New York Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Clement Law Firm : Family Law Serving Manhattan, Westchester County, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, New York City

A-Rod, Christie Brinkley, Madonna. There is no escaping it. Divorce is all over the news. The tabloids (and their readers) are eating it up.

The issues in these celebrity divorces are, in large measure, the same as those of everyone else. Granted - few of my cases involve the wealth of someone like A-Rod.

These cases seem to all have the recurrent theme of adultery, infidelity and loss of trust. As a result of the betrayal, marital assets will have to be divided.

The very public Christie Brinkley trial is particularly compelling. It is providing a primer on how a child custody trial works. In a child custody case the inquiry is what are the best interests of the children. In the Brinkley case the court must decide if the children should be in the sole custody of the mother or whether there should be some type of shared custody. The trial also demonstrates the role of mental health professionals in a custody fight.

The very public process, the attorneys and the press all try to demonize or to paint parties as “all good” or “all bad.” In my experience, this is often not the case. In most cases, the spouse you loved and married years ago, did not over-night morph into some unrecognizable evil force. While all the parties to the process are flawed, they have good attributes as well.

At the end of the custody battle like Christie Brinkley’s, there are no winners, only losers. The parties will not only have lost their dignity, they will also have lost the ability to share, together, the joy of life’s great events like their children’s graduations and weddings, or even the birth of their grandchildren.

The children will certainly lose. In the end, they will be drawn into the “battle” and become alienated from one, or both, of their parents.

In the end, the lesson from these trials should be that divorcing parents should, to the extent possible, agree that they cannot live together and that the marriage should end. While there may be some dispute over economic issues, parents should, to the extent possible, work together to find a way to share responsibility for raising their children

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An adulterous relationship does not necessarily always lead to divorce. The blog, Domestic Diversions offers insight on how to save your marriage after an affair.

The adulterer must be willing to disclose all the details of his affair and agree to new degrees of openness, says Rick Reynolds, founder of the Affair Recovery Center in Austin, Texas.****

It’s not always just the spouse who committed the transgression who has to change after an affair if a marriage is to recover.
Often it’s difficult for the betrayed party to consider what he or she could have done that may have helped lead to the affair, says Meg Haycraft, a Chicago couples specialist who founded a practice called TWOgether. That’s not to say that someone can blame their partner for an affair, she added.  ****

Reynolds] counsels the spouse who cheated to answer any question his or her partner has. But he also sets a date when the questioning must end.

In the end the person who cheated must admit that he/she made a mistake. Then, the parties have to be committed to restoring trust to their relationship.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A husband was justified in abandoning his wife after she admitted having an adulterous relationship. When the wife sought a divorce after her husband left her, her abandonment claim was dismissed.

The New York Legal Update provides the details of the case of Kaplan v. Kaplan:

In that case, during a marital counseling session, the wife admitted to a long term extramarital affair. Thereafter, the husband moved out of the marital residence. More than one year later, the plaintiff-wife commenced the action for divorce, after 17 years of marriage, on the grounds of abandonment and cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant-husband moved for summary judgment dismissing the action. The Supreme Court granted the husband's motion, and the Second Department affirmed.

The Second Department noted that in order to be granted a divorce on the grounds of abandonment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant unjustifiably and without the plaintiff's consent abandoned the plaintiff for a period of one or more years (see Domestic Relations Law § 170[2]). Here, The Court found that the husband was justified in leaving the marital residence because of his wife's extramarital affair. Thus, there was no abandonment, and the wife was not entitled to the divorce on this ground.

With respect to cruel and inhuman treatment the Court noted that the marriage was one of long duration, and thus, a high degree of proof was required for termination on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. And here the Court found that the plaintiff-wife's allegations of embarrassment and discomfort were insufficient to establish cruel and inhuman treatment

I am going to guess that money was the real issue in this case. What else could motivate the husband to oppose the divorce? Clearly, the marriage was dead - the husband moved from the marital home and the wife was having an affair. Since the Wife failed to prove grounds, the court did not have to address the issue of equitable distribution.

Without no-fault grounds for divorce, the wife is locked in a dead marriage; only the husband has grounds. As a result, the husband can extort economic concessions from the wife in order to secure a divorce.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Janet Langjahr in her Florida based divorce and family law blog, reports that money does not equate with happiness in marriage. Citing an article, The Rich and Unfaithful, in Forbes, she says that the wealthy are no happier in their marriages than the not as well off.

About half of wealthy people describe themselves as unhappy in their marriages, and just as many admit to cheating on their spouses in the last three years. (Interestingly, more women than men owned up to affairs.)

Somewhat ironically, the excuse cited for unfaithfulness was desire for variety.

Although half of the affluent were unhappy in their marriages, just thirty percent were considering divorce…

It is not terribly surprising that the wealthy may be more divorce adverse. Quite simply, the exit costs may simply be too great. Assets acquired during the marriage have to be equitably distributed. Maintenance to keep a non working spouse in the marital lifestyle may be required to be paid.

A couple, living comfortably, with a million dollars in assets and a nice home with a mortgage could find themselves each with half as much in cash and looking for a new place to live.

There is an economy of scale in remaining in a marriage, even an unhappy one. The same income will not go as far if it must be split between two households. Rather than paying household expenses for a single home, a divorced couple must pay rent or mortgages on two homes, as well as all the other related housing expenses. In the end, there would be less discretionary or play money.

It may be purely economics that keep the wealthy in their unhappy marriages.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New York Times featured a front page story on how computers, blackberries, cell phones and other electronic devices are being used to discover adulterous relationships and hidden assets.

The Mississippi Family Law Blog points out these electronic devises all leave a  trail which may be discovered during the course of litigation.

Folks need to understand that if you use a computer or a phone, you are leaving an electronic trail which can easily be followed. Once divorce proceedings begin, the discovery process can allow your spouse to discover e-mails and inspect computer hard drives. Just because you hit the delete button does not mean the data is gone. Many times it is easily recoverable.

But, before resorting to self-help cyber-sleuthing, it is imperative that you consult with an attorney, to ensure that you do not violate federal criminal law.  Stephen Worrall on the Georgia Family Law Blog has written extensively on this subject.

While the electronic crumbs left on a computer may evidence attempts to secrete assets, the Asset Search Blog details how money laundering schemes and other attempts to hide assets have been frustrated.

In short, in most cases, through due diligence and sheer bull doggedness, hidden assets will be discovered.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I thought it would be great to end a hot summer week with three strange tales of  parrots ratting out their owners, who were committing adultery.  Thanks to Stephen Worrall at the Georgia Family Law Blog for finding this piece on DarnDivorce.  

:November 19, 1937: According to the LA Times, Mr. James J. Reynolds wanted to put his parrot on the stand to testify concerning its knowledge of the domestic affairs of him and his wife by showing that the bird had learned to call Reynolds certain abusive names and that the bird’s teacher could have been none other than Mrs. Reynolds. Superior Judge Brand, however, refused to allow a parrot to testify declaring the procedure was a little too irregular in that the parrot probably could not be placed under oath and furthermore probably could not recall who had taught it anything it might have learned.”

November 28, 2005: Frank Ficker of Freiburg (try saying that five times straight) thought he had it all: successful wife, nice home, and a mistress on the side. But the family parrot, a pro at imitating Frank, spilled the beans on his cheating ways. That’s how Mrs. Ficker found out about her husband’s affair with a woman named Uta. “Hugo always liked to mimic Frank and he could do his voice perfectly,” said his wife. But one day Mrs. Ficker heard the bird repeating something she’d never heard before. “I heard him doing Frank’s voice, but saying ‘Uta, Uta,’” she said. According to DW-World, the unfamiliar word got the wife searching their house where she eventually came across two plane tickets to Paris, one for Frank, another for Uta (who was, evidently, the other woman.) “I kicked him straight out,” she said. “It’s just me and my parrot now.” Divorce proceedings are pending.

February 27, 2006: Argentina - Angry wife Rosella DeGambos got her blabbermouth parrot Bozo to testify in court, who then spilled all the family secrets within a two-hour appearance. “I knew he’d seen everything that my husband Carlos did when my back was turned,” Mrs. DeGambos said in an interview about her bizarre divorce court ploy. “And I knew he had the vocabulary to describe what he’d witnessed. According to Nature’s Corner, the parrot described three “pretty dollies” that Carlos had “tickled” while his wife was away. He also identified the women in photographs, calling them by their correct names. “I used to think that Carlos was a faithful husband but Bozo let me know about a year ago that something was up when I wasn’t home,” Mrs. DeGambos said. “He was using new words, words of love. And he began giggling in a high-pitched feminine voice. He kept saying, “No Carlos, not here,” and things like that. I knew if the lawyers could get him to testify, there was plenty of information they could get from him.” Shown one picture of the 23-year-old beautician Carlos allegedly wooed in his home, the bird shrieked, “Honeybun, I love you.” When Mrs. DeGambos’ attorney asked the bird, “Who loves Carlos?” the winged witness said, “Ruby loves Carlos, Ruby loves her baby.” Coincidently, Ruby is DeGambos’ young and voluptuous secretary. Judge Agusto, let Bozo’s testimony stand and granted the Mrs. her divorce. The first such ruling in the world.

I guess if you are going to cheat on your spouse, you better keep it secret from your pet as well.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks