When parties separate in anticipation of divorce, there are several key financial considerations that must be addressed at the outset. Who’s staying in the residence? Who’s paying support to whom, what, if anything, do we do with the marital assets and debts while the case is pending? Interim relief is not the final, disposition of assets; think of it as a band aid until the case can be concluded, or the parties and the Court can get their arms around what’s involved.

An initial consideration is who stays in the residence, or exclusive occupancy of the house. Note: this discussion does not address parties involuntarily removed from a home due to the filing of a petition for protection from abuse.

If the parties agree, typically, one party notifies the other that they intend to move. In a perfect world, the parties address how the household expenses will be paid, and there is no need for court or legal intervention. If the parties cannot agree on who vacates, then one or both parties will file a Petition for Exclusive Occupancy of the residence. This relief is only available if a Divorce Complaint is filed, because the Court does not have jurisdiction over the home in the absence of a Complaint.

Parties might seek exclusive occupancy when the discord in the residence is too high and could escalate. One or both parties may be unnecessarily intrusive on the other’s peace and quiet in the home. A party might be intercepting the other’s mail or monitoring phones or other devices. Often the deciding factor whether to direct that a party vacate is where there is a negative impact on children.

The Court will schedule a hearing on the issue of exclusive occupancy, and it will evaluate why parties seek this interim relief. The Court will hear testimony from the parties, and possibly interview the children. Each party will present evidence as to why they would be prejudiced in the absence of the sought relief. Examples of this evidence could include that the other party has an alternative place to reside; perhaps a second home is available. A party may have a family member who lives close by. The Court might consider the ability to afford the expense or upkeep of the shared property. This factor does not always favor the economically advantaged spouse. If a support award can provide adequate financial assistance, the Court might award the use of the property to the economically disadvantaged spouse. Note: this is discretionary relief. A Court might deny exclusive occupancy if no children are in the home, or if it appears that neither is able to afford the property without the other.

The next consideration is which party supports the other and the children. In most cases, this relief is triggered by the physical separation of the parties; in rare occasions, such support can be granted if the parties are under one roof.

Interim spousal support or alimony (pendente lite) continues until the final financial disposition in the case takes place, whereas a child support obligation survives a divorce decree. Support is based upon the Pennsylvania Support Guidelines, evaluating the disparity of the parties’ net income after taxes and other mandatory deductions. An interim support award must also ensure that the family’s health insurance needs are met and are neither disrupted or terminated. Often, there is an allocation of copays and deductibles. An interim support award might also consider an upward deviation for the mortgage if the support recipient is in the marital residence, or a downward deviation if the payor resides in the marital residence. The Court has discretion to include other reasonable and necessary payments after weighing the equities and prejudices to parties.

Finally, the filing of a Divorce Complaint raising economic claims confers the Court’s jurisdiction over the parties and their assets, giving it broad authority over what happens to assets and liabilities during the litigation. The Court might grant injunctive relief: many people ask about “freezing accounts” as a way to protect the dissipation of assets. The Court has to balance one party’s immediate need for funds against the preservation of assets for distribution or other interim needs. Often if funds are required to service a business or ongoing financial obligations such as credit card debt or mortgages, a Court might not interfere with the use of these funds.

Parties may seek advances, or interim distribution of assets, of all or a portion of assets which would otherwise sit idle during litigation. The thinking is one party should not be able to control assets to the others exclusion. The Court would later credit the recipient of these funds at equitable distribution. Likewise, the Court can direct payment of debts pending litigation. If credit card debt is accruing interest, the Court could direct that a party pay that debt if it can determine that there are funds that exist to pay it. If a party pays a debt pending litigation, they will seek credit for those payments.

A divorce filing does not mean that the financial world of parties grinds to a halt. There are mechanisms the Court may employ, and certainly divorcing parties may agree, to preserve their family finances and interim financial needs.

[View source.]