Who Keeps the House in a Divorce?

by Jennifer J. Riley

Knowing how to handle the house during separation and divorce in Pennsylvania can create the most insecurity during the process.  This post addresses some of the more common questions we answer related to the divorce process and the house (also commonly referred to as the “marital residence” in equitable distribution.)

Can I afford the house?

This is not an easy question to answer.  If you keep the house, you will likely need to refinance the house in order to remove your spouse’s name from the mortgage (if the mortgage is in both of your names).  You will also likely need to pay to your spouse a significant percentage of the equity value of the house. Please call us for a free consultation to receive legal advice as to how a house is valued in equitable distribution.  There are several details we will need in order to tell you how your house will be valued.

It is never too soon to discuss your pending divorce with a financial planner. A financial planner can help you investigate options available to you to help afford the mortgage after the divorce. Some things to consider will be:  the other assets you will have; whether you will receive or pay alimony; whether there is enough equity in the house. 

When we have all of the information related to your assets, your divorce lawyer can share with you different options available to help you afford the house.  We can look at your other assets, such as retirement accounts (including 401k Retirement Savings Plans), bank accounts, savings accounts, pensions, and more, to help you create a distribution and settlement that helps you keep the house.

If it will not be possible for you to keep the house, you will likely sell the house during or after the divorce process. Consulting with a realtor early in the process will help you understand the true fair market value of your house, and will help you decide if selling is right for you.

Can I leave the house during the separation and divorce process?

There is a great deal of “advice” on the internet suggesting that you refuse to leave your home during the divorce process.  In Pennsylvania, you do not lose your economic rights to the value of the house if you choose to move from the house.  Everyone has the right to live in a happy – and, most of all, SAFE – environment.  You are not a prisoner during the divorce process and the process can take anywhere from four months to several years, depending on the facts in your case; there is no reason to put your happiness on hold while the process continues.

If you move, you may not be able to move with the children – especially if you are relocating outside the county or state.  Please schedule a free consultation so that we can help you navigate moving from the home when you have children.  There are additional factors to consider when you are planning to move with your children from the house and we will provide you more detailed information to help you decide your next steps.

Do I have to pay the mortgage if I leave the house?

Generally speaking – and there are some exceptions – the spouse who continues to reside in the house is required to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and other necessary expenses for the house. If the payments are not being made and your house may face foreclosure, be sure to contact a divorce lawyer as soon as possible.

We are happy to discuss other matters related to your house and the divorce process. Please schedule a free consultation with one of our experienced attorneys. We can provide answers to your questions to help you make these important decisions, and to help you protect what matters most.


Limits of AI in the Law

by Tyler Kaestner

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems have captured the attention and fascination of many; with the launch of the revolutionary “ChatGPT,” AI has become more accessible than ever. With the next step in its evolution, the tech company OpenAI has already outdone their introductory GPT model with “GPT-4.” “GPT-4 is an updated version of the company’s large language model, which is trained on vast amounts of online data to generate complex responses to user prompts.”1 This ability to “generate complex responses” is referred to as “generative AI.” This technology has wide reaching applications – including integration in search engines, language learning programs, and in the legal field.2

            This base GPT-4 technology has quickly made its way into program offerings by legal research companies, including Casetext and LexisNexis.3 Casetext’s “Cocounsel” program has promised to aid in legal research and tasks, becoming a premier “legal AI” tool. The program targets the general AI technology to the law practice by programming in a vast data base of case law and legal information, as well as allowing lawyers to upload documents for the program to review. These tech companies are also developing ways to bring legal tools to non-lawyers, including one company that is looking to make a “one-click lawsuit” for people to use in situations such as receiving an unwanted “robocall.”4

            While a battle between robots might inspire visions of Transformers fight scenes – there is certainly as much peril in them. Yes, AI technology is rapidly improving, and it can be quite impressive, but it is also imperfect. Current AI technologies are still riddled with errors that prevent them from operating at the level of reliability required in the practice of law. For example, in a highly publicized case, a law firm in New York was sanctioned by a Court for including several fictitious cases in a brief submitted to the court.5 In their defense, the lawyers said that they used ChatGPT to help in their legal research, and that these fake cases were given by the AI system. Not only that, but in an effort to double check the results, the lawyer asked the chat-bot whether the cases were real before including them in his brief – which the chat-bot again purported them to be real, and existing on legal databases, even representing them as being authored by real judges!6

            Yes, that means that ChatGPT’s program completely made up court cases, but was sophisticated (if it were a person, we might say devious) enough to incorporate real elements into them. The newer version, GPT-4, is said to be “60% less likely to make stuff up” – this leaves far too big a margin of error that the program could still flat out make stuff up. This raises major legal ethics concerns. With the ability for false information to be generated from the AI systems, even the co-founder of Casetext, the company that created the “legal AI” assistant, urges that the program “still requires attorney oversight.”7 Lastly, there is the fact that in order to power these systems, it requires lawyers to disclose sensitive personal information, that should otherwise be kept strictly confidential, to the AI software.3 With tech companies like OpenAI keeping their data processing mechanisms secret, there is no telling where a person’s information might end up, or how a lawyer could control where it goes.

            In sum, there is reason to be excited about the prospects around AI for personal use, and there might be way a person finds it makes life easier. But in the context of the practice of law, there is still too much room for error and violation of legal ethics for it to be relied on. The trained hand of an attorney is still required to meet the needs of their clients.

1 https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/tech/gpt-4-use-cases/index.html

2 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/15/what-is-gpt-4-and-how-does-it-differ-from-chatgpt

3 https://www.abajournal.com/columns/article/the-future-is-now-the-rise-of-ai-powered-legal-assistants

4 https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/16/tech/gpt-4-use-cases/index.html

5 https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-york-lawyers-sanctioned-using-fake-chatgpt-cases-legal-brief-2023-06-22/

6 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769

7 https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exam-what-that-means-for-artificial-intelligence-tools-in-the-legal-industry/