Waiting to Divorce….Don’t Die in the Interim

     Sometimes, although not always, clients want to get their divorces settled, and then wait for “a while” until the final judgment of divorce is entered by the Court.  A myriad of reasons are offered; some that have true validity (I want to keep my spouse on my health insurance until he gets a job that offers those benefits); and some reasons are a little more, um, interesting (I just don’t want to get divorced yet…okay-so the past three, five, or 15 months of litigation was just foreplay?)

    Still, unless I have a judge breathing down my neck to get a case off of his docket, I typically tell the client, “There’s no rush on my part…I’ll still be here when you’re ready.”

    But what happens if, while the client is waiting to get the final judgment, the client, or the client’s spouse, dies?  I mean, after all, both parties entered into a settlement agreement intending to be bound by it, didn’t they? (Of course they did that with the marriage contract too,but that's ancient history)

    Oh no, my dear still married friends.  Death changes everything!  In fact, our very own appellate court (at least if you live in Broward, Indian River, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, St. Lucie or Martin Counties), in the case of Marlowe v. Brown, 944 So2d 1036 (4^th DCA 2006) said so!  In Marlowe¸ the husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement where they agreed to split all assets 50/50.  An order was entered ratifying the agreement, but, as luck would have it, the husband died before final judgment.  When the husband’s brother, as personal representative of the brother’s estate (and still brother-in-law of the surviving wife) tried to enforce the settlement agreement, the court said “no way,” and the divorce was dismissed! Too bad to that brother-likely all the assets of the deceased spouse (or at least those left pursuant to a will or the 33% left if there is no will) went to the almost, but not quite divorced spouse. In Topol v Polakoff 37 FLW D1330 (4^th DCA 2012), an IRA beneficiary had already been changed, but it was voided by the subsequent death of the spouse. So sad for the new “not” beneficiary.

    So, now, I make sure, when a client who has settled the case, wanted to wait, that I explain the potential “risk.”  Sure, it is not going to happen too often, but you never know.

     I guess, at least in Florida, those marriage vows should be amended to say “till death (or final judgment of divorce) do us part.” 

See Our Website: Law Office of CIndy S. Vova, P.A.

THE WHOLE ENCHILADA, INCLUDING THE EX-WIFE

                On a recent Saturday night I decided to try a relatively new restaurant in the Broward Mall…oh, excuse me, that’s Westfield Broward (sorry, old habits die hard…it was only renamed about seven years ago).  The establishment is called The Whole Enchilada, a Mexican-style casual eatery with tacos, burritos, quesadillas and, you guessed it, enchiladas.

                So while my husband was up ordering our dinners (hey, it was the weekend…and I needed a break), I decided to read the rest of the menu.  Understand that I read anything and everything.  Yes, I was the kid who read the cereal boxes in my youth and, as I said earlier, old habits die hard.  Lo and behold, what did I find as a double star entrée on the back page? Glad you asked, because you were probably wondering at this point what The Whole Enchilada has to do with a family law blog.   Well, a featured menu item is none other than THE EX-WIFE.  The description, taken verbatim, is as follows:

                                “Because it seemed like a good idea at the time…”

Those willing to take on the ex-wife challenge will have 45 minutes during one sitting to complete the entire burrito and all of its accompaniments.  If successful-it’s free and you will receive a TWE shirt and a forever gift of remembrance at The Whole Enchilada Fresh Mexican Grill.

The $39.99 entrée is:

                A combined 6 pounds of Mexican Rice, black or pinto beans, jack and cheddar cheese, salsa,      guacamole, lettuce and sour cream with your choice of charbroiled chicken, ground beef, pork or     tofu along with a healthy side of chips.

                Steak, Shrimp or Mahi Mahi (and, as the immortal Dave Barry says…I am NOT making this up) add $8.00.                            

                Okay, besides the obvious “this is so gross just reading it makes me want to…..” one wonders (or at least I did), why this entrée is called THE EX-WIFE.  And whose “good idea at the time” was it? Was it the “good idea’ of the person who named it? Or are they referring to the thought process of the prospective patron who actually orders this massive remembrance of a prior wife and decides that, regardless of the free t-shirt he simply cannot finish it? And, more significantly, why not THE EX-HUSBAND?  And regardless, did the inventor chose this combination of ingredients because he had a fat ex-wife? Because she was gross? Because she would always order the more expensive menu item (8 bucks more for steak, shrimp or mahi)? Or was it simply because he had a little too many tequila shots the night he penned the menu.

                In reality, I think it’s a little sexist to call this item THE EX WIFE.  Let’s be fair here. As a divorce and family law attorney who represents husbands and wives, and, consequently, helps these folks attain the status of “Ex” husband and wife, I think it is only fair that TWE (it’s shorthand for The Whole Enchilada) should have a parallel entrée called THE EX HUSBAND.   Except instead of filling a burrito with the aforementioned ingredients, perhaps it should be filled with “the hundreds of meals made for him, the tons of laundry washed for him, the several times he forgot her birthday, anniversary, etc., and, a whole bunch of other crap that the individual restaurant patron gets to select from the restaurant’s Ex Bar. Yes, I am kidding, they do not have an ex bar.  In reality, I am sure that many ex husbands could fill their burritos with an equally unappetizing list of ingredients.  

                I had contemplated contacting the company directly to inquire about the choice of name for its signature kitschy item, but I figured maybe I’d send them a copy of this and see if they decide to reply.     

                Still regardless of the innovation or motivation for this menu item, wouldn’t it be much nicer if the Ex Wife (or, if they go with my suggestion, Ex Husband) was a dessert item?  I mean, who doesn’t love dessert.