Law Blog

As the economy continues to get hit, bankruptcy filings also keep growing. Over the last 12 months LegalMatch.com has had several thousand customers come to our site seeking consumer bankruptcy attorneys. I was curious to see if our numbers matched up with those from the American Bankruptcy Institute, which tallied official federal records for consumer bankruptcy filings in 2008.  The following are LegalMatch’s top bankruptcy states: 

         State            Percentage of Total Filings

1. CA               14%
2. FL                8%
3. NY              5%
4. IL                 4%
5. TX               4%
6. VA               4%
7. OH              4%
8. MI               3%
9. AZ               3%
10. NJ              3%

Our top ten was very similar to the results from the American Bankruptcy Institute, with California leading the way in filings for 2008.

A few states are over-represented relative to their population on both lists. Florida, for instance, has significantly more consumer bankruptcy customers coming to LegalMatch.com than New York and Texas, who both outnumber Floridians substantially. Arizona and New Jersey also make the top ten despite being 14^th and 11^th in population.

Why is Florida being hit so hard? Florida is always near the top in every other negative economic indicator, such as foreclosures. Some Florida developments are beginning to resemble ghost towns full of brand new empty houses. Markets such as Florida suffer the most from boom and bust periods, which leads to higher bankruptcy rates as more and more residents run into problems from their radically devalued homes.

California may have suffered from a similar malaise; Bloomberg reported that February 2009 house prices in California dropped an average of 41% from February 2008, compared to only a 16% drop nationally over the same period. 58% of home sales during this time were foreclosure sales, surely a significant reason for the dramatic declines in value.

Looking at stats such as foreclosure rates, bankruptcy rates, and other economic statistics indicates that all these things are related. If one state is suffering in one area it is likely also suffering in another. Stay tuned to LegalMatch for more analysis of economic trends and how your state might be faring during this massive economic downturn.

A Florida Circuit Court has ruled that homosexuals can now legally adopt children in the state of Florida. (Thanks to How Appealing for the story). Florida was the only remaining state in America that banned people from being adoptive parents based solely on their sexual orientation. The court’s historic decision overturned the law on state equal protection and substantive due process grounds.

A Florida couple sought to adopt two foster care children that had been in their foster care for four years. Even though adoption officials unanimously agreed they were qualified and excellent parents, state law compelled them to decline their application because they were gay. (The particularly alarming facts concerning the children’s prior neglect can be found in the opinion here.)

The couple challenged the law prohibiting their adoption as unconstitutional. They claimed it violated fundamental rights guaranteed to children by Florida law and state equal protection guarantees. The court agreed.

The court recognized that Florida guarantees children permanency in an adoptive home. Uprooting children from foster care parents seeking full adoption can only be done for the best interests of the children. In this instance, denying qualified, loving foster care parents seeking full adoption-for no reason other than their sexual orientation-was not narrowly tailored to serving the best interests of the children. (As opposed to, say, discovering that the foster care parents are actually convicted felons.)

Florida’s ban also lost on equal protection grounds. According to government attorneys, Florida prohibited homosexual adoption to promote the well being of children, lessen the stigmatization of children raised by gay parents, and to uphold society’s “moral interests.” The court made significant findings of fact that none of the government’s stated interests were furthered by banning homosexuals from being adoptive parents. The court furthermore held that legislating moral interests-absent some other legislative purpose-was outside the province of government regulation. (I suspect only the hardcore legal philosophers among you will find this at all controversial.)

The decision is significant for a variety of reasons. First, this comes on the heels of Florida’s recent gay marriage ban. Second, child rearing and the importance of having a “traditional family” is often one of the arguments advanced by those who seek to limit gay marriage. A holding that government discrimination against homosexual parents cannot even pass a rational basis analysis severely undercuts arguments advanced by anti-gay marriage advocates regarding the importance of maintaining the “sanctity of marriage.” On the whole, even though Florida was the sole remaining state prohibiting adoption based solely on sexual orientation, the decision is definitely a positive development in advancing the rights of gays and lesbians in America.

Recently, the Trial Court Performance and Accountability Commission proposed a rule that would limit the public’s access to court information in Florida.  For almost 20 years, the court reporting office at the Palm Beach County Courthouse has furnished the public with recordings of court proceedings for a nominal price.  However, the proposed rule would limit public access to recordings, making them available only after they have been edited and approved by a judge.  The rule would also force people to buy transcripts at an increased cost, as much as $4.50 per page (which translates to hundreds or even thousands of dollars per case!). 

Many Floridians, including lawyers for the First Amendment Foundation in Tallahassee and the Florida Association of Public Defenders, oppose the proposed rule.  Some are concerned that citizens’ access to public information will be severely limited.  And public defenders have complained that they don’t have the budget to buy transcripts, which could unduly prejudice defendants whose cases depend on proving improper courtroom conduct.  Others worry about giving judges full discretion over who has access to public proceedings.  Some lawyers have nicknamed the rule the “Judicial Protection Act, based on the belief that the commission (which is largely comprised of judges) proposed the rule in order to protect their public behavior from being broadcasted to outsiders, including media such as YouTube. 

Proponents of the rule claim that it is intended to protect citizens’ private information, which can be disclosed during courtroom proceedings; for example, bank account and Social Security numbers can be divulged at child support hearings, and microphones can inadvertently pick up confidential conversations between attorneys and clients. 

It makes sense to me that confidential information about parties should be edited before recordings or transcripts are released to the public.  However, private citizens and attorneys with limited resources must be able to access these materials at a reasonable price.  Additionally, because unfortunately not all judges are upstanding arbitrators of justice, impartial third parties should be the ones editing the materials, not the judges themselves.  Otherwise, the risk of bias is too great, and the purpose of the courts – to provide justice for all – will be lost.

I know we still have a few months left in 2008, but I was curious: which U.S. States have the most divorces?  We all have hunches on which states are the most likely to grant a divorce, but I wanted facts.  So I dug deep into the LegalMatch database, and came out with more than a few surprises.

First off, over 50% of all divorces on LegalMatch are posted in the top 10 states.  52% to be exact, meaning the remaining 40 states (plus the outlying territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc., and pseudo states like the District of Columbia) together account for 48% of the divorces on LegalMatch in 2008.  This is surprising, because LegalMatch has cases and attorneys throughout the U.S. 

Why so many divorces in the top 10 U.S. states?  Population has to be a big factor: the bigger the state, the more divorces will happen.  Since LegalMatch is an online matching service, the results may also skew towards Net savvy states.  And what about social pressures?  Some states seem to take divorce more seriously than others, applying negative stigmas, and creating extra legal hurdles for couples to jump through before they can go their separate ways. 

Enough jabber – the divorce totals, please. 

Coming in at #10 through #6, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia, and Illinois all tied with 4% each of all divorce filing on LegalMatch in 2008.  That’s a pretty good smattering of states from different parts of the country – no clear trend there. 

North Carolina and New York shared the #5 and #4 spots with 5% each of LegalMatch 2008 divorce filings.  North Carolina… really? 

Florida came in at #3 with 6% of 2008 divorce filings on LegalMatch.  I would have guessed top 3.  It’s nice to be right every so often.

And now what I consider the biggest surprise: California came in at #2, with 8% of all divorce filings on LegalMatch in 2008.   I would have pegged California as number 1, since some celebrity marriages get annulled before the best man’s speech is over. 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess, if you really want to leave your spouse), the #1 distinction rests with… TEXAS.  In 2008, Texas accounted for 10% of all of LegalMatch’s divorce filings.  The Lone Star state is apparently also the Lone Spouse state.