divorce

Prenups are not romantic, especially for the Prince and Princess

There is no question that a Prenuptial Agreement is unromantic (although I have heard of a man getting down on one knee to offer a prenup to his fiance). Whatever the reason a prenup may be desired (a bad first marriage and expensive first divorce, for instance), asking your intended to sign a prenuptial agreement is very unromantic. But then again, many things about marriage are unromantic. The decisions about the wedding, for instance, are often a struggle between the desire for the most beautiful, exotic wedding in the world versus the finances available. Or whether to even have a big wedding and invite everyone, or save the money for a first marital home? Even the question of who to invite to the wedding can be very unromantic and often the cause for dissention. Should a relative who has been unfriendly to the fiance’ be invited? Do step-parents walk down the aisle? So the issue of whether or not to sign a prenuptial agreement is not the only practical question an engaged couple faces. But it may be the most troubling. After all, isn’t the request to sign a prenuptial agreement bascially a nice way of saying I don’t trust you one hundred percent? Or at least, maybe it is a way of saying I don’t trust me, or us, one hundred percent. Either way it casts doubt on a couple’s certain belief that their marriage will last forever.

But many, about half of all marriages don’t last forever. And what really should be avoided is a contested divorce. And that is the one true potential benefit of a prenuptial agreement. It can avoid, or at least reduce litigation and the related costs.

So the issue of whether or not to execute a prenuptial agreement is a balance bewteen practicaity and romance. And for a couple being looked upon these days as the epitomy of romance, the Prince William and his bride, Kate, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, it is understandable why apparently no prenuptial agreemen was signed (click here for press coverage of that issue). It is understandable why they may have opted for romance, but even so, it was a required consideration, and likely that the question at least caused the Prince to consider it. There is nothing wrong with weighing options, even if only for a millisecond, especially for a future leader (at least a future figurehead leader) of his country. But for a fairytell wedding, it seems a prenuptial agreement just would not have fit the storyline. And they are not the only ones to feel that way. These questions and emotions are not unique to British Royalty. In my practice I have seen this exact dilemma often, and can never predict whether a prenuptial agreement will actually be signed. But the process is intriguing and one of the most human endeavors I have the opportunity to witness from time to time.


Facebook and Divorce discussed in WSJ

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece about Facebook and Divorce today. It was written by Carl Bialik, “The Numbers Guy” (click here for a link to his blog and to the article). Feel free to read the article, which focuses on the issue, but it really just scratches the surface. Facebook cannot “cause” a divorce any more than a plane can “cause” a crash. People initiate, respond and act. Facebook may facilitate things. Facebook may create introductions, or re-introductions to former friends (or to friends of friends). But human beings are the actors, not Facebook.

Yes, as divorce lawyers we see Facebook arise in all sorts of ways. It sometimes provides a vehicle to gather evidence (photos of a spouse kissing a paramour or vacationing in Florida while the other spouse thinks they are in Boise?). But even before Facebook, the internet did the same thing, but perhaps not so easily. There were emails, Chat Rooms, Dating Sites and even “Histories” (a list of recent websites visited by a computer user). But as a divorce lawyer who has practiced family law since before the Internet, I don’t think human nature has changed, or been changed by Facebook. Human beings seek happiness. Sometimes they find it in a good book or movie. Sometimes in alcohol, sometimes in a lover, and hopefully, in the best case scenario, they simply find happiness in themselves and their loved ones.

No, Facebook doesn’t “cause” divorce. But can it provide opportunities, connections and introductions? Sure. But so can other avenues. The difference is that Facebook feels safe, innocent. Typing from your home is much easier and less aggressive than going out to meet people, especially if the intent is to meet someone to be unfaithful with.

Cheaters will find a way to cheat, Facebook or no Facebook. But there are folks who may not otherwise cheat. Perhaps they didn’t have the courage to flirt? Perhaps they had no way to meet people (they may live in a remote area)? Perhaps they are just shy? Facebook (and really the internet) eliminates these obstacles.

So what can be done? Nothing. It is really the same dilemma that has been around fory ears. Do spouses trust each other? In the past it may have been do you trust your spouse to work late, especially if there is someone at work to whom he or she may be attracted? It all comes down to love and fidelity. Some people just have it. And they are the lucky ones.


DOMA no longer to be defended by Federal Government

The Obama administration moved closer to officially recognizing the right of same sex couples to marry. It was done in a reverse sort of way. As reported by the Washington Post “The Obama administration said Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that bans the recognition of same-sex marriage because it considers the legislation unconstitutional….” (click here for full story from the Washington Post).

It seems the administration recognizes that sooner or later the fedral law defining marriage as between man and woman will be overturned. But in this manner, he seems to making it easier for the courts to make that determination, since it may take a very long time for the legislature to do so.

Like the ancient Chinese proverb says “We live in interesting times.”


Another foot in (or out) the door for gay marriage (or at least for gay divorce)

A very interesting case from Texas is in the news. A lesbian couple left texas to get married in Massachussetts. They returned to Texas and subsequently sought, and obtained a divorce. The Texas Attorney General then intervened, but so far that intervention has been been ruled as coming too late (click here for a link to the story).

Perhaps Texas law had previously not allowed gay divorce since it does not allow gay marriage (and in essence, granting a divorce to a gay couple basically acknowledges a gay marriage). While this case may not set reliable precedent, it does seem to be an indicator of where things are headed. And, had the court not granted the divorce, how would this couple have resolved their issues? Sticks and stones? It seems to me that allowing them access to the court to resolve their differences is what we should do in a civilized society. This debate is long from over, but it certainly is interesting.


Why does new year bring divorce filings?

Every January, it seems divorce suits are filed at almost double the rate of December divorce filings. Is this because people slow down at the end of the year, rethink their goals, or maybe just hope for one last chance at the magic reappearing around the holidays (and then when it does not, they file in January)? I am not sure, but what I do know is that as soon as the new year hits, the phones ring. Perhaps it is that sense of not wanting to live one more year in the same situation, or not wanting to spend one more year hoping that things will get better.

We all want to improve our lives. For most of us, divorce is a very last option. And perhaps, one sign of needing to use that “last option” is the realization that time is passing. The end of one year and the start of another is a good benchmark to make that point. Perhaps this is why the term “fresh beginnings” is often heard in our office. The decision to divorce is never easy. It means lots of change. Perhaps the idea that there will be a whole year to get through it, and that hopefully by the end of the year the change will be complete, makes it more digestible? I would be foolish to suggest I know the answer. And of course, the reasons for filing for divorce vary from situation to situation. But it is clear that divorce filings increase each January, and perhaps understanding why would help us all?

I welcome all opinions, especially from those in the fields of psychology or other studies of human nature. Please feel free to comment or email me your thoughts.


Why not seal divorce records?

Why shouldn’t we allow divorce records to be sealed? Since when is the public’s right to know more important than a couple’s right to keep private the division of their assets and the whereabouts of their children. Married people need not publicly disclose how they share assets or time with their children. So why must divorcing couples be subject to public scrutiny of their most personal dealings?

This has always seemed odd to me. In Georgia a few years ago, much was made of the Speaker of the House’s divorce being sealed (click for wikipedia info). But I think the outcry was not so much about his case being sealed, but more about why was his case sealed, when many others weren’t. The answer should have been: “Let’s seal them all”. Instead, the opinion of the majority seemed to be: “no special treatment for him”.

Currently, as reported by the Washington Post, the Montana Supreme Court is considering restricting public access to such records (click for story). As a family law attorney, I think the potential benefits are tremendous. Why should information about where children are being dropped off be public? What about agreements to sell property for a certain price? It may take a philosphical shift about court records, but family law is different. The parties, if they have children, will continue to interact and be somewhat interdependent on each other after the divorce. Why allow more roadblocks, like allowing outsiders to know their private business, to make their life any harder than it already will be?


2010, the year in family law.

As 2010 comes to a close, I can’t help but look back and realize how much “family law” was in the news (click on the stories for articles on each). There was the Goldman international custody case between U.S. and Brazilian citizens as well as gay marriage debates, laws and rulings nationwide, culminating with perhaps the most reported case of all, Proposition 8 in California (click for Associated Press Video).

There were countless celebrity divorce and family law cases in the news. Just think of Mel Gibson, Tiger Woods, Octomom, Kate Gosselin, Sandra Bullock and perhaps the biggest of all, The McCourts (Owners of the L.A. Dodgers).

There is the Tony Parker v. Eva Longoria case and the Charlie Sheen divorce.

It is time for the media to start looking back and summarizing the stories that made news. CNN has already written one on celebrities’ troubles.

Still, what continues to amaze me, is how interested the public is in other people’s lives. Have we become a voyeuristic society? Or do we simply take comfort in knowing that even those who seem to have it all are not immune from the same type of pain and emotional (and often financial and physical) agony the rest of us may endure?

As a family law attorney it is often difficult to see so much hardship. But our role as lawyers is to help reduce that pain. To counsel and to make a bad situation a little better, or at least tolerable. Often we are the only ones who can see the light at the end of the tunnel; that there will be a tomorrow. So perhaps the most important thing we can do is to reassure our clients that tomorrow does come. And look, here it is, 2011. Many people have suffered in 2010, but many have made it through to a new year. Here’s to hoping that things get better for those who had a rough 2010, and that those who didn’t, continue to be blessed in 2011 and beyond.


Divorce financing by private companies?

It seems there is a new trend in divorce (there are always new “trends”, but this one does seem new), the private financing of a divorce by a for profit company. In other words, when someone needs a divorce but cannot afford a lawyer, instead of borrowing from relatives, or if there is no way to borrow, there may now be a new option. It seems that if the stakes are high enough, or if there are enough assets to ensure a return on investment, people going through a divorce may now be able to borrow money with the settlement monies used as a sort of collateral. There is a story in the New York Times about this (click here for the story).

Is this a good thing? That’s a very good question. The obvious discussion might be “why don’t divorce lawyers simply do this?” The not so obvious answer (until you hear it) is that it would be highly unethical. Why? Because divorce lawyers should not be motivated to simply obtain as much as they can for their client, unless that is what the client wants. So, what if a lawyer’s fee is dependent upon a large recovery, and then their client decides they want to walk away with no money? Then there is a potential conflict because the lawyer will not be paid if the client walks away, yet the lawyer’s duty is to be governed by the client’s wishes. So perhaps this new idea, a loan or investment by a third party could help? I have not yet thought about it long enough to know if I support the concept or not. What do you think? Please post a comment.


Eva v. Tony, “upping the prenup”?

Just like the rumors in the Tiger Woods divorce, there are rumors that the first time Eva Longoria caught Tony Parker cheating, she asked (or told?) him that the amounts she was to receive in their prenuptial agreement, in the event of divorce, must be increased. And if true, he likely complied because he loves his wife, wanted to stay married and felt guilty.

Relationships are very interesting and are what makes the human world go around. Money as punishment? Is that right? Well it happens all the time. Personal injury awards grant a victim of a car crash money, but does money replace a loved one, or a fractured bone? Slander claims often result in money damages, but does that undo the damage to reputation? I would submit that this example of “upping the prenup” is a way to artificially incentivize people to be monogamous or faithful. Is it right? Who knows, it is not for me to judge. But just thinking about the concept is interesting, at least to me. We use money to incentivize, to punish and to reward. Shouldn’t we be able to accomplish what we want without that? If the cheated on spouse still loves the other and wants to stay together, why ask for more money? If the cheater is truly regretful, why not just give the other whatever he/she asks for? In the end it seems we are all individuals. Maybe I am jaded as a divorce lawyer, but even I believe there are many, many people who instead of discussing money would simply discuss the relationship. If they both want it to continue, it will, if not, then it’s over. But of course it’s never that easy, is it?


Divorce Insurance? Why not a prenup?

I was recently asked to comment for CNN (click here to see the video clip of my appearance on “Newsroom” with Don Lemon) about a new fad: Divorce Insurance. My first reaction, as I told Anchor Don Lemon, is that the best insurance against divorce is not getting married. Of course that was said “tongue in cheek”, but really, if you plan to get married and want to pay, monthly, for divorce insurance, it seems very strange if not counterproductive to the goal of a long-lasting marriage. Let’s explain it this way. If a couple, or even just one spouse is considering a divorce, AND they know the expenses of a divorce are already paid for by insurance, isn’t that just one more thing that facilitates them moving forward with divorce? It is almost like saying “hey, we paid the insurance, let’s collect on it”.

Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements can predetermine division of assets and alimony. Once those things are decided, only issues related to children remain. And how can you predict the cost of issues relating to children. There are so many variations on parenting time, decision making, travel expenses, etc. How can we insure against all such costs?

Yes, divorce insurance sounds like a nice, safe bet. Why not limit your exposure? But when you start to think about the concept, it unravels. For instance, if I want to be sure I have the best divorce lawyer, is there any guarantee that the best lawyer will accept my insurance company (since insurance companies typically pay reduced rates to lawyers)? And what about a wealthy spouse who can afford a good lawyer and then, when the other spouse says “well, I need a good lawyer too”, the court’s reply may be “You have insurance so use that”?

I am all about prevention, but smart, effective prevention. To me, that is a prenuptial agreement. A prenuptial, or post nuptial agreement forces a party to think about all of the possibilities specifically. It is unclear to me how divorce insurance can address evrything, but if it makes someone more comfortable getting married, then perhaps it is not that bad. But for the best protection, I would suggest a consultation regarding a prenuptial agreement (which of course must be prepared and reviewed by an attorney in the proper jurisdiction, and I am certainly offering advice since prebuptial agreement laws vary from state to state). And besides, isn’t it nice flying without a safety net sometimes? Yes, I am a divorce lawyer saying that. Perhaps the thrill of a good marriage is that each spouse is voluntarily continuing to commit without fear of consequence. But if that thrill has been spoiled once by a bad divorce, then perhaps a prenup is right for round two.