this possibility have either backed off stricter restrictions or opted to adopt less stringent rules to avoid potential litigation. With Red Oak’s filing of their appeal, Flower Mound has become the recipient of the first salvo in what could be a long and arduous battle.
Remember, this is not a lawsuit; it is an appeal of a governmental ruling. Existing legal precedent notwithstanding, there is not necessarily a clear cut favorite in this matter. In this case Red Oak has been denied fifteen separate variances related to its drilling application. If the Town’s decision was only related to offsets, it might struggle to prevail since it has received letters of support for the drilling application from the offset land owners. However, the denied variances include issues related to the floodplain, environmentally sensitive water issues, protecting upland and riparian habitat, tank battery location and right-of-way issues. Even if the Town loses in regard to the setback issues, it is possible that it could still prevail in blocking the application by being successful on only one of these remaining issues.
If litigation evolves from urban drilling it will not turn on the angst of those Town citizens who are generally in opposition. The issues are specific and differ for each location and those immediately affected by such drilling will have the loudest voice in the courtroom.
As the possible number of drillable locations diminish and as companies struggle to find a drill site that can meet Town restrictions, the outcry from both sides of this issue will grow louder. So far the Town and its Council have chosen to stick to their collective guns, choosing to fight each battle on its merits and resisting efforts to loosen restrictions to the dismay of many mineral owners.
It is a very interesting and sensitive balancing act in which our Town leaders have been burdened. Both sides have very legitimate arguments regarding the dispute over urban drilling and something to lose depending on its outcome.
It seems almost certain that with swords drawn and deep lines etched in the dirt on both sides, that in the foreseeable future the debate will rage, the newspapers will continue to follow the issue and many of us may be jamming courtrooms to discover the definitive answer.