FAMILY LAW

PROFESSOR ROGERS

SAMPLE EXAM QUESTIONS

Question 1

Scott and Ann had been married for seven years in 1992 and living in
Minneapolis, Minnesota when Ann decided to go to medical school to pursue her dream
of becoming a physician. She hired a nanny to help look out for their two daughters, Sara
and Emily, who were 5 and 3, respectively while she attended school in Minnesota. Scott
paid the tuition and came home from work early whenever Ann needed to stay in the
library to study. In the meantime, Scott, who was not a college graduate, built up an
impressive business as an Executive Recruiter of software technicians.

By the time Ann was in her medical school residency, the strain of medical
school led to a breakdown of the marriage and in 1997, she and Scott decided to get
divorced. At the time of the divorce Ann was earning 30,000 a year as a resident; Scott
was earning $300,000. The parties separated under the following terms, which were then
merged into their divorce decree:
a. Their joint assets would be divided equally
b. Ann would retain title to the marital home
c. Scott would retain all rights to his pension
d. Scott would pay $1,500 per month in child support until the children
reached the age of majority, and $2,000 per month in spousal support
until September 2004
e. the parties agreed to joint physical and legal custody of the girls,
whereby the girls would spend every Monday, Tuesday, Saturday and
alternating Fridays with Scott, and every Wednesday, Thursday,
Sunday and alternating Fridays with Ann.

Following the divorce, Scott moved out of the marital home, and purchased a
three-bedroom house about one mile from the girls. The children, who are now 16 and
14, are well- adjusted and close to both parents.

Everything was going quite smoothly until last year when the economy suffered a
significant decline in general, with technology being hit particularly hard. Scott has seen
his income decline from $300,000 per year to next to nothing. His 2002 tax return
showed a gross income of $12,000. He has continued to meet his child support
obligations by using his savings. He has not made a spousal support payment for five
months, but had not heard any objection from Ann. This is not surprising because while
Scotts fortunes have fallen, Anns have risen dramatically. As a full-fledged physician,
she is now earning $135,000 per year.



Scott has decided that he must go back to school full-time to finish his college
education so that he can start a new career and earn some money again; he has been
accepted at the University of Minnesota. Ann has just informed him that she has been
offered a job to run a large HMO in Oregon, and that she is planning to move there with
the girls at the end of June. She told him that since he has stopped paying her spousal
support, she must make more money on her own, which the new job gives her.
Additionally, the girls could get closer to their grandparents, who live in Oregon. Ann has
told Scott that she is planning to move in with her new love, Mary, a woman she met in
Oregon last year while visiting her parents.

He has come to you concerning his present situation. As a preliminary matter, he
wonders whether his original attorney erred in not taking into account that he paid for his
ex-wifes medical school education; aside from any statute of limitation problem, did he
have any claim in this regard? Please advise him on this question and all other issues
raised by the facts.

QUESTION 2

Karen and Wayne met at a singles bar in Michiana in November of 2001. During
their brief courtship, Wayne told Karen that he was recently divorced and employed as a
manufactures representative for Canco Corp. Wayne also told her that his mother died
recently and as her sole heir he would soon inherit 250,000. On December 30, 2001
Karen sent the following letter to her mother:

Dear Mom,
Sorry I could be home for Christmas. Wayne has a business
meeting on the 26
th
so we had to stay here. Hes a wonderful
guysuccessful and confident. Hes been married, but has no
children and no debts. Wayne promises to be a good provider.
Guess Im lucky to have found him.

Love,
Karen

Karen and Wayne were married on January 27, 2002. To Karens dismay, Wayne
canceled their honeymoon trip to Atlantic City because of an important business deal.
Shortly thereafter, Karen received several phone calls from Waynes creditors. Karen
complained that nearly all of her salary as a registered nurse was being used to support
the couple. Wayne stated he would be at a business meeting in Chicago for the next two
days and that he didnt want to discuss personal matters there. On February 20, year 2
Karen called the Canco Corp to speak to Wayne. She was told that Wayne had been
discharged from his position with Canco in August of 2001. Karen also found a copy of
Waynes divorce decree in which Wayne was ordered to pay $60,000 in debts arising
from the marriage. Waynes creditors have filed lawsuits totaling $100,000 against him.
Wayne now admits that he lied to Karen about his employment and inheritance. Karen


wants to get an annulment. Discuss. If an annulment is not possible, explain the fastest
method for obtaining a divorce, assuming that Michianas divorce laws are the same as
New Yorks in terms of grounds.

Question 3

Herb and Win were married in New York 1980. At the time of their marriage, Herb was a
freelance writer who worked from home. In 1984, Win went back to work and obtained a
salaried position as a secretary, while Herb cared for Sam and the household. In 1990,
Win inherited gold coins worth $100,000 and a stock portfolio worth $250,000. Win
placed the gold coins into her personal safe deposit box and placed the stocks into a
brokerage account in her name alone.
In January 1999, the parties separated pursuant to a separation agreement. The agreement
was duly executed, acknowledged and filed on February 1, 1999, and on February 2,
2000, Win commenced an action for divorce. The court granted temporary custody of
Sam to Herb and ordered Win to pay $1,000 per month in child support during the
pendency of the action. The stock portfolio, which Win actively managed over the years,
is currently worth $500,000. The gold coins, which have remained in Win's safe deposit
box since 1990, have been valued at $200,000 as of February 2000. The court granted the
divorce and ruled that the stock portfolio and the gold coins were not subject to equitable
distribution.
Win timely made child support payments until March 2000, when Sam came to live with
her. She and Sam moved from New York to New Jersey five months ago, and since Sam
now lives with her full-time, she want to modify the support and custody arrangement.
Herb has remained in New York. Win has come to you seeking advice on which court
she should bring the proceeding. She also wants to verify that the original decree was
correct with respect to the equitable distribution ruling. You can refer to the UISFSA and
the UCCJA in deciding your response.

Question 4
Shortly after Sly met Amy in 1995, he asked her to marry him. When Amy agreed, Sly
bought and gave Amy an engagement ring worth $20,000. Six months later, Sly and Amy
were married in the State of Utopia.
The following year, after Amy gave birth to twins, Sly and Amy purchased a home. Sly
and Amy each contributed $50,000 of their own premarital money to purchase the home.
Soon thereafter, Sly, who earned his living as a traveling salesman, and was frequently


away from home, used $30,000 of his premarital money to open a joint savings account
with Amy.
In 2000, Amy discovered that Sly was engaged in an adulterous relationship, and she
sued him for a divorce and the equitable distribution of marital assets. At the trial, the
proof of Slys adultery was sufficient and uncontested. Sly testified to giving Amy the
engagement ring, and presented expert testimony to establish its value at $20,000. Sly
also testified that he had opened the $30,000 joint account with Amy as a matter of
convenience only, so that Amy would have money if an emergency arose when Sly was
away from home. Amy, however, testified that prior to marrying Sly, they had orally
agreed that their assets would be combined once they were married. At the conclusion of
the trial, the Court granted Amy a judgment of divorce and awarded her sole title to the
marital residence. In addition, the Court accepted Slys explanation for placing his
$30,000 into a joint account with Amy and (a) awarded the $30,000 account, together
with its accrued interest, to Sly alone, and (b) directed that the engagement ring be sold
and the proceeds divided equally.
1. Was ruling (a) correct?
2. Was ruling (b) correct?