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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

“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!