ILNews

Housing can cause conflicts in divorces

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus


There is often obvious animosity between a husband and wife who are divorcing, and for those still living under one roof, more problems can arise. One person might think of what he or she could do to oust their partner from the residence - no easy feat if the other party has nowhere else to go or simply doesn't want to leave.

In Indiana, this rarely happens before a preliminary hearing, unless there's domestic violence that leads to the granting of a protective order, Indianapolis family law attorney Patty McKinnon said.

In a typical divorce, she said, "Neither party has exclusive possession of the house, pending the preliminary hearing. The same applies to neither party having sole custody, or receiving child support, prior to a court order. Most attorneys tell their clients, 'We need to wait until the hearing occurs to get possession of the house.'"

She said attorneys will tell their clients the same thing for an order regarding custody, parenting time, or child support.

"So, virtually everything is up in the air until a preliminary hearing occurs," she added.

Typically, in Marion County it has been her experience that it can take three to four weeks, if not longer, for a preliminary hearing to take place, she said.

"So, is this an issue for the divorcing parties? Yes. Is there something the attorney can do about it prior to preliminary hearing? Not unless the client files for a protective order" that specifies one party be evicted.

She added this could also happen if the parties reach an agreement, in writing, to give one or the other possession of the house.

The Protective Order Pro Bono Project of Indianapolis, which is part of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, has had more clients in the past six months or so who have sought help after putting off divorce filings because of the economy but have reached a point where it's no longer safe to be in the same residence as an abusive partner, according to Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal director of ICADV and director of the POPBP.

While putting off a divorce might make sense for financial reasons - it is expensive to hire a divorce attorney and it's not always easy to sell a house in the current market without taking a loss - a bad economy is also something that can make an already volatile situation worse because of the stress of financial hardship, job loss, or the possibility of losing one's home.

In situations that do involve a married couple going through a divorce, Blomquist said it's not the norm but once in a while a client will ask for exclusive possession of the house. However, in most situations she and others at the POPBP will strongly encourage the victims to seek shelter instead of staying in the same place while trying to evict their partners.

"Indiana Code is drafted after the model code of family violence, which provides for circumstances allowing for economic relief. It doesn't make sense to revictimize a victim of violence by making that person leave," she said. "It's a viable remedy as is child support and restitution and other forms of relief."

She added, "Domestic violence advocates will say it's nice to have that available in some situations, but when there's high lethality, we will always recommend the person to go to a shelter."

Getting a person into a shelter is just part of the process, she said. She added that while many shelters are full at least partly because of the bad economy that doesn't mean there is nowhere for victims to go to be safe.

"We will find a place," she said. "We're planning holistic safety. I have to think, 'Am I empowering this person to live without them?' That might not be the case if they are staying in a house or apartment they can't pay for by themselves. Even if the person is benefiting in some way by staying, that sort of defeats the purpose in the long run."

There have been some exceptions, including a woman from the Middle East who was living with her husband who was abusive and rarely let her leave their home.

"She was beaten with a belt ... and emotionally abused," Blomquist said. "She was precluded from having a driver's license or money of her own. She was married to a wealthy guy who owned a big house and apartment complexes. ... Because she had been completely isolated, once we got a protective order we did request he be evicted. Her home was the only place she felt she could be safe, and he also had other places he could go to."

Blomquist said, "They all have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I never want to give the impression that it's a readily available remedy. ... People will think, 'I don't have to file for divorce, I'll just get a protective order,' and that takes it away from the victims who really need it."

She added the conflicts that arise during the process of going through a divorce should also be considered by family law attorneys and the courts that hear their cases.

"I don't think very real domestic violence issues are considered as much by family courts as they should be. ... The vast number of relationships that end do not end cheerfully. There is a lot of potential for very real danger in a highconflict divorce," she said.

She credited family law lawyers on the whole for recognizing the difference between cases that are "full of conflict and those that are unnecessarily or illegally dangerous," but added, "I wish we got more calls. We can provide statistics, and free expert testimony about domestic violence and patterns of behavior."

Because it's a statewide organization, she said, she and her co-workers can provide attorneys with contact information for agencies all over the state.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT