Splitsville News

This piece is about a couple who is divorcing, has decided to still live in the same house (because they can’t sell it) and is trying to negotiate spousal support and child support.  They’re using mediation to work through these issues, which is great, although they learned that avoiding court doesn’t always mean avoiding conflict.  I think there’s some helpful perspective in the piece, although it’s amazing how 18 months of negotiation are collapsed into just a few pages of story.  My fingers are crossed that the couple find a buyer soon for the house!

This story on ABCNews.com’s site is about how the “idea” of divorce can spread.  The title:  “Is Divorce Contagious?”

The piece is interesting, although I have to admit that I don’t find it that surprising.  Humans are social animals, and psychological research (such as these conformity studies) shows just how influenced folks are by what’s happening to the people around them.  The idea of ideas spreading has, in the last couple of years, even made it into popular culture in Malcolm Gladwell’s imminently readable “The Tipping Point“.  (A scary section in there is not the idea of divorce being contagious, but the idea of suicide!)

It is sad to hear that the marriage primarily featured in the ABC piece ended as it did.  But, the reason that the wife in that story decided to divorce was because she saw that her recently-divorced daughter move into a happier relationship.  I can’t fault someone for deciding they want to be happier.

There are some tips at the end of the story that are good little tidbits for thought.

Here is a story about parenting and divorce. Long story short, it’s conflict that is hard for kids and not divorce.  To quote study researcher Constance Gager, “Don’t stay together for the sake of the children if you’re in a high conflict marriage.”  Divorce may be difficult for kids in the short term, in which case parents need to be attentive to those concerns, but it’s better for the kids to get through that phase rather than grow up in a high-conflict household.

Some version of this story has been going around:  Namely, divorce lawyers look to Facebook to see what information about themselves folks (usually the opposing party) are making public.  The example the story offers is this:  “Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.”

Taken from examples in the story, here are things not to do:

• Go to an online dating service and state that you are single and childless while actually going through a divorce and seeking custody of the kids;
• Claim that you spend time with your kids when your online-gaming log-ins prove that you don’t;
• Deny drug or alcohol consumption and then post pictures of yourself indulging in those vices.

It seems that an increased awareness of social networking sites as potential sources of evidence should eventually lead to fewer and fewer of these gaffes.  In the meantime, here are some great tips from the article:

1. Watch what you say - If you plan on lying under oath, don’t load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
2. Beware frenemies.
3. Photos can be costly.
4. Privacy settings - Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.

While there was obviously speculation in the past about whether Elin Woods would choose to move ahead with divorce, the speculation now is about when the divorce will finalize and what she’ll receive.  Apparently, a figure of $750 million made the rounds, but here is a story that suggests that figure is high (and explains why).  In short:  When you’ve only earned $600 million, it’s awful hard for one person to receive $750 million.  That math makes sense to me.

I’ve posted a few different stories about poor choices made by users of social media applications in announcing a separation.  I’ve posted as well about lawyers using these programs to dig up dirt about an opposing party.  In this story on CNN.com summarizes where we find ourselves half a dozen years after Facebook changed how we all “connect and share with the people in [our lives]“.  It’s a brave new world…

Inc.com has this article about protecting your business from divorce.  It’s got some good basic information, although I wouldn’t say that Washington is really a 50-50 state…it depends on the case.  The author is a certified divorce financial analyst, and it’s great to see their expertise coming into mainstream media.

See this story about two attorneys who managed to make it through a major case in their career…while in the process of divorcing each other.  That’s focus!

This story on the UK site, www.telegraph.co.uk, is about a judge’s order that millionaire aristocrat Erik Robson sell his family estate in order to generate the 8 million pound lump sum payment that Robson owes his wife, Chloe Robson, as part of their divorce settlement.

The “family home” of Mr. Robson is a hall built in 1673 on property that includes 2,050 country acres that are complete with 18th century gardens and a village of 18 houses.  Now, while the property is very old, and while it was an inheritance, it has actually only been in Robson’s family for 60 years.  Who did it belong to the rest of the time?

The matter before the court now is whether it was fair for the judge to order to Mr. Robson to sell the place.  Robson’s counsel is arguing that 8 million pounds for a housing fund and income fund is too much, that the lifestyle that the family enjoyed over the 25-year-marriage was based on overspending, and that the judge who made the decision didn’t like Mr. Robson.

In Washington, property that has been inherited is considered separate property.  Although the law allows a court to order that the separate property of one spouse be awarded to the other if it’s necessary to achieve an equitable result, that kind of order is rarely entered.  I’m not aware of an instance, and have always imagined it would take something like Bill Gates-level wealth.  Considering the estate is supposed to be worth 42 million pounds, it’s not an insignificant asset.

What happens when lawyers divorce?

Well, if you’re this lawyer, you laugh in the court, call your wife’s request for spousal support a “joke”, call opposing counsel “a moron” and then find yourself found in criminal contempt of court.

Edward Weltman did apologize and the results fall into the good news/bad news realm:  The good news is that his sentence was reduced from six months to three day.  The bad news is that two of those nights were spent on the jail’s medical floor.  All things considered, that’s not a bad trade-off for uncommonly bad courtroom behavior, especially when the person doing it has plenty of experience with courtroom norms!

This story on Austin, TX’s “News8Austin.com” site is some good news about Collaborative Law getting some coverage.

Collaborative Law is a process where the parties to a case, which is often a divorce case but doesn’t have to be, decide to commit to resolving the case outside of court.  That commitment is documented in the “Collaborative Participation Agreement” which says that the parties will not go to court.  If, despite the training and skill of the lawyers and other team members, the case still stalls and going to court is the only way to resolve the case, then the original parties have to withdraw.

The story, citing US Census Bureau data, says that 23 percent of people over age 15 (!) have been divorced at least once.  Divorce can–but doesn’t have to be–expensive and stressful.  Collaborative Law is one legal “tool” that gives divorcing clients a way to do something different.  When it’s a fit for clients, it’s “much easier on their wealth…it’s far less damaging to their children and people get better results from that process than they do through traditional litigation,” says spokesperson Kevin Fuller.

I’m glad to see that Collaborative Law is getting some coverage, and in a more thoughtful (and accurate) way than it was depicted in Juno.

Today’s big divorce news is that Allen Iverson’s wife filed for divorce.

This story gives the rundown:  Iverson and his high school sweetheart (Tawanna) married about 9 years ago.  They have five children, the oldest of which is 15, and so there are parenting and child support issues.  There are homes to allocate and Tawanna has requested spousal support.

Oh yeah, and there’s the little matter of Allen Iverson having threatened Tawanna almost 8 years ago.  Here is the affidavit of probably cause, in case you want to read about the incident in legalese.

To his team’s credit, a spokesman for the Sixers said no coaches or players would comment on the situation.  Here, “no comment” is a good thing.

This story cites newer studies, the results of which are that living together before marriage doesn’t necessarily increase the risk of divorce.  The old news was that having lived together before marriage meant that a couple was more likely to split up.

The take home lesson?  “It’s couples who give into the urge to merge households without a defining vision of their future who are more likely to divorce.”  Yes!  I couldn’t have said it better myself.

As a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, I remember when “The Onion” (www.theonion.com) was actually published in town.  I think they’ve moved their publishing offices to New York, but they still have a soft spot in my heart.

Here’s a joke video they’ve posted about a fictitious proposal to ban loveless marriages in Minnesota: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_law_would_ban_marriages.

It’s just funny…don’t over-analyze it.

Tiger Woods made a very public apology for his infidelity, and if you didn’t happen to catch that anywhere else, you can find it here.

As you may have noticed, his wife Elin was not present.

After months of speculation as to whether she would (or wouldn’t) end the relationship, there haven’t been any divorce filings.  This story reports that she was not willing to participate in a pre-apology photo shoot.  Stay tuned…

Huffington Post has this story about the possibility that South Carolina’s Governor Sanford’s divorce proceedings may be televised.  Live.  (If you remember, Governor Sanford had said that he was off to hike the Appalachian trail when he was instead headed to South America to be with his mistress.)

It turns out that Ms. Sanford’s testimony was captured by cameras.  A South Carolinian station has the video here.

If you don’t want to sacrifice those 10 minutes of your life, I’ll tell you that reports indicate that the judge did grant Ms. Sanford’s request for divorce.  (Hmm…looks like South Carolina is still a “fault” divorce state.)  Here is the full run-down of today’s events and the history of the story.

Reading the coverage as a lawyer, I find it interesting that the judge “granted” the divorce but it won’t be official until mid-March.  Compare that with Washington, where the moment the judge signs agreed final paperwork is the moment that the marriage is officially ended.  Very curious.

With Valentine’s Day coming up this weekend, I found this top ten list on Avvo.com to be quite cute.  It’s “How to Date a Lawyer”.  My favorite?  Number 6:

“Brevity and clarity make lawyers feel uncomfortable and agitated, much like normal people feel at the DMV. For example, don’t say, ‘Let’s head back home early for some fun.’ Instead say, ‘Let’s return early to the domicile for some malfeasance.’”

Happy Dating!

Although it’s been up for a few weeks, this article on MSN Money is still worth reading.  It sums up the change in interests from keeping the family home to being free of the family home, and it points out a fact that clients are often surprised by.  I’ll cut to the chase:  Signing a deed may release your ownership interest in the house, but until the other person refinances, you’re still on the hook for the mortgage.  Scroll to the end of the article for some potential ways to handle the family home when you owe as much (or more) than it’s worth.

This little snippet on the ABA Journal homepage points out the reasons why attorneys in other areas of the law are concerned about Facebook.  I’m particularly amazed by the information that is conveyed by photos as opposed to through words!

Having just celebrated a belated Christmas with my family, I’m “ok” to revisit some UK holiday gift ideas. 

Not sure what to get your friend or family member who is contemplating divorce?  The UK firm of Lloyd Platt & Company offered divorce advice vouchers for sale prior to Christmas.  The firm, which typically charges almost $530 (US) per hour offered 30-minute vouchers at a discount:  about $200 (US).  As of the December 17, 2009 story by Reuters, they’d sold about 60.  Founder Vanessa Lloyd Platt’s explanation?  Christmas tends to be a particularly stressful time for families, with a huge rise in people seeking advice each January.

And, if you happen to know someone who initiated proceedings in the UK and you aren’t sure how to acknowledge the occasion, then see what the department store Debenhams has to offer.  Yahoo news has the scoop on Debenhams gift list here.  I wonder if they’ll let you register online…

Today’s “big” divorce news is that Dennis Hopper has filed for divorce…well, he actually filed last Thursday.  There’s gossipy speculation as to what (or who) prompted the decision if you look for it.  The overview is here.  Given that Hopper and his wife have a six-year-old daughter, and that he’s focused the rest of his energy on treating his prostate cancer, my hope is that the case resolves smoothly and this is the last we hear.

Here and here are short accounts of the Wynn break-up.  Steve Wynn is a Las Vegas “Casino billionaire” and his wife Elaine has served on the company board.

Not only is the story remarkable for the value of the stock being transferred to Ms. Wynn–about $741 million–it’s also interesting because it’s the second time that the Wynns are divorcing.  Having first married in 1963, they divorced in 1986 after 23 years of marriage.  Then, they remarried in 1991 and have made it another 19 years.

Divorce lawyering is not a line of work where you see many repeat clients.  Personally, I always hope that my clients do not need my services a second time.  Certainly, the law contemplates each marriage as a distinct event.  Still, I can’t help but wonder:  When you divorce your first spouse for the second time, how heavy is the history of the first marriage?

In the UK, the headline is “Divorce lawyers launch campaign to help couples end marriages more easily“.  These lawyers are saying that couples should be able to end their marriage without blame and on the initiative of just one of the partners.

I think they’re on to something…it’s known Stateside as “no-fault divorce”.

In Washington, couples who have decided to end their marriage are able to do so by one person simply pleading that the marriage is “irretrievably broken”.  As an attorney, I think that taking this straightforward approach helps couples; otherwise, it would be up to them or to the court to decide who the “bad actor” was and whether things have really broken down enough to end the marriage.  In my opinion, it’s hard enough for an individual to decide this about his or her own marriage.  It does not strike me as the most strategic use of public resources to task a judge with that determination.

Suzanne Kingston, head of a UK family law department, sums it up well:  No fault divorce would not “in any way undermine the institution of marriage itself but enable people to bring a marriage that is over to an end with minimum distress to both parties and to the children affected.”  Aye, aye.

Interestingly, this push for UK divorce reform comes at a time when divorces in the UK are at their lowest levels since 1976.  While critics may claim that no-fault divorce increases divorce rates, it doesn’t necessarily follow that increased divorce equals decreased well-being.  I think being in an unhappy marriage and being stuck because you haven’t met one of the five grounds for divorce–”adultery, unreasonable behaviour, 2 years’ desertion, two years living apart with consent or five years without consent”–may boost the marriage statistics but isn’t a state of true well-being.

Next up for reform?  Impose legal ties on couples who live together.  It looks like the law of committed, intimate relationships could hit the UK…about 25 years after we started considering the question here in Washington.  But, we’ll get to that one another day.

“Record 11th divorce granted“.  BBC News is reporting that a 50-year-old man in Jerusalem has been granted his 11th divorce. His dubious honor?  He set a new Israeli divorce record.

Maybe the dating pool is a little different in Jerusalem, however I’d be awfully skeptical about marrying a man who has been divorced 11 time, who amassed large amounts of debts in his last marriage because he did not work, who has not paid child support for his one child of his many marriages, and who said this to the court regarding the ease with which he’s married:  “I send out a hook in all directions, and the fish come on their own.”

Entrepreneur magazine has some helpful information for divorcing business owners.  It’s in print in their January 2010 issue.  It’s online at Ugly Breakup.

The headline is “Governor Jim Gibbons’ divorce case: New documents show alimony, property values are sticking points“.  As someone in this line of work, I have to say that there are innumerable names that could be substituted for “Jim Gibbons”.  It’s not surprising when divorcing couples disagree on spousal support or property values.  In this economy, it’s sadly not uncommon for a divorcing individual to worry about his/her ability to pay spousal support should he/she lose employment.

Admittedly, however, it is unique to have to speculate about the outcome of an election to determine whether a spouse will continue at the same earnings level.  I can only imagine wading through the opinions of political “experts” to assess the likelihood of the Governor being re-elected!  I’m out of time for blogging right now, so help yourself to the trial brief:  http://www.rgj.com/assets/pdf/J71489321222.PDF.

UPDATE, 12/29/09:  Governor Gibbons and his wife reached settlement.  While it sounds like there is some benefit to the governor for having avoided trial, the political cost of the proceedings may keep Gibbons from being reelected.  There are other spins on the story, including this one on WashingtonPost.com and this one on Yahoo News.  Here’s a fun post-script I hadn’t caught before:  Ms. Gibbons owned a pair of wedding chapels!  I’m pretty sure there’s an ironic screenplay in this story, particularly given that it’s set in Nevada…

Divorces blamed on Facebook is thesun.co.uk’s headline.  ZdNet.com puts it as “Does Facebook really lead to divorce?”. Well, does it?

Apparently, the social networking site has been named in divorce petitions as a reason for splitting.  I’m really curious to know where the researcher (hired by Divorce-Online) found these petitions; in Washington State, all the Petition needs to say is that the marriage is “Irretrievably broken”.  I think everyone is better off with this approach; it allows you to maintain some dignity.  Considering that most states have moved away from the “fault” approach, where a divorcing individual would have to provide a reason for the split, I think that the results of this “research” are probably not generally applicable.

Larry Dignan on Zdnet.com summed it up nicely:  “If people are going to screw around they will. Facebook is just a tool…”.  In other words, Facebook is not to blame.

I often quote my mother, who has said that “Truth is stranger than fiction”.  In Tennessee, a divorce case inspired a movie script.

In this case, it sounds like an enterprising individual felt that his case had so many “twists and turns” that it would make a good movie script.  The individual, John Lewis, has teamed up with William Fain of “William Fain Productions”.  Fain released a movie in 2008 about his own experience in family court in connection with parenting his daughter.  (Here is where you can get more information about that project.)

Lewis has decided to go ahead with the script even though his case is being appealed.  It’s not the strategy I would recommend.  I suspect that Lewis’s retelling of events could bring negative attention to more than just the family court system.

Do your financial homework before divorce is a recommendation that I can’t repeat often enough.  While the piece was written by a CPA rather than an attorney, it’s got some helpful general advice, including thinking through the following questions before meeting with an attorney:

• If you have children, what are your wishes regarding custody, visitation, and child support?
• Whose health insurance plan should cover the children?
• Do you earn enough money to adequately support yourself, or should alimony be considered?
• Which assets do you really want, and which are you willing to let your spouse keep?
• How do you feel about the family home? Do you feel strongly about living there, or should it be sold or allotted to your spouse?
• Will you have enough money to pay the outstanding debt on whatever assets you keep?

I often that potential clients make a note of questions that they would like to be sure we cover, and all the questions above are good ones!

The AP is reporting that Tiger’s wife Elin is seeking divorce.  Citing ABC News, NBC News and People Magazine, the story reports that Elin Nordegren Woods intends to end her marriage to golfer Tiger Woods.  Given the volume of news reports about his infidelity, as well as his own admission, it’s not a surprising choice.

An interesting side note is that Ms. Woods is also planning to renegotiate her prenuptial agreement.  Some details of the rewritten prenup have been publicized, including an immediate payment to Ms. Woods of $5 million to an account under her sole control and a potential payment of $55 million if she were to stay with Tiger for two more years.  Splitting on these financial terms, however, would necessitate that Ms. Woods maintain the appearance of a supportive wife (including showing up at social events and in public) and that she sign a non-disclosure agreement.  Given reports that she’s been seen in public without her wedding ring, it’s hard to know what will happen.

The first story on this page is a synopsis of case in North Dakota where that state’s Supreme Court is considering whether the $5,000 that Erik Isaacson spent on breast implants for his wife should be counted in their divorce settlement.

What I’d like to know is:  How would you value implants?  Fair market value upon resale?  That’s likely to be minimal.  Is there an argument that Ms. Isaacson’s earnings would be higher?  Unlikely unless she’s in one of a very small subset of professions.  Puzzling as these questions are, first the court has to decide whether it should even “go there” at all.  I bet the briefs (ha, ha) are a good read.

Here is a story about the highest-value divorce award in Canadian history.  A 61-year-old woman has been awarded $110,00 per month following the end of her 33-year marriage.  While this sounds like a lot, her husband earns $4 million per year (or $333,333 per month).  The judge stated that Ms. Elgner “should not have to eradicate her savings to pay for her living expenses” and recognized that Ms. Elgner had sacrified a career to be a stay-at-home mother and wife. In Washington, the same logic generally applies.  By statute, a court is to consider the following factors, and may consider others as well:

(a) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including separate or community property apportioned to him or her, and his or her ability to meet his or her needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party;
(b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find employment appropriate to his or her skill, interests, style of life, and other attendant circumstances;
(c) The standard of living established during the marriage or domestic partnership;
(d) The duration of the marriage or domestic partnership;
(e) The age, physical and emotional condition, and financial obligations of the spouse or domestic partner seeking maintenance; and
(f) The ability of the spouse or domestic partner from whom maintenance is sought to meet his or her needs and financial obligations while meeting those of the spouse or domestic partner seeking maintenance.

Here is a New York Times story about fathers who have opted for DNA testing to get a definitive answer as to whether they are truly the fathers of the children they believe are theirs.  Particularly with divorcing families, and the requirement that parents support “their” children financially, this raises some tough issues.  Read the piece:  It addresses all of these issues eloquently.

Here is a story that’s showing up a few places, including this story on ConnPost.com.  The headline?  “Govt may get billions under Forbes’ divorce decree”. It’s rare that divorce is business news!

Apparently, a Connecticut court has ordered Walter Forbes’ ex-wife to transfer ownership of two homes, as well as half their jewelry and art, back to Forbes.  Because of securities fraud that Forbes committed, he owes the Federal government and his former company $3.3 billion.  Now that the court has ordered that the wife transfer back some of what she received, the Feds and Cendant Corporation can attach liens to start recovering a portion of what they’re owed.  It’s a start, I suppose, although $3.3 billion is a lot of money…

This is a story of “he said”/”she said” that must have more to it than the media is reporting.

A Pakistani court found in favor of “Zakia of Bund Road” and granted the divorce that she requested.  Her allegations were that her husband, Pervaiz, was not treating her well.  His version of the story is that she was unhappy because he couldn’t take her to dinner every night.

My thoughts are that, if this is how differently the two parties see things, then ending their marriage was probably a smart choice.

Connecticut is a small state; it’s ranked 48th in the U.S. in terms of the area it covers.  However, it seems to have more than its fair share of dramatic divorces.  (I’ve written about some others, and I’m tempted to create a Connecticut tag for entries because I know there will be more.)  This particular story describes the circumstances surrounding ESPN sportscaster Steve Phillips’ wife’s decision to end their marriage.  To say that the decision arose from an affair is a bit of an understatement.

Mr. Phillips has admitted to having an affair with an assistant at ESPN.  He ended it and she didn’t take the news well.  Social tip:  Don’t call the wife of your lover and say, as Brooke Hundley did, that “[w]e both can’t have him”.  It’s awkward.  Driving tip:  Don’t go to the house of the lover who spurned you and get so flustered that you smash your car into a stone column.  It makes it easy for the wife to find the note you left in your car about the affair.

To say that the marriage has “broken down irretrievably”–the legal standard for divorce in Connecticut–is also a bit of an understatement.  Philips has previously admitted to having another extramarital affair.  Legal tip:  Don’t have sex with a team employee, as Phillips did as manager of the New York Mets, because that can lead to sexual harassment charges.  Even settling out of court is expensive.

My hope for this couple is that these events mark the high water of their public drama.  If human nature is any indicator, that might be optimistic.  If past divorce news out of Connecticut is any indicator, “optimistic” may be an understatement.

This story is a short update on the Smith and Walsh-Smith divorce and, despite the title, YouTube has a minor role in the update.  The news is that, on Wednesday, New York’s Appellate Division upheld a lower court ruling that granted the couple’s divorce and found their pre-nup valid.

If you’re an internet regular, you probably already know who these folks are.  Philip Smith is CEO of the Shubert Organization, which is Broadway’s largest theater owner.  Ms. Tricia Walsh-Smith is an Englishwoman with an affinity for YouTube.  Her original video has garnered 3,741,839 views (if you count mine).  Here is the original video.

Needless to say, Ms. Walsh-Smith’s YouTube post show that she did not take the divorce news well.  Unfortunately, making a record of her response backfired, because the YouTube post actually helped the original judge to justify a divorce based on her cruel and inhuman treatment of him.  I don’t think it helps that she actually produced a number of videos… (This one even has music!).

Not had your fill yet?  There’s a video here of Ms. Walsh-Smith’s response to Wednesday’s appeals court decision.  I randomly clicked forward, and the sound bite I caught was “It’s not just about money…”.  What would George Orwell say?

As have government entities in other countries, Malaysia’s state of Terengganu is now offering a three-day honeymoon package worth about $450 to help couples with marital difficulty reconcile and avoid divorce.  While Malaysia did not reveal its divorce rate, the story describes the rate as “soaring”.  Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country, and it’s for that reason that I can rationalize a government official being willing to be quoted as saying “We can understand newlyweds having problems understanding one another, where a slight skirmish could lead to a separation but it is unacceptable for those married more than two decades to file for divorce.”  Bon voyage!

According to this story, Spain’s acceptance of divorce is only second to Brazil’s.  The University of Granada’s Department of Sociology announced their finding that 79 per cent of Spanish people think that “when a couple is not able to solve their marital problems, divorce is the best solution.”  Interestingly, based on the data in the study, the countries where social acceptance of divorce is the lowest are:  Japan, Filipinas and the United States.  As my mother would say:  Truth is stranger than fiction!

Here in the Puget Sound area, many of the local counties require that parents in family law cases take a class to help them see things from the perspective of a child in the process, with the goal being that parents will know what to do to help their family successfully navigate the transition they’re going through.

Utah courts have put an interesting spin on this idea:  Utah State Courts are now offering a free class for kids ages 9-12 whose parents have filed for divorce or are already divorce.  Taught by a mental health professional, the goal for the class is to help children communicate with their parents.  Classes are currently being offered on Saturdays and Mondays, and the Utah State Court website has more information–and a brochure!–here.

This story is the latest in the “Jon & Kate Plus 8″ (now “Kate Plus Eight”) divorce proceedings.  While it sounds like the divorcing couple sought the services of an arbitrator to help resolve conflicts about how each used marital funds.  However, Jon did not follow through on the arbitrator’s order to return $180,000 of funds and so the issue went before Montgomery County Judge Arthur Tilson.  Judge Tilson ordered Jon Gosselin has to return $180,000 in marital funds by October 26; Kate Gosselin has to provide an accounting of how she spent $55,000 (allegedly not on household and child-related expenses) by that same date.

Hopefully Kate’s comments are not just a soundbite, but also something she means.  She said, “[n]ow that this matter has been ruled on, I look forward to returning to private arbitration, as we have agreed to do, to resolve any remaining issues.”  I wish both parties well.

UPDATE:  Based on this story, it sounds like Jon has a number of legal issues to deal with!

Here is a little snippet about another way divorce is popping up in mainstream culture.  Project Runway’s October 8, 2009 episode featured the challenge of having the designers cast on the show take divorcees’ wedding gowns and transform them into something new for their new life (after divorce).

If you want to spoil the surprise, you can read the reality TV description.  If you want to see it all unfold before your eyes, check out the full episode (it’s number 8), when they get it online here this weekend.

Hello out there!

With some big professional and personal hurdles coming up (including the Portland Marathon on the personal front), I’m on “blog-cation” for the next 10 days.

Bored in the meantime?  Just see what comes up when you Google “divorce news”.

See ya’ in a bit!  Adrienne

I’m just guessing about those two attributions in the header, although if you read the interview here, I’m betting you’ll agree with me.

The Huffington Post has this story about a couple who is in love and who made a decision to divorce because, for this rare pair, it’s actually financially beneficial to do so.

Following a series of incredibly costly medical issues, the couple is broke.  They actually declared bankruptcy even before having to pay for her breast cancer surgery and his open heart surgery.  Now, with their house repeatedly refinanced, this couple is looking to be financially “creative” in a sad way.

Ms. McCurnin was married once before, for over 20 years to a man who passed away.  Now, if she were to be a “single” woman, she’d become eligible for survivor benefits when she turns 60 in a couple of months.  In another weird twist, once she starts receiving the benefits, she can continue to receive them even if she remarries.

There are other “benefits” to divorcing.  For this couple, their taxes could be lower.  Also, by being unmarried, one person’s medical debts remain his or her own, rather than being the responsibility of both people in the relationship.

Both Ms. McCurnin and her husband (Ron Bednar) have moving things to say about this.  Mary McCurnin said: “It’s absurd… Having to get divorced in order to be able to eat. I have no idea why it’s like that.” And Ron Bednar said: “It makes me feel awful, to tell you the truth…It makes me sad. It really does. I believe in the marriage. I believe in the whole act of marriage, to declare that we are married in front of friends and family and God and all that. It just makes me sad to have to go through that process.” It’s a sad story, indeed.

The article title: “Drunk Hubby Defecates In Cooking Pot.”  This may be the most unusual reason for divorce I’ve heard; it competes with that of the German woman who divorce her husband because of his cleaning obsession.  (The full story is here.)

I don’t know what Nigerian divorce laws are like, and–if the prolific email scams are any indication–making a living in Nigeria is hard for anyone, including a divorcee.  However, that said, I think I’d make the same decision Ms. Ogundele did.

From the lovely Susan Carroll, and posted here, is another example of the terribly public and embarrassing things that can happen on Facebook.

Eek.

I remember when the “Dummies” book series first came out.  I worked at a bookstore, and it did seem puzzling to me that consumers would be interested in a book whose title seemed to belittle their intelligence.  However, now that the series has been out for over a decade, I do respect the authors’ ability to distill and present important information in an easy-to-understand manner.

That said, would I be interested in a website called lousyspouse.com, from a story called “Divorce for Dummies“?  I’d have to think hard about that one…

I do applaud the site’s creators for trying to offer resources during a difficult time.  It’s good that they have a “Priorities” worksheet (downloadable here), although I do have to take exception with calling the other spouse “lousy”.  Even if you don’t like the other person, even if think they’re crazy, the divorce process can go much more smoothly if you treat the other person with respect.  This is exponentially important when there are children.

This story on the New York Post website claims that Jon and Kate Gosselin have made a “step forward” in their case.  Considering that the story claims they’ll be finalizing the case at the end of the month, it sounds like they’ve made some significant progress in the case.  (In Washington, this couple would need to have reached agreements about parenting, child support and allocation of assets/debts in order to finalize; I’m not sure what Pennsylvania requires.)  The “good for them” comment comes from the fact that Jon and Kate have agreed to put money into trust for their children; it’s very difficult in a divorce process to think years ahead on financial issues, and I’m glad to hear that money has been set aside for the 8 little Gosselins.

On the lighter side…

I’ve posted previously about a UK attorney who encourages couples contemplating divorce to take dance lessons.  Today’s news bring this story about “divorce tourism” in India.  Yes, divorce tourism.

On one hand, the cynic in me says that a couple who is having problems may find the stresses of travel to exacerbate tensions.  On the other hand, I think research shows that engaging in “adventure” (be it travel, a trip to the amusement park, or just trying a new place for dinner) can help strengthen a couple’s connection.  Based on social pressure in India for couples to stay together, it sounds like this may work as a money-making endeavor if not as a marriage-saving one.

Interestingly, divorce rates are rising in cities, where residents have higher incomes and women are gaining financial independence.  Given this, starting a business in “divorce tourism” to help couples rekindle their passion seems a little bit like playing someone a song when they’ve come to buy a car:  In other words, there’s a disconnect between the underlying needs of the client and the service being offered.  I guess time will tell…

Cnn.com has this story about Nujood Ali, who has had life experiences beyond her years:  Child bride at 10; child rape victim (by her much older husband); and now, at 12, a child divorcee.

Nujood lives in Yemen, where more than half of girls are married before the age of 18.  The reason for marrying a girl at such a young age is to shift the financial and moral “burden” of caring for the girl to the husband instead of having it remain with the girl’s family.  Nujood’s parents took this shift quite seriously, apparently, as they told her she “belonged” to her husband even though he was beating and raping her.

Nujood ultimately hailed a taxi, went to the courthouse and demanded to see a judge.  Pending trial, she lived with human rights lawyer Shada Nasser, who represented her in the case.  The good news is that the judge granted the divorce, however the bad news is that (due to Shariah law) Nujood was ordered to pay her former husband to compensate him for the divorce.  As for so many women, the divorce did not mark an end of trouble, rather a transition into a new chapter.  Still, though, I think this is a better chapter.

Here, from the sunny locale of LA, is a story about divorce, infidelity, drug use and criminal prosecution in a matter where shareholders are demanding that Broadcom’s co-founder Henry Nicholas repay shareholders more than his net worth.

Nicholas and his former wife have over $1 billion in community property, which is likely the result of receiving stock in the company.  Unfortunately, Nicholas is facing Federal indictment for distributing illegal drugs to friends and business associates, and for manipulating company stock options to provide $2.2 billion in benefits to employees of the microchip company without disclosing his actions to other shareholders.  Ms. Nicholas was also accused of illegal drug use, although both parties consented to drug testing in 2006 and the results came back clean.

On a nerd note:  Although the parties are divorced (i.e. their marriage has been legally ended), the community property has not been divided.  In Washington, this is very, very uncommon.  Typically, both separate and community property/debts are allocated when the marriage is ended.

I have an earlier post about tech-infused breakups, including those that happen by Facebook or by cell phone.  Well, proving that the written word has power regardless of what medium it is transmitted through, Yahoo has this story about how passionate text messages sent to lovers can now be used as evidence against you in a divorce.  Weird as it might seem, this may be good news for some French folks, as France’s divorce laws do require proof of mistreatment or bad behavior.

This story in the Chicago Tribune is about a six-week long class for divorced or separating parents, aimed at helping them focus on what’s best for their children.  (Seattle’s King County requires parents to attend a four-hour class…I can only imagine what it would take to put together a six-week long class.)  It’s great to hear that there are ways for parents to learn the actual skills that it takes to do the “co-parenting” that lawyers and courts love to trumpet.

Here’s my favorite quote in the story, which echos what I’ve heard locally:  “‘They said divorce, per se, didn’t hurt children,’ said Haynes, of Boise, Idaho, who now shares custody of her 10-year-old daughter with her ex-husband. ‘What hurts children is the ugliness around the divorce, or even if the parents are still married, it’s the fighting and putting the child in between’.”

Today’s celebrity divorce news is that Robin Wright and her spouse Sean Penn have decided to divorce.  According to this story, they have filed for divorce or legal separation twice already in the 13 years they’ve been married.  Will the third time be the charm?

“UPDATE”:  If you’re interested, People.com has this story which claims to offer a peek inside the couple’s relationship.

“Americans Marry Too Much” is the title of this story on Newsweek.com.  Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University, has written a book entitled “The Marriage-Go-Round” that cites Americans’ divorce and remarriage as the cause for disruption in their children’s lives because of a “revolving cast” of parents, step-parents and live-in significant others.

An interesting contrast to Americans’ marriage/divorce/remarriage pattern is the approach that some Swedish couples have embraced:  Opting into a stable, long-term relationship with children but without marriage.

Curious to find out more about Dr. Cherlin’s perspective?  This page on the book publisher’s site has extensive “Q&A” information from the author.

Here’s a short version of some divorce budgeting tips.  The longer version is here.  While not all of these steps may be possible, particularly trying to stockpile savings when going from one household to two, it’s worth considering what steps you can take!

1. Make order of the bills.

2. Organize important records.

3. Determine spending each month.

4. Cut non-essential spending.

5. Reduce your debt.

6. Stockpile six months of savings.

7. Consider your retirement.

8. Have a backup plan.

This is a pretty amazing essay by a woman who managed to keep her head on straight despite hearing some of the saddest words one can imagine.  Her calm and collected approach worked–amazing.

“Childless man released from child support debt”

I can’t take credit for finding this story, but I will take credit for appreciating it!

As states have gotten tougher and tougher on enforcing child support obligations, Georgia has apparently taken the approach of jailing non-payors.

(By the way, in Washington, Child Support Orders include language that “The Obligor Parent’s Privileges to Obtain or Maintain a License, Certificate, Registration, Permit, Approval, or Other Similar Document Issued by a Licensing Entity Evidencing Admission to or Granting Authority to Engage in a Profession, Occupation, Business, Industry, Recreational Pursuit, or the Operation of a Motor Vehicle may Be Denied or may Be Suspended if the Obligor Parent is not in Compliance With This Support Order as Provided in Chapter 74.20A Revised Code of Washington.”  So, in Washington you will be subject to the random capitalization of words, and if you don’t pay you won’t be able to fish or run a business, but you’re not going to jail. But, I digress.)

The story is about a man who was presumed to be the father of a child, and obligated to support that child.  After 13 months in jail, a judge signed an order releasing Mr. Hatley because DNA tests proved that the child was not Mr. Hatley’s son.  The backstory is that Hatley paid child support for 13 years before finding out that the child was not his!  He went to court to be relieved of the obligation of paying future support, however the State wanted him to still pay back support for this child that wasn’t his because he had signed a consent agreement to pay Child Support Services.

The good news is that a judge also ruled that Mr. Hatley is no longer responsible for paying any amount of child support.  Hopefully he gets back some of the payments he made after he realized the child wasn’t his and before this ruling.  He’ll never get the time he spent in jail back.

“When a series used to be cute and happy but now awkwardly navigates marital tension and divorce, who wants to watch it?” asks Katherine Nichols in the Hawaii Star Bulletin.  I’m standing by my opinion that, despite some of the not-so-wise choices that Jon & Kate are making, their televised experience of divorce is one we can learn from.

The best part of the piece is this comment about the show “It’s a reminder to salvage the good stuff out of the wreckage.”  This is what I’m hoping Jon and Kate’s ongoing drama will illustrate for viewers.

This recently story in the New York Times describes the physical health impact of going from being married to being single (whether by divorce or a spouse’s death).  Similar to some German research I heard about years ago, the impact of the loss of a spouse is one that lingers.  And, apparently, it’s the loss of the spouse rather than the absence:  Never married middle-aged people have fewer chronic health problems than divorced or widowed people of the same age.

Admittedly, what the study cited in the story shows is correlation between chronic (stress-related) health problems and divorce or widowhood.  Because the effect is showing up in both groups, though, researchers believe a causal relationship to be likely.

The punchline:  To paraphrase the author of much of this research, if you’re in a marriage you can’t fix, get out of it.  If you’re in a marriage you can fix, you’ll be better in the long run if you make the effort.  How do you know if you can fix a marriage?  See some of my older posts on folks who claim to be able to predict whether a marriage will last.

It’s been a growing trend in America that adults “baby” their pets and consider them to be part of the “family”.  I’m no different, although I do realize that the law treats pets as property in family law cases.

This story in the ABA Journal has the legal perspective on a recent court ruling regarding which party in a divorce case would get “custody” of Dexter the pug.  The Philadelphia Inquirer has a longer version of the story here where Doreen Houseman (the former spouse of Eric Dare) is quoted as saying “We referred to our dog as our son.”

The current status of the case is that a New Jersey appeals court determined that the trial court should determine the “subjective value” of the dog in terms of who to award it to.  It sounds like the pug custody (”pugstody”) saga will continue.

The TodayShow.com has this story about mothers who are “relinquishing” custody.  According to my favorite internet dictionary (www.m-w.com), to relinquish is to “withdraw from”, “give up” or “release”.  The Today Show piece talks in terms of “retaining” custody.  While custody is still in common use as a term, in Washington has embraced the concept of a parenting “plan” (where both parents play a role) and, when the child spends more time with one parent, that parent is “primary residential parent” rather than the “custodial parent”.

Once the story gets past the sensational bit (”Some stereotypes die harder than others. One of the most enduring is the widespread perception that women who give up custody of their children are horrible mothers.”), it starts to make some good points.  It concludes by noting “the important thing to remember is that child custody decisions are very complex, and every family situation is different.”  I hope to see more of this nuanced view and fewer stereotypes.

Today’s posts are all over the map, both literally and figuratively.  The first post of today was about the growing trend in an Afghan province of women choosing to divorce their husbands in a legal system where the men have nearly all of the control.  Post number two is this collection of divorce cakes, which were forwarded to me by the lovely Susan Carroll, at Seattle Divorce Services.

Yahoo News has this story about the plight of Afghan women with violent husbands, and the trend of these women seeking to end their marriage rather than end their life. 

The topic of divorce often evokes mixed feelings in America, but with 50% of marriages ending in divorce, divorce is far from the taboo that it is in Afghanistan.  Even if ending one’s marriage is taboo, I have to say that divorce–rather than death–is a good thing.

Knowing how difficult it can be for folks in Washington who want to handle their own divorce (even with the internet and Family Court Services), I can only begin to imagine the challenge of figuring out how to successfully divorce in Afghanistan.  Suraya Pakzad had this to say about the impact of her program:  “When we brought the number of self-immolation cases down, automatically the number of divorces went up because women realized that they could not solve their problems by burning themselves.”

As Gary Larson illustrated:  We might all be on the same planet, but sadly some of us live in different worlds.  I’m glad to know that Ms. Pakzad is doing what she can to help Afghan women get out of their bad marriages alive.

Here’s some good, solid financial advice.  It’s refreshing after the other two posts today about divorce drama and uncertainty.  Here is a rundown of the helpful post-divorce financial planning steps.

Here’s the Cliff Notes version:

1. Start with a financial planner.
2. Talk with an estate planning attorney.
3. Make a guardianship plan for your kids.
4. Plan for special needs kids.
5. Re-visit insurance.
6. Review account titling and beneficiaries on investments.

I have a few Connecticut divorce blog posts so far, including a fairly recent one about Dr. Perricone and his wife (and the court’s decision to uphold the voluntary restraining order the former Mrs. Perricone signed) and an older one about round one of divorce proceedings in the David and Douglas-David case (where the UTC Board Chair and his Swedish countess wife are divvying up assets).

Lest you be yearning for more Connecticut divorce news, the Courant.com site has another tale of difficult divorce here.  Let me directly quote the first line of the story:  “Obsession over a protracted and emotional divorce may have been behind advertising executive Richard J. Shenkman’s threats Tuesday to blow up the South Windsor home where authorities say he held his ex-wife hostage for much of Tuesday.”  Yikes.

I think “obsession” may not be strong enough of a word for this case.

The couple–Nancy Tyler and Richard Shenkman–had finalized their divorce last year.  Despite that, they still had unresolved issues including who would occupy the family home in South Windsor; it had been awarded to Tyler but Shenkman wasn’t vacating it.  On the day she was taken hostage, Richard Shenkman’s former spouse was headed to a court hearing that could have found Shenkman in contempt for his refusal to vacate the house.  Today’s story says that Shenkman was arraigned on charges from torching the South Windsor home.  Bail is a cool $2.5 million for this fire and $10 million for the summer home fire.  Shenkman himself is on suicide and mental health watch.  I’m no mental health professional, but I’d say an individual who handcuffs his ex-wife to a wall may have some mental health issues.

In my mind, the slim silver lining here is that Ms. Tyler is a lawyer.  I suspect that Ms. Tyler’s legal training will help her wade more knowledgeably through this mess.  Now that Tyler is free from Tuesday’s hostage situation, I hope she and her lawyer are successful in achieving yet another degree of separation from Shenkman.

In general, I try to keep the tone of this site pretty light.  My thinking is that getting through a family law issue is already tough stuff.  There are silver linings to many clouds, and I try to show readers that lining when I can.

Unfortunately, however, there are some cases where the silver lining is thinner than a hair, if the lining exists at all.  This story on CNN.com is a sobering reminder of just how unhealthy some relationships can become.  Renee Pernice, of Kansas City, Missouri has been missing since January and police still have questions about her disappearance.  Many of those questions center around her husband’s actions after her disappearance.  I’d have questions, too, particularly given this comment that her husband made in an interview:  “It’s gut-wrenching thinking that either she’s got a rich-ass doctor boyfriend somewhere and she’s happy, or she’s dead.” Simplistic.  Creepy.  Very disturbing.

As you can imagine, Renee’s husband, Shon, has been named as a person of interest in the police investigation.  That makes a lot of sense given that he accessed a hazardous materials room (with solvents and cleaning products) and that he dropped off Renee’s dog at her family’s house just a few days after her disappearance.  Neither CNN’s story nor local new stories cite a history of domestic violence in the Pernice’s marriage, although I’d be far from surprised if future reports cite control and violence in the relationship.

I’m unfamiliar with the resources available in Kansas City for individuals who want to get out of a violent relationship, although I am glad to say that King County courts do have resources availble.  The court’s site is http://protectionorder.org/ and it’s one way for a person in a domestic violence situation to start their process of moving on.  My hope is that awareness of and access to these resources will continue to grow across the country.  We, as a country, are better off if there are no exceptions to my line that “there’s life after divorce” and if you don’t need a microscope to see the silver lining on the cloud of one person’s choice to move on.

In this story, Bloomberg.com reports that a UK court upheld a prenuptial agreement between a German heiress and a former banker.  The court found that the agreement was entered into “willingly and knowingly by responsible adults”.  In addition, the court found that the husband–who was challenging the agreement–had a “proper” understanding of it.

While this is a case that happened outside of the US, it goes to show that you should always be careful what you sign as you may very well have to follow through on what you’ve agreed to. Here, all three judges on the British Court of Appeal panel found that the agreement should be upheld.

At the time of marriage, the parties were on fairly equal financial footing.  In all likelihood, then, the prenuptial agreement said that what each party brought to the marriage as her or her own property would remain that person’s property.  For Radmacher that meant just under $90 million in liquid assets as well as “significant minority interests” in two German companies.  Nicolas Granatino, Ms. Radmacher’s now ex-husband, also an heir to a multi-million dollar fortune, was earning 330,000 pounds a year at the time of marriage.  (That’s just over $500,000 US at today’s exchange rate.)

When the lower courts in the UK heard the matter, they awarded 6 million pounds (just under $10,000,000 US) to Mr. Granatino.  Mr. Granatino is now an academic and I’m betting that he earns appreciably less than he did in his banker days….But, a deal is a deal and he’ll be getting less, if anything, from his ex-wife.

Take heed of the advice of London divorce lawyer Emma Hatley: “If anybody signs a pre-nuptial agreement now, they shouldn’t think it’s not worth the paper is written on.”  In other words, be careful what you sign because you may actually have to follow through on it.

I like simple, helpful and easy-to-understand advice.  MSN Canada features that in this story about how our global financial troubles are affecting newlyweds.  Let me take their advice and make it even more simple…

Should a couple be:

Discussing financial compatibility before marriage?

• Good idea!

Becoming more cautious about excessive spending that leads to high debt?

• Good idea!

Averting problems that could create friction?

• Good idea!

Having an early non-judgmental conversation about money?

• Good idea!

Creating a budget before living together or marrying?

• Good idea!

Applying these principles regardless of whether your partner is of the opposite sex or the same sex?

• Good idea!

A British divorce attorney has apparently started advising clients to take up dance lessons if there’s a chance of reconciling.  I’ll admit the Daily Mail headline, “The couple that sway together, stay together… TV divorce lawyer advises ballroom dancing to save marriage”, sounds like fertile ground for a number of snide comments (”TV divorce lawyer”–really?…”advises ballroom dancing”–who made her the expert?…”to save marriage”?…doesn’t that seem at odds with her line of work?).  But, even though the story serves up a number of odd contradictions about the TV divorce lawyer (Ms. Vanessa Llyod Pratt), I think her advice is worth considering.

Here are the merits to her advice, as I see them:  Novelty can be a boon to romance, as can simply raising your heart-rate near that someone special.  Dance enough, and you’ll probably tone up parts of your body that weren’t so shapely before.  What’s more, coordinating your dance steps requires communication, something that couples with troubled marriages can often benefit from focusing on.

Not a dancer? Not looking to kick up your heels?  Well, there’s a world of novel, heart-racing, communication-dependent activities out there.  My two cents:  Get the conversation going by talking with the other person about sounds fun to you both. 

For the media sites I frequent, the “big” divorce news this week is that Jon and Kate Gosselin (of “Jon & Kate Plus 8“) are divorcing.  The New York Times has a short story about it here.  The story’s lede comments that “TLC is hoping there is happiness–or at least, good ratings–after divorce.”

While divorce is far from uncommon these days, most folks don’t have a front row seat into a divorce unless it’s their own or unless they’re a family law attorney.  With reality TV giving viewers the sense that they’re “right there” with the folk(s) on the screen, the 10 million or so viewers of Jon & Kate will get a perspective on what it’s like when someone else divorces.  My hope is that the audience will gain an appreciation of how unique parenting plans can be, even if you don’t have Jon & Kate’s unique combination of twins & sextuplets.

Life goes on, certainly.  Newsflash:  There’s life during (and after) divorce.

Although TLC has placed the show on hiatus “so that everyone could adjust to the new circumstances”, the backstory is that the circumstances aren’t that new.  In Kate’s Pennsylvania divorce filing, she states that the couple have been living “separate and apart” for two years.  (Their attorneys clarified that “separate and apart” doesn’t necessarily mean under different roofs…confusing, yes, but in Washington it is possible for a marriage to meet its legal standard of “irretrievably broken” even if the parties are living together.)  Considering the show just ended its fourth season, that means that half the show has taken place during the “separation” period!

Jon & Kate’s announcement–as well as Kate’s divorce filing–may indicate that their marriage is ending, but their divorce process is just beginning.  Jon & Kate’s responsibilities as parents started before the divorce and will end long after it.  For the couple’s sake, for their kid’s sake, and for the audience’s sake, I hope Jon & Kate go through their divorce process in respectful way.  There are a lot of reasons we watch TV and it’s ok if one of those reasons is to be pleasantly surprised.

UPDATE, July 2 2009:  If you want People magazine’s spin on the divorce paperwork, here it is.  Before you get too excited, here’s the disclaimer:  “Beware of reading too much in to the perfectly standard filings that have appeared so far, legal experts tell PEOPLE. About the only thing that is clear is that the couple, who married in 1999 and have eight kids, are opting for a no-fault divorce – the kind that lawyers like to call ‘divorce with dignity’.” So far, “Jon and Kate have just begun the divorce process…and are taking the high road”.  Good work, Jon & Kate!

If you want to go peeking into someone else’s filings (which are technically public record), the website TMZ.com the divorce papers that Kate Gosselin filed here.

“Breaking up? Pregnant? Want a divorce? Send a text!”

With such a string of phrases, I didn’t need to make up a title for this post.  Instead, the title came straight from this Yahoo Finance press release by a market research company focused on wireless/mobile research.  Here are their findings:

• Nine percent of U.S. consumers have sent a text intended to end a relationship with a partner or cancel a date.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, according to iGR’s data, 18 to 24 year olds are more likely to break up through a text message or to cancel a date via text than their older counterparts.
• Seven percent of the consumers have received such a text message in the past month. Additionally, more male consumers than females reported both sending and receiving ‘goodbye’ messages.
• 1 percent of U.S. consumers have proposed marriage to someone via a text message. One percent of women have sent a text to tell their partner that they are pregnant.  All senders and recipients of the pregnancy and divorce text messages were under 45 years old.

Wow.

From the perspective of the Internet, divorce news out of Connecticut is always so filled with money (and drama).

On Monday, Yahoo News ran this story about what “anti-aging and skin-care guru” Dr. Nicholas Perricone’s ex-wife could say about their relationship.  Apparently, back in 2005, Dr. Perricone obtained a restraining order against his former wife, Madeleine Perricone.  The order prevents Ms. Perricone from discussing her divorce and is based in a confidentiality agreement developed to prevent harm to Dr. Perricone’s business enterprise (which includes best-selling books and high-end skin care products).

Ms. Perricone, who was to appear on a national TV show, took the position that the confidentiality agreement was replaced by the separation agreement in the couple’s divorce and that the First Amendment gives her the right to speak freely.  The court didn’t buy it, saying that Ms. Perricone had waived her rights and that was ok if the waiver was “intelligent and voluntary”.  Based on that, the public will have to make due without the details of Ms. Perricone’s allegations that her former husband cheated and emotional abused and his allegations that she had a history of mental illness and working as a call girl.

Per the Connecticut Supreme Court has said that, for them, a restraining order is a restraining order.  Given that Dr. Perricone was bringing home $457,000 per month from his company, I can see why he’d be interested in protecting his privacy.  The Perricones also have a daughter, and I agree with the sentiment of Dr. Perricone’s attorney that keeping the order in place has the added benefit of protecting the child from the consequences of what could have been very public exposure of private details.

UPDATE:  The American Bar Association Journal has a story about this, too.  It’s here.  The take-home lesson (as I see it) is this:  Whenever you’re signing a contract be sure it’s clearly stated when the contract ends.  No expiration date could mean that you’re obligated indefinitely.

A co-worker of mine turned me on to Cake Wrecks, a website that celebrates professional cakes gone horribly wrong.  The site is hilarious, and now there’s a new batch of cakes that may show up:  Divorce cakes.

Getting a divorce is a signficiant process, both legally and emotionally.  Some individuals mark the end of the process with some quiet reflection.  Some individuals honor the end with a ritual or party.  Now folks near Pembroke Pines can order up a divorce cake and celebrate the end of the martial strife depicted on the cakes.  Some examples of the strife include:

• a broken heart with the bride and groom on opposite sides,
• a bride taking her groom out to the garbage,
• a prison-themed cake with a ball and broken chain, and
• a bride about to throw her groom from a waterfall.

If you want to have your divorce cake and eat it too, “Elite Cake Creations” is ready for your business.  Hopefully you don’t find yourself with a cake wreck…

I’ve written in a previous post about various claims by researchers that they can predict divorce.  Apparently, a US researcher claims that yearbook photos may predict divorce.  See the story here.

The study started with an e-mail to 18,000 alumni, with only 428 people completing the survey.  Of those 428 respondents, 79 were eliminated because of no yearbook photos.  So, working from a small sample size (just 349 people), the researchers assigned a score for “smile intensity”.  They found that 31% of the folks who frowned in the photos had divorced, compared to 11% of those with the biggest smiles.

I’m a little skeptical of these results, even though I’m fascinated by the premise that it’s possible to predict significant events with thin slices of data.  Knowing that a number of things can contribute to divorce (among them education, age of marriage, time dating before marriage, and time after marriage before children), I think there’s more that can happen in a relationship than a smile in a yearbook photo would suggest.  To divorce “prediction” researchers, I have this to say:  Keep studyin’.

The May 2009 issue of “O” magazine features a short story entitled “Divorce, Interrupted”.  Print media has caught up with electronic media in reporting that the current economic climate is affecting couple’s decisions to separate.  The piece, which offers advice for couples “stuck together in splitsville” offers a new term for the new economic challenge:  live-in separation. (From a legal perspective, it is possible for a marriage to reach the legal standard of being “irretrievably broken” even if spouses are sharing a residence, and so couples who find themselves in a live-in separation stage aren’t seen as prolonging the marriage.)

As a mediator, I was happy to see the suggestion of Susie Duffy, and Organize marriage and family therapist.  She said “I advise bringing in a neutral third party, such as a mediator, right away to reduce animosity and set ground rules for daily life.”  She points out that new agreements on how to divide responsibility and space can be practice for divorce later down the road.

Financially, options range from closing shared accounts to determining what each partner will contribute to a shared account to a reimbusement system.  Atlanta finaicial analyst Lisa Decker recommends closing any joint credit accounts and freezing any home equity lines of credit.  Good recommendations, Lisa!

Psychologically, even if you know that your separation situation will be a “live in” one, you can still start making a plan to get through this time.  To quote Nancy Molitor, PhD, “you won’t be in it forever”.  There is life after divorce (or separation).  There is a road out of Splitsville.

If you haven’t heard by now, Robyn Moore has filed for divorce from her very famous husband, Mel Gibson.  US News is reporting the story with the headline “Mel Gibson’s Divorce:  Priciest in Hollywood History”.  Gibson’s wealth is estimated at $900 million, which gives the divorce case the dubious honor of being the highest asset celebrity divorce.  (You’ve got to be pretty rich person when your estate includes an entire island in Fiji.)

Moore and Gibson are divorcing after 28 years of marriage.  Looking back at Gibson’s filmography as an actor, his career would have been taking off just as the couple married.  News organizations are reporting that there was no pre-nuptial agreement for the marriage, which seems consistent with a long-term first marriage for someone whose celebrity “star” rose during the marriage.

News stories are reporting that Ms. Moore could end up with nearly $500 million, or half of Gibson’s fortune.  California is a community property state, and its law uses the term “equally” to describe what a court must do when dividing the community estate.  So, from this perspective, the reports that Gibson’s “fortune” is nearly $1 billion fails to acknowledge that the marriage was an economic partnership.  While Mr. Gibson may have done the work that resulted in the fortune, the Fijian island, Costa Rican ranch and millions in other assets are as much his wife’s property as it is his.

[As a post-script, I want to be clear that California's approach is different than Washington's.  Washington law uses the phrase "just and equitable".  Just and equitable could be 50/50, or could be 60/40, or could even be 90/10, depending on what relevant factors are at work for a particular couple.]

This story is being reported by Reuters in its “Oddly Enough” section with the headline “Woman divorces husband for cleaning too much.”  It’s a short story, so let me paste it here:

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German woman has divorced her husband because she was fed up with him cleaning all the time.

German media reported the wife got through 15 years of marriage putting up with the man’s penchant for doing household chores, tidying up and rearranging the furniture.

But she ran out of patience when he knocked down and rebuilt a wall at their home when it got dirty, Christian Kropp, court judge in the central town of Sondershausen, said on Thursday.

“I’d never had anyone seek a divorce for this,” he said.

(Reporting by Franziska Scheven; editing by Myra MacDonald)

While the story headline is bizarre, and the problem quite uncommon, my spider sense tells me that it thinking the headline is the whole story is a mistake.  To call it a “penchant”, with a simple connotation of “liking” to do something, strikes me as failing to recognize something more serious going on with the woman’s husband and/or their relationship.  It’s easy to see the woman’s divorce as making a clean start (yes, it is a bad pun), I just hope that both parties are able to move forward with a deeper appreciation of their own needs and idiosyncracies.

As of the end of the week, the stock market ended on an upturn.  It gained for the fourth consecutive week, and it’s doing better than it has for the last seven weeks.  I’m happy to hear this and I hope the trend continues.

Still, the market is down from its 2007 high of around 14,000 and the effects of its drop are serious.  For divorcing clients, there’s the challenge of dividing up assets that used to be worth a lot more than they are now.  And, unfortunately, there’s no way to know whether the upward trend of the market will continue and when financial markets will return to a new equilibrium. Here’s the silver lining:  If you approach settlement expecting market values to remain low or drop farther, you won’t overcommit yourself financially.

Case in point:  A UK court upheld a February 2008 property settlement despite the fact that one party’s company “collapsed” over the past year.  Brian Myerson reached a divorce settlement with his former wife Ingrid.  Their agreement was that he’d get to keep shares of his comp and she’d get cash and a beach house.  Since then, the share price of his company dropped by more than 90 per cent (ow) and angry shareholders ousted him as CEO of the company that he himself founded (double ow).

In the wake of this financial shift, Myerson has asked the court to vacate the settlement.  No dice.  Lord Justice Thorpe eloquently put it thus:  “Why should the court subsequently relieve him of the consequences of his speculation by rewriting the bargain at his behest?”  In other words:  We’re not going to save you from a dumb deal that you reached voluntarily.

Take this opportunity to learn from Myserson’s situation.  Intelligent financial settlements will need to balance dynamic assets such as stock with more stable assets.  To do otherwise is to risk having to cringe as you ask “It’s worth *what* now?”

In case you weren’t sure, it’s a bad idea to choke your wife, regardless of what your shirt says.

Does seeing something everywhere make it “news”?

Lately there have been many stories about the George David divorce trial, including this one in the Hartford Courant and this older one on the CBS News site.  The back story on the case is that 67-year-old United Technologies Corporation Board Chair George David is divorcing 36-year-old Swedish countess and former Wall Street investment analyst Marie Douglas-David.  David’s wealth is estimated at $329 million, of which Douglas-David is reportedly seeking about $100 million plus $130,000 per month in spousal support.

The couple executed a post-nuptial agreement (like a pre-nup, but after marriage) in 2005.  Under the post-nuptial agreement, Douglas-David would receive approximately $38 million in cash, stock and a Park Avenue apartment.  $38 million in and of itself is a lot of money; $100 million is more than two-and-a-half times that!

Douglas-David has challenged the post-nup on the basis that she was coerced into signing it.  As with any contract, a post-nuptial agreement must be entered into without any “undue influence”.  Douglas-David and her lawyers will have the burden of proving the coercion they allege.

Douglas-David and her lawyer have also taken the position that she and her husband discussed United Technologies Corp. (”UTC”) and that those conversations helped him run the company and therefore she is entitled to the larger share of asset.  Given that I don’t practice in Connecticut, I’m unsure what their law recognizes in this respect.  Looking at this from Washington law, the argument seems to be that Douglas-David’s conversations with her husband are being characterized as a marital efforts that caused an increase in value to the business.

The sensational part of the story so far has been the spending habits of this couple.  They took a $200,000 yacht cruise.  David bought Douglas-David $255,000 earrings at one point in 2005 and $48,000 in other jewelry that year.  In December 2008 Douglas-David initially claimed weekly expenses of $53,826.  In March 2009, she adjusted that downward to $30,262.  Here are both financial affidavits.

But let me get back to my point:  Is this news?  Millions of other couples deal with these issues, just not at such a high spot on the financial ladder.  Is the amount of money at issue the factor that makes this news?  The jury is still out.  (And the David vs. Douglas-David matter has been continued until July.)

This article states that a British mathematician has figured out a formula to predict whether couples are likely to stay together or divorce.  In the piece, Oxford University professor James Murray is quoted as saying “some couples might as well get divorce right away”.  He claims that his formula has a 94% accuracy rate based on his study of 700 newly-married couples.

To arrive at his conclusion, Murray filmed newlywed couples discussing contentious issues and analyzed how they behaved.  In Murray’s study, the researchers categorized statements as either being positive (having humor or affection) or being negative (showing defensiveness or anger).  Murray assigned scores to both kinds of statements, and used those figures for his analysis.

I was struck by the similarity of Murray’s data collection approach and that of University of Washington’s Professor John Gottman.  A relationship expert, Gottman is a psychologist who runs a “Love Lab” and has previously claimed a 90+% accuracy rate in determining whether a couple will stay together or split up.  (An excerpt of Malcolm Gladwell’s description of Gottman’s work is here, and it describes the clues that Gottman’s team gathers for their analysis.)

Looking at the Murray’s (or Gottman’s findings), I can see how someone might be tempted to say that incompatible couples might as well go ahead and end the marriage.  As a divorce attorney, I think I see a lot of those couples in my office after five, ten or fifteen years of marriage.  However, even though couples do call it quits eventually, I think it can oversimplify things to say that they might as well get divorce right away.  Rarely is a marriage that ends in divorce or separation all bad, and–even though it might be tough to quantify–good things can come out of a marriage that ends in divorce.

As those who have had parenting matters in King County, Snohomish County or Pierce County know, many Washington counties have local rules that require proof of a parent’s attendance at a parenting seminar.  In King County, the seminar is called “What About the Children?” and the goal is to have parents think about what’s going on from the perspective of their children.  The take home lesson:  Divorce or separation isn’t necessarily bad for kids but seeing conflict between parents is.

A DallasNews.com story came out today that, to me, is an example of the parent education idea gone too far.

Texas, like many states, has a divorce rate of about 50%.  Texas Representative Warren Chisum has said that he hopes to spare kids of divorcing parents anxiety and stress as a result of the process.  His proposal is that couples attend workshops in conflict management, communication skills and forgiveness skills.

At first I thought “This sounds like a good thing.”  Communication skills are good.  Forgiveness is good.  Conflict management is good, particularly for separated parents, who often need to coordinate more after divorce than they did during marriage.

So what’s the problem?

Well, 10 hours of counseling as a prerequisite to filing divorce is bad.  Forcing each person to incur a cost of $150 is bad.  Allowing judges–as the proposal provides–to limit parenting simply because one parent has not taken the seminar…that’s bad, too.

To Rep. Chisum, I have this say:  Good idea, but keep working on it.

The Hockey News is not the place I expected to find content for this blog, however this hockey headline is a reminder that folks who divorce are as diverse as our society as whole.

New Jersey Devils goalie Martin Brodeur just recently made headlines for breaking the NHL record for wins by a goalie.  (It’s 552 wins, if you’re curious).  Brodeur is now making headlines because a New Jersey appeals court ruled that the hockey star must pay his former wife spousal support (aka “alimony”) of $500,00 per year until 2020.

Do the math with me:  12 years of maintenance at $500,000 per year.  That’s $6 million in spousal maintenance…a lot of cold, hard cash.  Perhaps the silver lining is that it’s likely tax deductible.

However, before concluding that Brodeur is getting ripped off, I’d like to put the ruling in perspective.  This award by the appeals court to Melanie DuBois is actually shorter than what the trial court awarded.  That court found that permanent support was appropriate.

To further provide a reality check on the award, consider the ratio of Brodeur’s income to what he’s been ordered to pay.  According to the article, Brodeur earns $5.2 million dollars per season.  If you do the math, Ms. DuBois’s spousal support is just 10% of what her ex-husband earns from playing hockey.  (As an aside, I bet he earns even more each year from endorsement deals…)  For middle income couples, a spousal maintenance payment of just 10% of gross income would be quite low.  Depending on the couple, one party could find themselves paying upwards of 20% of his or her gross income if such an amount is justified.

In Washington, spousal support is very specific to the couple and very flexible in terms of amount.  Factors in considering whether spousal support is appropriate include:

• the resources of a party seeking maintenance,
• what he or she received in the divorce settlement,
• whether he or she needs time to retrain for job that will support him or her,
• the standard of living during the marriage, and
• the age, physical and emotional condition of the party who is asking for support.

Even though Ms. DuBois’s lawyer (Beatrice Kandell) spoke about the law of New Jersey, she was exactly correct in saying “There is no formula for alimony.”

With this post, I’d like to commend James Cook on using his own loss as fuel to take action to make things better for children and parents.

While driving home the other week, I heard this story on NPR (National Public Radio) about the death of James Cook.  Known as the father of “joint custody”, Cook passed away in late February, at 85 years of age.  More information about Cook can be found in this piece, published by the LA Times.

Cook’s reform efforts followed a difficult situation in his own life.  Divorced in 1974, Cook’s request for shared custody of his son was denied.  In fact, the judge said “I don’t have permission” to grant shared custody.

After meeting with other fathers in a similar situation, Cook ultimately decided to fix the problem by convincing an assemblyman to sponsor joint custody litigation.  It was 30 years ago that the legislation passed in California, and 29 years ago that it went into effect in the state.

What a difference a few decades make!  The legal reform initiated by James Cook marked a milestone in the evolution of divorce.  “Joint custody” is a recognized concept in all 50 states, and a preference/presumption in 37 states (plus Washington, DC).  In Washington state, the law explicitly states that “The court shall make residential provisions…which encourage each parent to maintain a loving, stable, and nurturing relationship with the child.”

It is remarkable the reform that just one person can initiate.  Between James Cook’s divorce and today’s divorce, the legal system has shifted 180-degrees.  Back when Cook divorced, one parent was forced into a marginalized parenting position.  Now, each parent is encouraged to maintain a relationship with their child(ren).  The current legal system isn’t perfect, but it’s much better than it was, and I credit James Cook with helping make that true.

In health news reported today, a researcher at the University of Utah has claimed that women are more negatively affected by a relationship marked by anger and arguing than men.  While both men and women from such relationships were more likely to feel depressed than those in a happier marriage, it is the women in the unhappy marriages who were more likely to develop troubling health conditions.  Based on the study, where participants in were 54 years old (on average) and had been married over 27 years (also on average), researchers concluded that women were more likely to have high blood pressure, high cholesterol and high blood sugar.  Those three conditions are among those that can boost the risk of serious health conditions such as heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

Reading about this research from my perspective as a divorce attorney, I see the possible health consequences as one reason among many to mindfully evaluate a marriage.  Having made a decision myself to end a many year relationship, I understand that a transition out of a relationship can be huge and overwhelming.  However, if it’s too late to take sociology professor Debra Umberson’s advice to “choose  your partner carefully”, then it is time to consider whether you and your partner are willing to learn and use conflict resolution techniques.  If that doesn’t work, then it may be time to consider educating yourself about divorce.  While difficult, it could be a healthy step to change an unhealthy situation.

The main premise of SplitsvilleNews.com is that there is life after divorce.  I suppose it’s a little like the notion “You can get there, we can help”.

However, a Canadian attorney has seen such hurdles for couples seeking divorce in Ontario that he decided to help in a virtual way.  Robert Berman’s site MyOntarioDivorce.com is his solution to the complicated forms, uncooperative court staff and expense of legal counsel that he saw plaguing divorcing couples in his area.  Berman’s site is intended as a resource to help those couples actually get divorced, rather than give up because it’s too complex.

As with the 60 Minute Divorce I wrote about, it depends on your situation as to whether this online, form-generating site is a fit.  Berman himself admits that using the site isn’t a substitute for seeing a lawyer.  (Amen!)  However, knowing that it takes a divorce to have a life after divorce, I will guardedly express my opinion that there are some instances where a discount divorce can be better than no divorce at all.

From time to time clients ask “What should I be sure to not do”?

Typically, these are very conscientious clients who are concerned about making wise decisions in light of the changes that come with a decision to divorce.  Here’s a new one for that list, from the “truth is stranger than fiction” category:

Don’t declare that your marriage is ended on Facebook.

Earlier this month the “Daily Mail” reported that a 39-year-old British IT consultant posted a Facebook status message that said “Neil Brady has ended his marriage to Emma Brady”.  Emma found out over the course of the workday, and asked her husband that evening if he had anything to tell her.  Did he?  No!

Apparently, the way that those who are not “friends” with Neil on Facebook found out about the message when he was brought to court for assaulting Emma.  Assault is never a good idea, and it was already on the short list of things not to do if you want to have a good divorce.

Is a faster divorce a better divorce?

The “60 Minute Divorce” is a service being offered by a New York City law firm.  The premise is that you and your spouse go to their offices, that you work with a lawyer who gathers your information, and after a 60-minute wait–during which you may choose to go to Starbucks or McDonald’s, where  you can spend the $10 gift card the firm has given you–you come back and sign the paperwork that will lead to a divorce in 4-6 weeks.

The service sounds cheap, quick and easy.  Does that make it better?  It depends.

I’m not familiar with the divorce process in New York, however as a Seattle divorce attorney, I can only think of a small sub-set of folks for whom this service is a fit (no kids, nothing to divide and no disagreements).  New York is a pretty big pond, though, so perhaps this firm is having success reeling in clients who feel comfortable boiling down a major personal transition to a couple of hours.  Is faster better?  You tell me.

Although the story isn’t new, I think it’s worth connecting back to a Washington Post story from December 2007 with tips for a good divorce.  Here are the tips, all smart ideas and cost-effective ones:

1. Face facts.
2. But get second opinions…about your options and about the law.
3. Set the tone:  Be rational and save the drama.
4. Take your time [be patient, unless there are domestic violence issues].
5. Opt out of court.
6. Keep kids out of it.
7. Don’t assume that, because there are no kids, this will be easy.
8. Confide with care, or “Try not to bad-mouth your spouse to common friends or family.”
9. Get a grip [on your emotions].
10. Be well [in other words, take care of yourself].

Because divorce is a process, and because you and your ex can be connected for years after the divorce because of kids or property, it’s worth it to plan for a good divorce because it can give you a good life after divorce.

With the passage of the stimulus bill, there is hope that the American economy will start to show improvements rather than decline.

Some interesting news over the last few months has been that the bad economy doesn’t necessarily lead to divorce and that couples will stay together during difficult economic times.  Gary Nickelson, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, has said “When you have an economic downturn people are not so quick to change their situation.”

So, as couples who are having a difficult time in their marriage try to make decisions about the future, it seems that life in a bad economy is more troubling than divorce.  This makes me wonder what will happen if the stimulus bill is successful:  Will improvement in the economy lead to an increase in divorce filings?  Will priorities shift, so that life in an improving economy is less troubling than divorce?  Stay tuned.

In Washington, an important part of dividing up the assets and debts is first determining what’s community and what’s not.  (While clients often have a sense of what’s fair, and what they’d like to get out of the divorce, it is still important to understand the legal backdrop against which they’re making that agreement.)

In New York, a judge may be called on to determine what kind of property a kidney is!

As you may have already read, there’s a New York couple in the process of divorcing and one bit of “property” at issue is a kidney that the wife has, which was donated to her by her husband, a vascular surgeon.  I can’t speculate on how the case will turn out, as I’m not familiar with the law in New York, but it seems pretty unlikely to me that the judge will give Dr. Batista the relief he’s requested:  Either a return of the kidney or $1.5 million in compensation.

In Washington, a judge would have to determine how to characterize the kidney and attempt to answer the question “What kind of property is a kidney?”.  According to the law in Washington, property is characterized by when it is acquired.  To start with, then, the kidney would be considered the husband’s separate property.  But then he gave it to the wife…and I bet there was a heck of a lot of paperwork involved to record the “gift”.  My vote:  The kidney belongs to the wife, and not in the divorce negotiations.

UPDATE:  According to this story, the Doctor will not be able to include the kidney in the divorce settlement.  State Supreme Court marital referee Jeffrey Grob has said that it’s not legal to put a monetary value on a human organ.  In other words, an organ isn’t any kind of “property” at all.

Mediation can be a good way to pave the way for a happy life after divorce.  These are the most important ingredients for mediation:  the ability to keep an open mind, a commitment to being honest, and the willingness to participate in good faith.

As a mediator, I don’t expect clients to get along…otherwise they wouldn’t need to see me.  I do ask that clients show each other (and myself) basic courtesy, and that everyone (again including myself) be flexible.  With these tools, we can have productive mediation sessions that allow you to address the things you need and then move forward in your life.

Because divorce is the legal ending of a marriage, there are some aspects of a case that must go through the court.  The paperwork that you file to request a divorce must go through the court.  However, options for having an amicable divorce do exist.

One way to help the divorce process be less stressful–and post-divorce life to be better–is to work with a mediator.  A mediator is a person trained to assist clients in communicating, working through disagreements and brainstorming options.  Sometimes attorneys work as mediators, however a mediator is not required to be a lawyer.  Regardless of what professional background a mediator comes from, he or she may or may not be a “fit” for you depending on whether you feel comfortable with their style and whether they have the knowledge/experience needed for your case.  You can find some more information about mediation here.

Another way to resolve issues outside of court is through a process called “Collaborative Law”.  In Collaborative Law, each party has hired his or her own attorney, and everyone–attorneys included–sign a participation agreement that says that they will not go to court.  Negotiations in the case are then handled in a series of meetings, and it is very common for shared experts like a financial expert or a communication coach to participate in the process to help move negotiations forward.  Collaborative Law can be a fit in many instances, including situations that are complicated legally, financially or emotionally.  Here is more information about Collaborative Law, from the organization to which most practitioners belong.

Title isn’t controlling. What does that mean?

According to the law in Washington, property acquired after marriage is considered to be community property.  Clients can sometimes find this surprising, especially when the legal title is held in just one person’s name.  The determining factor, though, is not what the title says but when the item is acquired and what funds were used to acquire it.

If you acquired the item before you were married, and it was in your name, it would be considered to be your separate property.  If you had taken out a loan then, the loan would be your separate debt.  But if you buy a car during marriage, with what I’m assuming was money you earned during marriage, the car is actually community property and you both have a claim to it.  In other words:  Title isn’t controlling.

In Washington, a couple can choose to file for legal separation or for dissolution of marriage.  The paperwork for the two processes is nearly identical, and the outcome for both kinds of cases will include a division of property and liabilities, orders of spousal maintenance (sometimes referred to as alimony), and orders regarding parenting and child support (if there are children).

The major difference between a legal separation and a dissolution is that a legal separation does not end the marriage.  It creates legal and financial separation, but the underlying marital relationship continues.  Legal separation can be an option when the parties know that they need legal/financial distance without dissolving the marriage.  Maintaining the marriage can be helpful to one or both parties in instances where it allows for the possibility of reconciliation, where religious beliefs are opposed to marriage, where one party has a benefit (such as medical coverage) that they are willing to extend to the other, or–as in the military–eligibility for a retirement benefit is conditioned a certain number of years of marriage.

Because there is not the same mandatory waiting period for a legal separation as for a dissolution, couples can get their final paperwork with the court entered more quickly than in a dissolution.  Something to be aware of, though, is that it is possible for one person to ask the court to convert the legal separation to a dissolution six months after the final paperwork is entered.  So, although a legal separation can be a way to get legal/financial distance and still remain married, there is no built-in guarantee that this “in between” state will last.

Reason #3 why I think mediation is a good idea is a simple one:  Cost.  Even judges acknowledge that working with the court system can be very expensive for clients.  Each side may choose to hire a lawyer, then each side may choose to hire his or her own expert, and then each side puts together materials for the court with his/her own version of the story and proposed outcome for the case.

Paying these kinds of costs is especially tough in a divorce situation, when you’re going from having one household to having two households.  Living costs inevitably go up and income can take a while to catch up…if it ever does.  The increased costs of living are why, about a year ago, researchers claimed that divorce was bad for the environment.  (Here’s the story.)

By using mediation, or other processes that avoid the costs that come with the formalities of court (ex. Collaborative Law), families can manage their costs.  Avoiding court has the double benefit of keeping stress down and keeping costs–which are also stressful–down, too.  Each of these out-of-court ways of resolving matters offer the other benefits of mediation:  You can keep your private life private, and you can be much more in control of the process.  Good things, don’t you think?

First, to review:  Reason # 1 to mediate is that it gives YOU control over the process and the outcome.

Reason # 2 to mediate is that it keeps your private life private.  Whether you need to reach a short-term agreement, or whether you’re working out your long-term property split, mediation offers you the opportunity to keep your negotiations private.

If you were to use the court system, any documents you file (except for those that are “sealed” because of the personal identifiers they contain) would be open for anyone to read.  That means that, if you or your spouse makes negative allegations about the other person, they are out there for the whole world to read.  It also means that a random stranger could sit in on your court date and hear everything that you say to the judge.

It’s important to be able to get everything out in a negotiation process, and mediation allows you an opportunity to do that and to keep the things you say private.  In fact, Washington law keeps the things said during mediation confidential, expect in specific instances.  (You can find them here.)  Those instances are where there is a threat or statement to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime; where a mediation session may be intentionally used to plan a crime; where there is an allegation of professional misconduct filed against the mediator and so information needs to come out to address that; where there is an allegation of misconduct by a professional or mediation party and information needs to come out to address that; or where there is an indication of abuse of a child or vulnerable adult.

There are a number of good reasons to mediate, and I’ll cover what I think are the top three in my next series of posts.

Reason #1 - It gives you control over the outcome.  In Washington, the standard for dividing property and liabilities is “fair and equitable”.  Sometimes fair is 50/50, sometimes fair is 60/40.  When you go in front of a judge, the reality becomes that fair is whatever the judge thinks is fair.  (Well, it would be possible to appeal the decision, but that often costs even more money that you spent to get to trial in the first place.)

When you choose to mediate, you are in a position to discuss who gets what asset or debt…and why.  You have the freedom to “pause” negotiations in order to get more information, such as financial advice, an appraisal or tax planning tips.  As you get new information, or as the situation changes, you can make revised proposals and adapt possible settlements.  You can also make deals that fit your own situation, but that a judge wouldn’t ever consider or would outside of his or her power to order.