NJ Family Legal Blog : New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Domestic Violence, Prenuptial Agreements, Child Custody

Connecticut seems to be the hotbed of celebrity divorces these days. 

Yesterday's news reported that model Stephanie Seymour will have to make due on $270,000 per month in temporary support while her case is pending.  The news accounts report that her husband nets $1.5 million per month making this appear to be a veritable drop in the bucket.

Today's new reports that sportscaster Jim Nantz has to pay his wife $72,000 per month in permanent alimony plus $1,000 per week in child support.  This is a substantial amount if his income is $3.2 million as noted in one place but not so much if his income is $7 million as reported in other places. 

Aside from a look into the lives of the rich and famous, this shows another thing - that is, divorce can be a very public airing of very private matters.  While perhaps it may be more noteworthy for celebrities, even much of regular people's divorce can become part of the public record.  While it is not possible to completely avoid this, treating each other in a dignified and fair manner and settling issues is a way to help keep things out of the public record. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

As a divorce lawyer, I follow with interest the high profile divorces when they are in the news.  There were actually three in yesterday and  today's papers, John & Kate, Christie Brinkley and Peter Cooke and Stephanie Seymour. 

If the news accounts of the allegations are correct, then the news of the last few days included one party wiping out a large bank account and leaving the other with little cash; the other party in the same case not allowing the spouse to share in the children's birthday party; failure to timely turn over a passport so that a child could attend a school trip being chaperoned by the other parent; and the destruction of art work in the family home.  A few weeks ago, one of the combatants was quoted about how he "despised" the other spouse.  Even if you think that, why do you say it, especially in the press, no less.

These kind of things happen every day in divorces that don't make the news.  That does not make it right. The process is difficult enough for the parties and their children without having to deal with aberrant, aggressive or hateful conduct.  When it clearly happens, the conduct usually blows up in the face of the perpetrator.

Having represented a few professional athletes and celebrities or their spouses in the past, it is fascinating how these things play out in the press. I wonder, with disbelief, especially now that the Internet provides a record of everything, why certain dirty laundry is aired in such a public way where the kids (or their friend, classmates, etc.) may be able to see it either now or in the future. Some of this may be unavoidable because most divorce filings are public records available for anyone to see. That said, one wonders if there is not a better way.  Is the prolonging of the 15 minutes of fame worth it?. 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Previously I blogged about child support in cases where the combined net income exceeds the upper levels of the Child Support Guidelines.  To see that post, click here.

That issue was prominent in the Appellate Division's decision in the Strahan case which was released on August 26, 2008 as a reported decision (meaning that the case has precedential effect). To see the full text of the case, click here.

This case involved the divorce of Michael Strahan, formerly of the New York Giants and his former wife, Jean.  At issue as to child support was support for their three year old twin daughters.

The trial court found that the basic child support amount under the guidelines was $35,984 a year but then found that the children had a supplemental need of $200,000 a year, for a total
of $235,984 a year.  Mr. Strahan was ordered to pay 91% of this.

The Appellate Division found several errors in the amount and allocation of child support. First, the trial court took as both accurate and reasonable Jean's budget, which included $27,000 per year in clothes, $30,000 per year in landscaping, gifts of diamonds for grandparents, a vacation for the nanny, etc.  The Appellate Division found that there was duplication between the children's needs and Jean's needs, that certain items should have been eliminated and that others were not reasonable. Further, the court held that while Mr. Strahan expressed  at trial his desire not "to spoil" the children and to teach them the value of money, the trial court  failed to address
plaintiff's "legitimate right . . . to determine the appropriate lifestyle of [his] child[ren]."

The Appellate Division also found that it was error not to impute income to Jean, who had earned $70,000 per year previously.  Interestingly, they commented that "employment opportunities were, in all likelihood, enhanced by her celebrity marriage. There is no question that as a healthy, educated, 41-year-old, (she) is capable of earning her own income."

The Appellate Division also reversed the requirement that Mr. Strahan maintain $7.5 million in disability insurance, in part because he had retired, and in part because it exceeded the life insurance that he was required to maintain.  The Court noted that if he became disabled, he would be entitled to file the same change of circumstances motion as any other litigant. 

However, Mr. Strahan's request to have the matter remanded to a new judge was denied.  The Appellate Division noted, once again, that an adverse ruling does not equate to bias. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)

With the slew of recent celebrity or notorious divorces in the news lately (i.e. Christie Brinkley, Jim McGreevey, Bill Murray, A-Rod, to name a few), one would think that adultery and other marital fault is really dealt with in the courts and that people are punished for these actions by a Court. 

Maybe they are in other states, but it is not particularly relevant in New Jersey.  In fact, in 2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in the Mani v. Mani case, held that marital fault is irrelevant to alimony except in two narrow instances: cases in which the fault negatively affects the economic status of the parties and cases in which the fault so violates societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice (examples given were attempting to murder the supporting spouse and deliberately infecting a spouse with a loathsome disease.). . 

This is not to say that the conduct is ignored altogether.  If a spouse spent marital funds on a paramour, the fault  is not considered but the other spouse by may be due a credit.  Similarly, if the conduct impacts on the fitness of a parent and/or the best interests of the children, they can be raised in custody and parenting time proceedings. 

While NJ still has fault grounds for divorce (i.e. adultery, extreme cruelty, desertion, voluntary drug addiction, habitual drunkenness, institutionalism for mental illness, imprisonment and deviant sexual conduct), they are not often plead anymore now that the no-fault "irreconcilable differences" cause of action for divorce was enacted.  That said, even when they are plead, all they get you is a divorce. 

Unless there is a limited issue where this is relevant, leave the seedy mudslinging to the celebrities. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks