Blog

Mr. Kessler to introduce Judge Brasher at the International Academy of Family Attorneys Seminar in Savannah, GA

Randy Kessler will introduce Judge Brasher at the upcoming IAFL USA & Canadian Chapter Meeting. The meeting will take place at The Mansion at Forsyth Park. The schedule for Thursday is as follows:

Yoga
6:00 a.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Atlantic Galerie
Join us for Yoga to start your day. Yoga mat is provided.

Breakfast
6:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.
700 Drayton Restaurant

Executive Committee Meeting, USA Chapter
7:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.
Pacific Galerie

Education Program
8:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
Viennese Ballroom

  • Opening Remarks” – Marlene Eskind Moses
  • Laying the Foundation: How to Get Information from an International Perspective, plus E-Discovery“- Jorge Cestero [Moderator] / William Glucksman [USA]/ Elizabeth Lindsey [USA]/ Susan Moss [USA]/ Elisha Roy [USA]/ Sarah Boulby [Canada]/ Simon Bruce [England]/ Alain Cornec [France]/ Johan Sarvik [Sweden]
  • Best Interests of the Child? The Hague Convention Debate” – Laura Dale [Moderator]
    Catarina E. Tempesta [Ontario, Canada]/ Jeremy Morley [N.Y., USA]/ Judge Christopher S. Brasher, Superior Court of Fulton County GA/ Ashley Tomlinson [TX. USA] Philippe Lortie, First Secretary, Permanent Bureau at the Hague Conference

For more information, click here.


Mr. Kessler quoted about high profile divorce clients and prenuptial agreements.

Holts’ postnuptial pact could pave way for peaceful divorce

By Tom Orsborn

A marital property agreement between Spurs chairman and co-CEO Julianna Hawn Holt and her husband Peter Holt could pave the way for the couple to have a low-key divorce away from the public eye, family law experts said.

“They have pretty much already decided how everything is going to go,” St. Mary’s University law professor Dayla S. Pepi said. “That’s part of the purpose of these agreements.”

Julianna Hawn Holt became chairman of the board of the Spurs ownership group in March 2016 after her husband stepped down from that post following a remarkable 20-year run that included five NBA championships.

Citing that the marriage has become “insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities,” Julianna Hawn Holt filed for divorce after more than 30 years of marriage last Dec. 22 in state District Court in Bexar County, according to documents obtained by the San Antonio Express-News.

Peter Holt responded by filing a counterpetition on Jan. 26.

Records show the Holts entered into their postnuptial agreement in 2006 and amended it more than seven years later. Neither the original nor the amended agreement was publicly filed, so the contents are not known.

The agreement, though, defines the property each owned prior to their marriage, the property each received during the marriage, and their community property.

In addition, it specifies “who has management, control and the rights to disposition” as to their separate property and their community property.

Pepi said if the “partition agreement” is followed, the divorce will get “dispensed of relatively under the radar without anybody knowing it’s on a docket or anything like that.”

Court documents show both Julianna Hawn Holt and Peter Holt have stated their desire that the court “enforce the agreement(s) and divide the marital estate accordingly.”

But Pepi was quick to caution a “knock-down drag out” could ensue should one of the parties eventually decide for whatever reason they don’t want to follow the postnup agreement.

“If one has this sense the other party was responsible for the divorce and sort of feels slighted,” Pepi said, “then they can try like with any other contract to go in and tell the court why this contract isn’t enforceable, why they shouldn’t be bound by the agreement.

“But, otherwise, they have already decided among themselves who is going to keep what. More often than not, these cases are negotiated and an agreed order is brought to the court so they don’t have a bench trial or a jury trial or anything drawn out.”

But not all postnuptial agreements hold up under scrutiny. That was the tough lesson then-Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie learned in 2010 while in the midst of an ugly, drawn-out divorce that drew vigilant media attention while playing out against a Hollywood backdrop.

A 10-page postnuptial agreement giving Frank McCourt sole ownership of the baseball team was thrown out by a judge after it was discovered two conflicting versions were signed and the McCourts acknowledged they hadn’t read the agreements, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The testimony by both parties “paints a picture of two people who had no involvement in the drafting or execution of the (agreement) … and did not closely read or did not read at all the drafts or final copies of the various (agreements) involved in this case,” the judge wrote, per the Times.

In 2011, the court finally ordered Frank McCourt to pay his former wife and Dodgers ex-CEO $131 million as part of their settlement, ending a case that aired dirty laundry, including the couple’s lavish spending habits.

Randy Kessler, an Atlanta-based family law attorney who has represented several professional athletes and other celebrities in divorce and child custody cases, agreed with Pepi that the Holts could avoid a public spat by honoring their postnuptial agreement. Otherwise, Kessler, echoed Pepi’s belief that it could get nasty in an argument over property.

The Holts own 40 percent of a team recently valued by Forbes at nearly $1.6 billion, meaning their share of the franchise is valued at about $620 million. The next largest investor is believed to be Aramark Inc., the AT&T Center’s concessions contractor, with more than 10 percent.

Kessler said sticking points could arise over the labeling of property.

“That’s the litigation — is the money we want to divide dividable or was it separate property,” he said. “There is a whole industry of forensic investigators that dig into it, and then one side tries to prove the money that purchased the team was the money he earned during the marriage. And then the other side tries to prove that, no, that was the money he had from his family or a family trust or whatever it is.

“Hopefully, the post-nuptial agreement cuts to the chase and says, ‘Here is what we are going to do regardless of what the law is.’ There is a phrase that you can use, and that’s you are allowed to contract around the law.”

One thing is certain: Each party has top-notch representation.

Peter Holt has hired attorney William Ford. Julianna Holt is represented by Richard Orsinger, who was also involved in divorce cases involving Spurs icons Tim Duncan and Tony Parker.

Orsinger was Parker’s attorney when the point guard filed for divorce in 2010 from actress Eva Longoria. Orsinger, however, later withdrew from the case because of a conflict of interest. Three years later, he helped represent Amy Duncan when she filed for divorce from Tim Duncan.

“They are preeminent family law attorneys,” Pepi said. “Richard Orsinger represents pretty much every celebrity in San Antonio that is going through a divorce. And Bill Ford is highly regarded and also does these larger divorces.”

This article originally appeared on San Antonio Express News.


Kessler & Solomiany LLC attorneys recognized as Super Lawyers for 2018

Attorneys at Kessler & Solomiany LLC were recognized as Super Lawyers for the 2018 year. Randy Kessler and Marvin Solomiany were recognized as two of the Top 100 attorneys in the State of Georgia, as well as Super Lawyers in Family Law. Wayne Morrison, Brooke French, Thad Woody, Karine Burney (Rising Stars) and Lindsay Dodson (Rising Stars) were selected as Super Lawyers in Family Law.


Mr. Kessler quoted by NPR about Spyware in Divorce

I Know Where You’ve Been: Digital Spying And Divorce In The Smartphone Age

It was the summer of 2016, and M was worried her ex-husband was stalking her. She would get out of town and stay with friends. But, as she noted in court documents, her ex seemed to know exactly where she was and whom she visited — down to the time of day and street.

M started to change the way she drove — slowing down, driving in circles — in case a private investigator was following her. She didn’t see one. Then she went online and learned about GPS trackers — small devices you can slip into a car to monitor where it goes 24/7. She looked for one and couldn’t find any.

Weeks later, when she took her car to a local auto shop for maintenance, she asked the mechanic to look. He found the GPS tracker near her front left tire.

Digital spy tools like that GPS tracker are changing divorce as we know it. Increasingly, couples are turning to the latest technology to spy on each other as their marriages fall apart, according to dozens of divorce lawyers, investigators and even a leading family court judge whom NPR interviewed. Tools are cheap and easy to use — from something as simple as the Find My iPhone feature to spyware that can be installed in a spouse’s computer, phone, or even a car, as M had discovered.

NPR interviewed M, her lawyers and the police sergeant she filed a report with; we also reviewed her court filings and those of her ex-husband. We won’t disclose any of their names or where she lives to protect her identity because she fears for her safety.

Back at the mechanic, M looked at the device — it was a small black box. The sales clerk there pushed the button to show that the batteries still had 25 percent to 50 percent energy remaining. Meaning, they had been in use for just a few weeks.

That was odd, because M had left her husband nearly a year earlier. But her ex-husband had found a way through technology to stay abreast of her movements. It may sound intrusive, but it was legal.

M’s husband acknowledged through a lawyer’s letter and in family court that he had the GPS tracker installed. The sergeant from the police station did a criminal investigation. But, he tells NPR, prosecutors would not prosecute because the car was jointly owned; if it belongs to both of them, the ex had a right to track it.

For M, this discovery was profoundly troubling. She described it to NPR in an interview at her lawyer’s office: “I am now fully aware that all of those times that I thought I was keeping myself safe, all of those times that I was leaving town, all of those times that I was staying in different places, staying at friends’ houses, I never was safe.”

After discovering the GPS tracker at the mechanic, she went directly to the police precinct to give a statement. NPR reviewed the video recording; M spelled out for the sergeant how it felt to discover she wasn’t going crazy when she suspected that she was being watched.

“I’m terrified. I am absolutely terrified,” she said at the precinct, holding back tears. “I might still be functioning. But that doesn’t mean I’m not terrified.”

Welcome to divorce in the 21st century — when what it means to be safe and how much privacy you’re entitled to are open questions. M’s case is not unique. NPR talked with dozens of marital experts. They say digital spying is changing divorce as we know it. The tools are abundant. Clients use it in an effort to stay in control after a separation or to gather evidence of extra-marital affairs or drug abuse. But the laws are murky, and law enforcement is lagging far behind.

A more invasive tool

Lawyers say that partners in breakups sometimes install spyware on computers or phones. These are apps that are available for a subscription fee, say $16.99 a month. Once installed, people can see every incoming and outgoing message from the target’s phone, Web searches, even keystrokes — the letters someone is typing, say, when they log into a bank account. And spyware takes just minutes to install.

The legality of tracking technology is messy. Parents are allowed to put spyware on a child’s phone or a home computer, for example. But, experts say, putting it on a spouse’s smartphone without consent is generally illegal.

Lawyers say they can’t prevent their clients from using digital spying. Some are willing to accept such evidence if legally obtained and will even present it in court to help their client’s case. Other lawyers don’t want to get near it.

“I have little power over a client’s curiosity,” says Susan Myers, a family law attorney in Houston. “More often than not, they’ve already done the [illegal] act by the time they show up to my office.” She says her office will not accept it as evidence because then she too would be subject to criminal liability for wiretapping and intercepting electronic communications.

Emily Miskel, a family court judge in Collin County, Texas, has a different perspective on what is really happening. “Lawyers are extremely conflicted and confused,” she says. “[They] are put in a position of having to choose between a rock and a hard place, because [their] duty is to zealously advocate for clients which means using every bit of evidence that can help their case.”

Not just evidence, but control

M doesn’t think her ex stopped at the GPS tracker. She suspects he used spyware on her phone, in an effort to stay in control. She left him and took their child after, she says, he choked her.

In family court — in her affidavits and oral testimony — M laid out her fear of both physical abuse and electronic surveillance. M claimed her ex seemed to know the contents of her text messages — which friends she talked to, even after she left the house.

M gave NPR this one example of an unsettling message her ex-husband sent: “I know all of the ways you’ve described me to your friend.” She says snippets of how she described him were then forwarded to her as a text message.

Her ex has denied all allegations. And the judge focused on the physical charges, like choking, rather than on the digital spying allegations.

With her suspicions raised after discovering the GPS tracker, M went to an Apple store for help locating spyware on her phone. She says the Genius Bar employees didn’t look for the spyware; instead they helped her by swapping the device for a brand new one. But that meant that the evidence, if any, went along with the phone. This is common in spyware cases, in which victims solve the immediate problem but can’t present proof for an investigation.

What the data show

In 2012, the last time the Justice Department attempted to quantify stalking, it estimated that 1.5 percent of all adults in the U.S. were victims. That figure more than doubled — to 3.3 percent — for people who were divorced or separated.

An even earlier DOJ survey of stalking victims in 2005 and 2006 found that electronic monitoring of some kind was used on one in 13 victims. This was before iPhones and the smartphone era.

Criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits over digital stalking remain, however, few and far between. Experts say a huge barrier to criminal prosecution is that local police cannot or will not investigate. People who believe they are victims have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to get a private investigator who specializes in digital forensics to diagnose their smartphones or laptops. It’s far cheaper to just wipe out a hard drive or trade in a device — as in M’s case — than to document that a crime has occurred.

NPR reviewed two dozen cases that have made their way into criminal or civil courts and found that punishments are uneven for use of spying tools. In a 2007 case, a man in Austin, Texas, who used software called SpyRecon against his wife got a four-year prison sentence. Meanwhile in 2011, an appeals court found that a Minnesota man who used a GPS tracker on his wife did not break the law because she was not the sole owner of their car (similar to M’s case).

Randy Kessler, an attorney based in Atlanta, says candidly about his clients: “I see it in their eyes. I tell them: ‘Don’t do it.’ But they still do it. And you know personally, if it was in my life, I’d be tempted.”

NPR intern Mollie Simon contributed to this report.
This report first appeared on NPR.


Mr. Kessler quoted by the Huffington Post

9 Mistakes That Will End Up Costing You In Divorce Court

Divorce attorneys share their tricks of the trade.
By Brittany Wong

Want to win your divorce ― or at least come out financially secure?

Take it from divorce attorneys and don’t make any of these common mistakes that almost always end up costing people who decide to litigate.

1. Going to court without a lawyer.

“This is the No. 1 mistake. Yes, you might do fine, but lawyers ― good lawyers who are in court often ― will know the procedures, the etiquette, the judge’s likes and dislikes and many other things that can be invaluable. You often only have one chance at a good result. Hedge your bets, improve your odds, get a good lawyer. Or at least consult with a lawyer ahead of time to better understand the process.” ― Randall Kessler, a divorce attorney in Atlanta, Georgia

2. Not being prepared with your paperwork.

“If the judge asks you a question and you don’t have a good answer, there’s a very good chance they won’t be pleased. For example, if you show up to court for a hearing where you are seeking a reduction in financial support, you better have documentation ready to prove your income and debts. If the judge asks for something and you don’t have it, that won’t help your case.” ― Jason Levoy, an attorney and divorce coach in New York City

3. Not meeting with or talking to your lawyer about the trial ahead of time.

“Trial is unknown territory for most people and learning what to expect is crucial. Practice, practice, practice. And if possible, go watch another case ahead of time to see and feel the courtroom environment.” ― Kessler

4. Dressing inappropriately.

“Like it or not, appearances count. If you walk into court looking like a hot mess, you’re going to have a harder time convincing a judge that you should have 50/50 parenting time and joint custody of your kids. Yes, I know that doesn’t seem fair. Sorry, but judges are human, too. And if you walk into court wearing expensive clothing and jewelry, good luck convincing the court that you don’t have enough money to pay your child support.” ― Karen Covy, a divorce attorney and coach in Chicago

5. Making unreasonable demands.

“Don’t overreach. Many people think that in order to get $500 per month, they need to ask for $1,000 per month. But this may well come off as greedy and overreaching. Make a reasonable proposal. The judge is looking for a reasonable solution.” ― Kessler

6. Not turning off your cell phone before you walk into court.

“Judges are busy. They have a lot of cases to cover, and they don’t appreciate being interrupted. Anything that beeps, buzzes or rings in a courtroom will draw the judge’s attention to you in a way you definitely are not going to want. Even using your cell phone in court is considered disrespectful. So, when you walk into the courtroom, leave your cell phone in your pocket.” ― Covy

7. Interrupting the judge.

“This is a big no-no. Tape your mouth shut if you have to, but interrupting a judge while they are speaking will get you nowhere fast. I always tell people to write their thoughts on paper so you don’t forget, but wait for your turn to speak. You will get it. Nothing pisses off a judge more than a litigant who interrupts them.” ― Levoy

8. Giving the court clerk and other courtroom personnel attitude.

“The judge may be the one who makes decisions in your case, but the judge’s clerk is the one who makes sure the courtroom is running the way the judge wants. If you piss off the clerk, you will also anger the judge. (Plus, the clerk will probably make sure your case gets called dead last that day.)” ― Covy

9. Being angry.

“Judges do not like angry people, even if the anger is justified. Be polite, sweet and endearing. The judge is a person who will be deciding how to help you through this mess and it is much better if the judge likes you. Even if you are 100 percent in the right, present your situation politely ― it makes a difference.” ― Kessler

Quotes were edited and condensed for clarity. This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post