In the United States, Americans spend over $50 billion on their pets each year and often have a strong emotional attachment to them. When a relationship dissolves through divorce, separation or ending a domestic partnership, many struggle with making pet arrangement decisions. Whether the pet is the family cat or a show dog, pet custody issues arise and must be addressed.

Courts in different states vary in addressing pet custody issues
Many people have become aware of pet custody disputes by way of the high profile stories often seen in the media. Even with such high visibility, no state has actually enacted legislation to award a person pet custody. This lack of legislation is mostly attributed to many state court opinions stating that pets are personal property, as is a lamp or table, and do not require the court to enforce visitation or custody.  However, there is a growing trend among states to enact laws that support the idea that pets are more than mere personal property. Two examples of such laws include anti-cruelty laws, currently enacted in all 50 states, and domestic abuse protections, enacted in at least 19 states. These two types of law provide pets with protections that, if violated and the penalty warrants such punishment, can result in jail time.

When courts hear pet custody issues, the disputes generally fall within three categories: the best interest of the animal, visitation and petimony. These approaches are considered when courts view pets as something more than the owner’s mere personal property. Ironically, the vocabulary used is very similar to terminology associated with child custody disputes.

Best interest of the animal: In determining the best interest of the animal, courts consider several issues such as whether children care for and are attached to the pet, whether one of the owners travels substantially without the pet, and whether one of the owners has an anger issue that could hinder his or her ability to properly care for the pet.

Visitation: In order to determine visitation rights, owners must present evidence to show they want supervised or unsupervised visitation. Factors that courts have focused on to determine visitation rights include whether the pet is familiar with the environment, whether the pet interacts in a healthy manner with other pets or children, and whether there are any space limitations at the residence.

Petimony: One owner may seek financial support from the other for pet related expenses. This support is called petimony. Petimony payments have covered special diets, veterinary care and grooming costs.

Indiana’s perspective: Pets are personal property
Indiana courts currently view pets as the owners’ personal property. Therefore, it generally divides ownership of pets between the two people as it does for other property they own. If one owner believes a pet is wrongfully taken by the other person, Indiana courts would consider the fair market value and not the sentimental value of the animal. An Indiana court is not likely to hear testimony addressing pet visitation, pet custody and petimony issues, as it would not do for any other inanimate object, such as a table. Indiana residents should attempt to resolve pet disputes contractually or in agreements rather than through court hearings.

Strategies for establishing pet ownership and rights in Indiana
There are several things an individual can do in Indiana to argue the pet rightfully belongs with the individual after a breakup. The most successful individuals attempt to show pet ownership by providing proof that he or she is voluntarily responsible for the pet. Some factors pet owners use to establish this responsibility include:

1. records of paying for some of the following: veterinary care, registration costs to the city, insurance premiums, installing an identification chip, and boarding fees;
2. demonstrating proof that they were responsible for arranging veterinary visits;
3. providing evidence that they were responsible for leading the adoption process;
4. and demonstrating a bond with the pet.

Post-relationship pet ownership issues can be legally complicated and emotionally difficult. For more information and counsel, please contact Jim Reed or Tamara McMillian at Bingham Greenebaum Doll.

“God of Carnage,” centers on the parents of two children who have recently gotten into a fight.  One child harms the other and so the parents meet to discuss what needs to be done about the situation.  However, as the conversation unfolds about the children and their physical altercation, the focus shifts towards the parents and their own issues with marriage and each other.  Where a group of adults meet to maturely have a discussion, the characters slowly devolve into children themselves making for a hilarious time. 

The IRT held a meet and greet for sponsors and friends of the theatre on Feb. 8 where everyone involved in the production would be able to discuss with the artistic leaders on the direction of the play.  Of those involved were director James Still, scenic designer Russell Metheny, costume designer Guy Clark, actors Ryan Artzberger, Tim Grimm, Shannon Holt, and Constance Macy, among others.

The initial topic of the day was simply, “Why are we putting on this play?”  To put it simply, “God of Carnage,” has become a live theatre sensation, and the IRT wanted to take on the challenge themselves with their own interpretation of a world class play.  Initially written in French and put into production overseas, the play grew enormously in popularity and has since been adapted into an English version based in New York City as well, as a movie.   

Having seen the work on Broadway, director James Still described it as a unique experience where the audience observed adults having a conversation, “when suddenly something happened – the tearing away of the civility of these people, I got sucked in.”  In a situation generated from the actions of children, the parents become increasingly more self centered, undone, and immature ending in outlandish fashion.  “We’re going to have a really good time being very, very, very bad.”

The spotlight of the play is on the transformation of the four parents, and the set and costume design have been specifically tailored towards that goal.  Scenic designer Russell Metheny described the set as, “more minimalist, as to keep the focal point on the characters themselves.”  However, the environment is cultured towards the personality of the parents with warmer color tones and monotonous shelves filled with books.  The costumes have been created in a similar manner, as each individual is wearing unique clothing to embody how they would like to be interpreted.  Alan, a high powered lawyer, is dressed in a fine business suit, whereas Veronica is dressed down in a more casual fashion.

Bingham Greenebaum Doll presents, “God of Carnage,” is sure to be a gritty and hilarious interpretation of individuals coming to terms with their disagreements.  Be sure to visit the IRT website for scheduling and ticket information.  Don’t miss out on this worldwide sensation!

Answer: They have all been honored, at some point in the last 20 or so years, as members of the Indianapolis Business Journal’s Forty Under 40.

And now, Bingham Greenebaum Doll Women’s Forum is proud to congratulate Jenny Massey, the Director of Operations at Bingham Economic Development Advisors, as she joins the ranks of Indianapolis’s finest! Jenny has recently been named to the IBJ’s Forty Under 40 Class of 2012.  Jenny was one of forty accomplished young professionals selected from a pool of 246 talented individuals for the Indianapolis Business Journal’s prestigious list. 

Jenny has extensive international experience in corporate strategic planning and business development. She spent seven years working in Japan and she has traveled for business in many parts of Asia and Europe. As Director of Operations at Bingham Economic Development Advisors, Jenny’s international business experience allows her to help companies considering relocation or expansion in a variety of ways. She provides companies with information for site selection, such as a comparative analysis of taxes, utilities, infrastructure, and climate and environmental restrictions.  Jenny also negotiates with state and local governments on behalf of companies to offset new project costs in the form of tax credits, tax abatements, and grants for infrastructure, equipment, or training. Jenny has negotiated for dozens of companies across the United States and most recently has secured projects with several international clients.

For more information about Bingham Economic Development Advisors and the work that Jenny does, click here.   To read more about Jenny’s award, click here.  Congratulations, Jenny!

The Best of Bingham is a series of posts by the Bingham Greenebaum Doll Women’s Forum recognizing the professional and community successes of our members, our colleagues and our clients.

Now, in recognition of that same service and demonstration of “extraordinary compassion for cancer victims and their loved ones,” The Cancer Support Community of Indiana itself presented Christi with its Healing Spirit Award on January 25th.

Healing Spirit Award Recipient Christi Anderson

Anyone who knows Christi appreciates that this award does not overstate Christi’s compassion or dedication to service of cancer patients and family members using her legal knowledge. Nor does it, or could any award, fully encompass Christi’s story, who she is as a person and a lawyer, or the value and light she brings to every space she inhabits. Whether it be our offices at Market Tower, Women’s Forum monthly meetings, The Cancer Support Community facility, or the halls of St. Francis, Christi always shines as an advocate, a leader, an educator, a mentor, a friend. And never as a victim. This is what makes us so proud and honored to recognize her, as often as we can, as one of the Best of Bingham.

The Best of Bingham is a series of posts by the Bingham Greenebaum Doll Women’s Forum recognizing the professional and community successes of our members, our colleagues and our clients.

On February 3, 2012, the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) published final regulations (29 CFR § 2550.408b-2) on required service provider fee disclosures to 401(k) and other retirement plan fiduciaries under section 408(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). This final rule replaces and modifies the interim final rule which was published on July 16, 2010. The final rule also delays the effective date of the rule from April 1 to July 1, 2012 and in turn delays the effective date for the related DOL mandated fee disclosures to participants in participant-directed individual account plans (29 CFR § 2550.404a-5) until August 30, 2012. Thus, for calendar year plans, the initial disclosure to participants must be provided by August 30, 2012, and the initial quarterly disclosure of fees and expenses charged to individual accounts must be provided by November 14, 2012.

Other than changing the effective date, the final rule on required service provider disclosure to plan fiduciaries also made a few substantive changes, which are summarized below:

Covered Plan. The definition of covered plans subject to the final rule now excludes “frozen” annuity contracts and custodial accounts in 403(b) plans (i.e. contracts for which a plan sponsor ceased to have any obligation to make contributions and did cease making contributions, for periods before January 1, 2009) where the contract is fully vested and enforceable by the employee.

Indirect Compensation. The disclosure of “indirect compensation” (compensation received from a source other than the plan or plan sponsor) has been expanded to include both identification of the payer and a description of the arrangement between the payer and the covered service provider (“CSP”), affiliate or subcontractor pursuant to which the indirect compensation is paid.

Aligning Regulations. The final rule modifies the information that must be provided by recordkeepers and others to 401(k) and other plan fiduciaries, so as to better align the disclosure with what is required in the participant-level disclosure regulation. It also adds a requirement to disclose information that is necessary for the plan administrator to comply with the participant-level disclosure regulation if that information is within the control of (or reasonably available to) the CSP.

Investment Disclosure – Recordkeeping and Brokerage Services. The final rule continues to require investment disclosures from CSPs of record keeping or brokerage services to an individual account plan that permits participants and beneficiaries to direct the investments of their accounts, if one or more designated investment alternatives are made available in connection with those services.

However, under the final rule, a CSP may comply by providing the directed investment account issuer’s current disclosure materials, or by providing information replicated from the issuer’s materials. The final rule focuses on whether the institution issuing the materials, not the materials themselves, is regulated. The designated investment alternative issuer must be (i) a registered investment company (a mutual fund), (ii) an insurance company qualified to do business in a state, (iii) an issuer of a publicly traded security, or (iv) a financial institution supervised by a state or federal agency. The CSP must act in good faith, must not know that the materials disclosed are incomplete or inaccurate and must provide the plan fiduciary with a statement that they are not making a representation as to the accuracy of the materials.

Form of Disclosure. The EBSA has reserved a place in the final rule for future guidance that would require a CSP to provide a guide or index or other specified format for disclosures. Until then, the EBSA has included a sample guide to initial disclosures in the appendix of the final rule.

Timing of Disclosures. A CSP must now notify a plan fiduciary of changes to investment-related information at least annually. The 60-day deadline (required in the interim final rule) remains for changes to all other information the CSP previously disclosed. Further, upon the written request of the plan fiduciary or plan administrator, a CSP must furnish any other information relating to the compensation received in connection with a contract or arrangement that the covered plan needs to comply with ERISA reporting and disclosure requirements. The final rule changed the original rule slightly in that requested information generally must be furnished reasonably in advance of the date on which the responsible plan fiduciary or plan administrator states that it must comply with the applicable reporting and disclosure requirements (as opposed to the 60-day response deadline in the interim final rule).

Compensation. The final rule adds to and clarifies the definition of compensation. Compensation may be expressed as a monetary amount, formula, percentage of plan assets or a per capita charge for each participant or beneficiary. It also specifically permits a CSP to provide a “reasonable and good faith” estimate of compensation if it is not otherwise readily able to describe its compensation, as long as the CSP can explain the methodology and assumptions used to prepare the estimate.

Plan Fiduciary Relief. A plan fiduciary has an exemption from certain prohibited transaction rules if the CSP fails to provide required disclosures so long as various requirements are met. The exemption originally stated that if the CSP failed to provide the information upon request, the plan fiduciary was required to consider whether to continue the relationship with the CSP. The final rule now requires a plan fiduciary to terminate the relationship if the CSP fails to provide requested information relating to future services.

Even with the short delay in effective date, there is very limited time for plan fiduciaries to begin preparing to comply with the participant-level fee disclosure regulations. That said, fiduciaries should begin preparing now to comply with the new rules. If you have any questions regarding the new fee disclosure rules or would like more information about how we can help, please contact one of the following attorneys, who are members of the Employee Benefits Team at BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP:

Mary G. Eaves   (502) 587-3569  
Benjamin J. Evans   (502) 587-3678
Frank J. Bitzer   (513) 455-7672 
Kathryn Cimera  (317) 968-5568  
Carl C. Lammers   (502) 587-3575

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP attorneys volunteered to lead a number of these conversations, taking time to explore challenging – and sometimes controversial – topics. Over the course of Radio Golf’s run, 572 patrons took part in the discussions, raising questions and offering new perspectives to the facilitators, cast members and one another. All told, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP’s Community Conversations have engaged more than 1,000 patrons this season. The firm is proud to be a part of these thought-provoking discussions and continues to welcome opportunities to involve the community in meaningful dialogue.

We invite you to view the video below for more information about Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP’s partnership with the IRT and its upcoming title sponsorship performance, God of Carnage, opening March 2.

Employers should remember that the Board’s current policy offers employees strong protection when they are posting Facebook messages, tweeting, and engaging in other social media activities, because these activities are often protected under the Act. Nevertheless, the Acting General Counsel’s report confirms that there are limits to this protection, such as when employees’ comments are solely “individual gripes,” or when the activities are so disparaging or disruptive that they lose the Act’s protection. Employers who are seeking to regulate their employees’ online comments should click the links below to view the four lessons that can be gleaned from Mr. Solomon’s recent report.

1. Employees’ “Individual Gripes” Generally Are Not Protected.
2. Be Careful When Addressing Individual Gripes That Are Attempting To Incite Group Action.
3. Some Social Media Activities Can Go Too Far, And Lose The Act’s Protection.
4. Social Media Policies Should Be Carefully Drafted.

Altogether, while it can be difficult to determine when an employee’s online comments have gone beyond the Act’s protection, the Acting General Counsel’s report helps clarify some of this ambiguity. Employers should remember that, although they may take some actions to protect their online reputation from employee criticism, the Board provides strong protections for employees who are utilizing social media in attempts to improve working conditions. 

This article is reprinted with permission from HRKentucky.com