same-sex marriage Archives - Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Spousal Benefits for Same-Sex Marriages

June 23, 2021/in Family Law /by Riley Pennington

In recognition of Pride month, it is important to highlight the spousal benefits that were awarded to same-sex couples when same-sex marriage became legal. Although same-sex marriage was legalized in California in 2013, the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges, that same-sex marriage was legal federally. This decision awarded many couples spousal benefits they were denied for so long.

What are Spousal Benefits?

In some situations, couples can receive advantageous benefits simply because they are married that non-married couples do not have access to. Some spousal benefits include social security benefits, health insurance, tax benefits, retirement, among others. In California, same-sex couples initially had to register as domestic partners to gain access to some of these benefits or they were outright denied altogether. However, since the landmark case Obergefell, same-sex couples are now eligible for spousal benefits that have historically been exclusive to heterosexual couples. This highlights a large step forward for equal same-sex couple rights to many Californians.

Social Security Spousal Benefits for Married Same-Sex Couples

If you are not eligible for social security because you have never worked or paid an insufficient amount into social security, you could potentially claim spousal benefits and receive some of your spouse’s social security. This allows you to receive up to 50% of your spouse’s social security payments and it does not impact the amount they receive. In order to claim these benefits, you must be 62 or older, your spouse must already be receiving social security and you must be married for at least a year. Some exceptions may apply to some cases.

Employer-Provided Health Insurance Coverage for Married Same-Sex Couples

When an employer offers their employees health insurance, generally that employee can extend their health insurance coverage to their immediate family which includes their spouse and their children. Historically, same-sex couples were not able to maintain health insurance for their partners because the state did not recognize their union. This often would put a burden on the non-employee partner to secure their own health insurance which could be costly. However, now that same-sex marriage is recognized as a legal marriage in the state of California, a same-sex spouse can be insured on their spouse’s employment provided health insurance absent any restrictions or barriers.

Tax Benefits for Married Couples

Married couples are potentially eligible for a multitude of tax benefits simply because they married that non-married couples are ineligible for. This includes filing a joint tax return which could lead to a lower amount of income taxed for both individuals. As mentioned above, a spouse can receive tax free health care coverage from their spouse’s employer. Additionally, same-sex married couples are also eligible for many tax benefits involving executing an estate. This is merely a small snapshot of the various tax benefits that married couples enjoy.

How Do I Learn More About What Spousal Benefits I Qualify for?

If you or a loved one would like to learn more about spousal benefits, please contact one of our experience attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri for additional information here.

Please remember that each individual situation is unique, and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

The Upcoming W.N.B.A. Battle: Setting Precedent for Same-Sex Couples with Children

July 1, 2015/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

W.N.B.A. players Brittney Griner, last season’s defensive player of the year, and Glory Johnson, two-time All-Star, had a controversial relationship leading up to their marriage on May 8, 2015. Even more provocative are the actions taken by Ms. Griner a month after the couple was married and a day after Glory Johnson announced her pregnancy.

On April 22, 2015, the couple was arrested following a domestic disturbance at their home. As a result of the fight, Ms. Griner received a bite wound on her finger and scrapes on her wrist, and Ms. Johnson received a cut above her lip and a concussion. Ms. Griner pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct, while Ms. Johnson pleaded not guilty and her case was dismissed.

At a time of increased scrutiny of domestic violence and athletes, the league suspended both players for seven out of their thirty-four game season— the longest in league history. According to Laurel J. Richie, president of the W.N.B.A., “The W.N.B.A. takes all acts of violence extremely seriously. It is our strong belief that violence has absolutely no place in society, in sports or in this league. As president, it is my reasonability to protect the league and uphold its values. Our athletes represent the W.N.B.A., and they all must abide by the league’s standards of conduct. In this case, Brittney and Glory failed to do so, and that is unacceptable.”

Despite these troubles, the couple proceeded to marry. However, only 28 days later, Ms. Griner filed for an annulment. Ms. Griner made the following statement, “I can confirm that today [June 5^th] I filed for an annulment. In the week prior to the wedding, I attempted to postpone the wedding several times until I completed counseling, but I still went through with it. I now realize that was a mistake.” In response, Ms. Johnson’s agent, D.J. Fisher, stated that Ms. Johnson “loves Brittney and made a huge sacrifice to carry a child, put her career on hold, invest in their relationship and their future.”

It is anticipated that the couple will be heading for a battle as they have vastly conflicting opinions of Ms. Johnson’s impending motherhood. Ms. Griner claims that she does not even know when Ms. Johnson became pregnant and she has no biological connection to the baby. Ms. Johnson claims that Ms. Griner was a “willing participant, consenting and signing all the necessary documents” for the in vitro fertilization.

The law has been changing in regards to same-sex couples, most recently with the United States Supreme Court finding that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Courts have been trying to navigate the waters in terms of the rights and privileges of same-sex couples. In recent years, there have also been developments relating to their child support obligations.

Courts have asserted a number of bases for “an obligation on the part of the parent’s former same-sex partner to provide financial support for the child,” including a finding of an obligation based at least in part on a contract or promise. In Karin T. v. Michael T., the parties had two children by means of artificial insemination. Before this procedure, “the partner executed an agreement stating[:] ‘a. That such child or children so produced are his own legitimate child or children and are the heirs of his body, and b. That he hereby completely waives forever any right which he might have to disclaim such child or children as his own.’” Additionally, the parties had lived together in the same household for six years and both contributed to the support of the family and the children. The court found under these circumstances and the provisions of the agreement between the parties there was an enforceable contract. The court stressed that “the document that was signed by the partner, by which these children were brought into the world, gave rise to a situation that needed to provide these two children with remedies.” To hold otherwise, the court stated, would allow the partner to escape her responsibilities in supporting the children.

As the law continues to shift in regards to same-sex marriages, the very public Griner-Johnson separation will likely bring attention to child support obligations of same-sex partners. If Ms. Griner “fights paying child support, it could set a precedent in the state for same-sex couples.” As Arizona lawyer Claudia D. Work stated, “This is going to come down to whether the court will hold Ms. Griner to contractual promises.”

If you have any questions about same-sex marriage or any other issue, the Certified Family Law Specialists at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex family law matters. Please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri for further information. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Source: Julie A. Nice, Symposium, The Descent of Responsible Procreation: A Genealogy of an Ideology, 45 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 781, 798 (2012).

Source: Child Support Obligations of Former Same-Sex Partners, 5 A.L.R.6th 303 (Originally published in 2005).

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/sports/basketball/wnba-suspends-brittney-griner-and-glory-johnson-in-domestic-violence-case.html?_r=0

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/05/wnba-brittney-griner-annul-marriage_n_7523708.html

Source: http://www.bostonherald.com/inside_track/celebrity_news/2015/06/wnba_war_the_day_after_glory_johnson_reveals_shes_pregnant

Tax and Estate Planning for Same-Sex Couples

August 1, 2014/in Estate Planning, In the Community, Probate /by David Patton

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples is a form of segregation that the Constitution cannot tolerate.

In June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Windsor, held that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages and that it is up to state Legislatures to define marriage within state boundaries. Since then, numerous law-suits challenging the constitutionality of state DOMAs on equal protection and due process grounds have prevailed in various federal and state courts. Currently, 19 states, including California, plus the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage (recognition states), while 40 states prohibit it (non-recognition states).

The prevailing prediction is that a Supreme Court guarantee of a right to marriage is on its way. American support for same-sex marriage is at a new high of 55 percent, and California support is at 61 percent and increasing, if the trends continue. It is important for all couples to create an estate plan. Additionally, it is important for same-sex couples to be aware of the potentially complicated issues that arise when they move across state lines.

Same-Sex Couples Living in California

Same-sex married couples now living in California enjoy the same benefits and burdens under state and federal law as married opposite-sex couples. Before Windsor and IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (which extended federal tax benefits to married same-sex couples, regardless of their state of residency), many married opposite-sex couples likely took this preferential treatment for granted.

Some of these benefits include:

Property transferred between spouses incident to a divorce is not subject to income or gift tax;
Spousal support (alimony) payments are tax deductible to the paying spouse;
Child support payments are not subject to income tax;
Spouses receive a community interest in 401(k) accounts and other retirement plans; and
Spouses receive all community property and anywhere from one-third to all of the deceased spouse’s separate property for intestate (when a person dies without a will or other non-probate instrument) inheritance purposes.

All couples should be aware of their legal rights at marriage, divorce, and death. It is important for both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples to consider pre-marital agreements, estate plans, and any tax consequences that arise from marriage or divorce.

The Marital Status of Migrating Same-Sex Couples

When a same-sex couple moves out of California, their marital status will depend on the other state’s law with regards to various issues including, state tax filing status, intestate succession, guardianship and conservatorship appointments, and adoption and artificial reproductive technologies. In other words, a non-recognition state may not recognize the otherwise valid same-sex marriage.

If and when the Supreme Court guarantees a right to marriage, moving across state lines will no longer be an issue for same-sex couples. However, in the interim, it is important to be aware of the possible legal consequences.

For example, under Florida law, the definition of “heir” does not include same-sex spouses for intestate inheritance purposes. This means that a same-sex couple that was married in California, but permanently living in Florida, will not inherit from each other under the Florida intestate system. Some courts in non-recognition states are willing to recognize same-sex marriage in certain contexts through the doctrine of comity, which is where a court gives deference to another state’s laws. However, most surviving spouses want to avoid litigation because it can be a headache, requiring time, money, and mental energy.

In some cases, it might be worthwhile for same-sex spouses to opt out of the intestate system with non-probate instruments, such as estate plans. A same-sex couple’s estate plan needs to be drafted with precision, specifically naming beneficiaries, rather than using general terms such as “spouse.” This becomes especially important if a same-sex couple moves to a non-recognition state, where the court may not interpret a same-sex spouse to qualify as a spouse or heir. If any other blood related heirs of the deceased spouse were to contest the non-probate instrument, they could end up inheriting property that would have gone to the same-sex spouse in California or another recognition state.

If you are a same-sex couple and are considering marriage, or need to create or update an estate plan, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling complex family law and estate planning matters and offer a free consultation.

Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Tax Ruling: Joint Federal Tax Returns For Everyone!

August 30, 2013/in Family Law /by Gina Policastri

For many married couples across the country, filing your federal taxes just got a lot less complicated. As of last Tuesday, if you are a part of a legal same sex marriage, you will be treated just like heterosexual married couples under federal tax laws. The Treasury Departments and the IRS just announced that all married couples will receive identical benefits for filing jointly regardless of where the couple lives.

“Today’s ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve,” Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a written statement*

The tax ruling, however, will not apply to persons in civil unions or domestic partnerships. Nevertheless, the ruling is another huge milestone for same-sex couples. Moving forward, everyone will receive the same treatment across the board.

If you have any questions regarding your marriage or are interested in creating a prenuptial agreement, please contact our California Certified Family Law Specialists (as certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization) at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. Our attorneys have decades of experience handling a wide array of family law cases and are more than happy to meet with you for a free consultation.

Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

*Via Fox News, “IRS Extends Tax Benefits to Married Gay Couples.” Find the full text here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/irs-issues-tax-rules-for-married-gay-couples/#ixzz2dTc44G5n

D.C. Provides Same-Sex Couples with Divorce

February 1, 2012/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

This summer, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the state’s courts had jurisdiction to grant the divorce of a same-sex Wyoming couple who legally married in Canada. (See Blog). Now, Washington D.C. is set to provide same-sex couples who got married in the District of Columbia with a way to get divorced. (See Article)

D.C. began allowing same-sex marriage in 2010; however, those marriages are not recognized in most jurisdictions, which means that divorce proceedings cannot be started since the marriages are not recognized in the first place. After hearing reports that same-sex couples who wed in D.C. were being denied divorces after moving to jurisdictions that do not recognize same-sex marriage, a D.C. councilman proposed legislation to help give these couples more options. The bill removes a six-month waiting period during which someone seeking a divorce must reside in the district, as long as the marriage took place in D.C.

Same-sex marriage and divorce continues to be a developing area of family law. New York considered a same-sex divorce case in early 2008 when a judge granted a divorce to a same-sex couple married in Canada. An Oklahoma court granted a divorce to a same-sex couple who married in Canada and filed using just their first initials and last names, only to revoke it upon discovering both parties were women on the grounds they were never legally married. As noted in the Wyoming blog post, the California Legislature recently made significant amendments to the law governing same-sex divorces in California. The State Assembly adopted the Separation Equity Act of 2010 which clarified that same-sex couples married outside the state are able to dissolve their marriage in California. Additionally, same-sex couples who married during the brief period in 2008 when same sex marriage was legal have the rights and benefits of married couples, including divorce.

If you have a family law matter and are interested in learning more on the law governing same-sex marriage or divorce in California, please contact the experienced Family Law attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri for further information. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Wyoming Supreme Court Grants Same-Sex Divorce

July 18, 2011/1 Comment/in Family Law /by Julia Lemon

Last month, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the state’s courts have jurisdiction to grant the divorce of a same-sex Wyoming couple who legally married in Canada.

This decision slightly enhanced the rights of same-sex couples in Wyoming, but does not address the more controversial issue of whether Wyoming will permit same-sex couples to marry. Wyoming law defines marriage, in part, as a civil contract between a male and a female person. It also provides that all valid, out-of-state marriage contracts are valid in Wyoming. However, this rule is not absolute and is subject to certain recognized exceptions, such as marriages that are deemed contrary to the law of nature, such as polygamous and incestuous marriages, and those which the legislature of the state has declared shall not be allowed any validity because they are contrary to the policy of its laws.

In its opinion, the Wyoming Supreme Court took great care in ensuring the decision was sufficiently narrow, and expressly limited its decision to the issue of divorce in a footnote: “Nothing in this opinion should be taken as applying to the recognition of same-sex marriages legally solemnized in a foreign jurisdiction in any context other than divorce. The question of recognition of such same-sex marriages for any other reason, being not properly before us, is left for another day.” Christiansen v. Christiansen, 2011 WY 90 (2011). Recognizing a valid foreign same-sex marriage for the limited purpose of divorce, however, does not negate the law or policy in Wyoming against allowing the creation of same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage was, and continues to be a developing area of family law. New York first considered a similar case in early 2008 when a judge granted a divorce to a same-sex couple married in Canada.

In an effort to simplify the separation process for same-sex couples, the California Legislature recently made significant amendments to the governing law. The State Assembly adopted the Separation Equity Act of 2010 which clarified that same sex couples married outside the state are able to dissolve their marriage in California. Additionally, same-sex couples who married during the brief period in 2008 when it was legal will have the rights and benefits of married couples, including divorce.

If you have a family law matter and are interested in learning more on the law governing same-sex marriage or divorce in California, please contact the experienced Family Law attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri for further information. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Posts