Popular singer Seal and his supermodel wife, Heidi Klum, announced this week that they are collectively filing for divorce, according to a recent report from celebrity sleuth TMZ.

The couple released a joint statement this week that put an end to swirling rumors that their marriage was on the rocks. In their own words, “while we have enjoyed seven very loving, loyal and happy years of marriage, after much soul searching we have decided to separate.”

The couple also said, “we have had the deepest respect for one another throughout our relationship and continue to love each other very much, but we have grown apart.”

Alas, the couple has grown apart, and there’s little an adoring public can do to repair the union of the celebrity power couple, who wed in 2005 and have raised four children together, including Klum’s daughter from a prior relationship.

Klum and Seal won the admiration of many people in 2005, as they presented an odd, but emotionally touching partnership.

A childhood disease rendered Seal’s face and neck heavily scarred, and the supermodel’s relationship with him seemed to serve as a sort of inspiration to others with some disfigurement, or lesson about compassion, or perhaps nothing at all.

Regardless of the meaning behind their union, the public embraced their marriage, and Seal and Klum’s careers were both bolstered by their relationship.

And, at least publicly, they appeared to be very happy. Klum and Seal both starred in the music video “Secret,” they famously renewed their marital vows on each anniversary, and often made public appearance together, in which they were typically seen canoodling like happy lovers.

The two also hosted epic Halloween bashes each October when they would dress in famously bizarre outfits.

Adding a bit of saccharine to the obituary for the couple’s marriage, the website The Ledger observed that, in a 2007 interview with the Associated Press, Seal described his wife as his “best friend.”

Unfortunately, though, Seal’s “best friend” may have to do some physical remodeling, as she has a tattoo of his name on her arm, according to sources.

The divorce announcement comes at a strange time for the signer of “Kiss From a Rose,” as he also plans to release his newest album this week. The album, “Soul 2,” contains songs like “Love T.K.O,” “Let’s Stay Together” and “Love Don’t Live Here Anymore.”

The couple, however, hopes to have a peaceful divorce, and both appear prepared to handle the unique difficulties that arise when protecting children in divorce.

In their own words, “[t]his is an amicable process and protecting the well-being of our children remains our top priority, especially during this time of transition. We thank our family, friends, and fans for their kind words of support. And for our children’s sake, we appreciate you respecting our privacy.”

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

A columnist for the Chicago Tribune penned an interesting article this week that raises important questions about the nature of Illinois child custody laws, which resemble similar divorce regulations in states across the country.

In Illinois, child custody is usually determined by taking a fixed percentage of the income of the parent who doesn’t have physical custody of the children. This percentage is raised by a few points for each child that is involved in the divorce.

Typically, a state court will calculate the necessary amount of money that will go to the custodial parent each year, and this is either garnished from the non-custodial parent’s wages or paid in a less invasive manner.

And, while this system has remained in place for years and resembles child custody norms across the country, it is not without its flaws.

First, it is simply too inflexible for a number of different situations that might occur. For example, if the parent who is paying child support still has custody of the children on some occasions (say, during the weekends), that parent may be paying too much support overall.

If the paying parent is providing food and shelter for his or her children during the weekend, that parent may effectively be paying double for the children’s care.

Unfortunately, current child custody laws do not always allow for such a complex child care arrangement, and seem to be operating under the assumption that child custody is a zero-sum game, in which one parent is solely responsible for raising the children, and the other is solely responsible for providing funds.

In addition to this problem, the editorial board at the Chicago Tribune also observed that the current system fails to adequately address the issue of who pays when the custodial parent earns much more income than the other parent.

Under the current system, non-custodial parents with relatively small incomes may be facing an unfair burden when it comes to child support payments.

Due to these difficulties, legislators in Illinois are proposing that the state follow the lead of 38 other states and dramatically reform its child support laws.

Specifically, legislators have proposed an “income shares” system based on a simple premise: parents will share the financial burden of raising their children in a proportional manner.

So, under this system, a parent that makes more money, even if he or she has physical custody of the children, will have to bear a larger financial burden.

Advocates for this measure argue that the new system will still allow children to have the same quality of life that they did in a two-parent household, but that the system will treat former spouses more equitably and that it will recognize the shifting financial realities of the modern American marriage.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Divorced women may be able to earn higher Social Security payments, but they must be aggressive in giving notice of their different life circumstances to the federal government, according to a recent column in the Wall Street Journal.

The column urges children to help their elderly parents make the most of their Social Security entitlements, including taking advantage of higher payments after a divorce filing.

According to the Journal, if a woman has been divorced or has married more than once, or even if her husband delayed receiving his Social Security money, she may be able to receive larger payments, which can make a huge difference for older women on fixed or limited incomes.

Typically, women will receive news about the Social Security effects of their divorce from their divorce attorny, but this may not be true for women who filed for divorce several years ago, or did not seek the aid of an attorney.

And, it should be noted, the rule listed below apply to men, as well, but since women typically earn less than men, especially amongst older populations, the rules more often apply to women.

First, senior citizens should know that a person can collect Social Security payments based on his or her own earning history, or receive 50% of a spouse’s benefit, if it is greater than the other spouse’s income.

Divorce, of course, complicates things a bit. In brief, a divorced woman can receive benefits from her ex-spouse if the marriage lasted for more than ten years and the woman remains unmarried when she collects the benefits.

The marriage limitation, though, does not apply if the woman seeking to receive benefits linked to her ex-spouse gets married after 60 (this seems an odd exemption, and it may reveal some cultural and age bias within Social Security laws).

In addition to these rules, a senior citizen need not have any relationship with her ex-spouse; if she is entitled to receive these benefits, her prior marriage is the only proof she will need. In addition, her ability to collect extra benefits does not hinge on whether her former husband remarried—this simply does not matter in most cases.

Of course, while these rules are intended to help women on fixed incomes who were once divorced, some women are reluctant to attempt to collect extra benefits for a variety of cultural and ethical reasons.

Women, however, should know that applying for benefits based on an ex-spouse’s past earnings is a perfectly legitimate step, and they should not hesitate to ask a financial professional or attorney about the potential benefits of such a decision.

The laws allowing the receipt of these benefits were created because they were seen to serve an important public policy, so divorced woman should feel at ease when applying for the benefits.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

In news that is sure to disconcert her dozens of loyal fans, actress Mena Suvari was recently seen filing for divorce from her second husband, the spicily named Simone Sestito.

According to reports from several outlets, including tireless celebrity watcher TMZ, the 32-year-old star of the film “American Beauty” cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for her split from Sestito, who is a member of the dubious brotherhood of national concert promoters.

Suvari filed for divorce in a court in Los Angeles last week and sources indicate that the actress has asked the judge to bar her husband from receiving alimony payments, which does not come as a large surprise due to Suvari’s likely status as the wealthier of the two partners.

Still, despite her request for exemption from alimony payments, she may still have to pay some money to her ex-husband, provided that he wants it.

Modern alimony laws have shifted from the traditional norm (which dictated that money typically flowed from the husband to the wife after a divorce), and judges are now more likely to make wives pay their former husbands if the partners’ incomes are widely different.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the judge in Suvari’s case will honor or ignore her request, and only time will tell whether Sestito will gain financially from the separation.

The divorce comes as a bit of a surprise, as the couple was wed in 2010 in an opulent ceremony inside Vatican City, Italy, which is also famous for housing a man with a giant white hat. Sources do not indicate whether the pope presided over the Hollywood couple’s nuptials.

To be fair, sources indicate that the couple picked Italy for their ceremony because of its proximity to several of Sestito’s relatives.

This represents the second divorce for Suvari, who previously split from her first husband, cinematographer Robert Brinkmann, in May of 2005.

The marriage between Suvari and Sestito, who was seven years younger than his famous wife, lasted only 18 months before Suvari determined that she needed to end the arrangement.

The couple had met at the Toronto Film Festival in 2007 while Suvari was promoting her movie “Stuck” and, according to Sestito, the two “just understood each other.”Sestito proposed to his bride in 2008, while the couple was vacationing on the beaches of Jamaica.

Of course, while the marriage did not last particularly long, it seemed to be an average duration for a celebrity marriage, which aren’t necessarily more tumultuous than the average American marriage, but tend to garner more public attention.

And, even though celebrities have much-publicized divorces, they must also deal with the same mundane and taxing legal challenges that are inherent in any modern divorce. Suvari’s case will likely be no different.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

A bizarre lawsuit over allegedly shoddy wedding photos has taken another strange twist as the groom continues to demand a new photo shoot, despite the fact that he and his wife finalized their divorce several months ago.

Several years ago, 44-year-old Todd Remis filed a lawsuit against H&H Photography, claiming that the New York studio should pay for Remis and his bride to recreate their wedding because the initial round of photos were subpar.

Among his several complaints, Remis alleged that the photography did not stay for all the important wedding events, and that the studio refused to abide by their promise to touch-up the photos after the wedding, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The lawsuit quickly gained national attention, as television anchors and newspapers mocked the groom for his perceived oversensitivity to the wedding photos, which were taken as part of a wedding that cost roughly $50,000.

To make matters more bizarre, Remis has continued to demand that the studio pay to recreate his wedding, despite the sad truth that Remis and his ex-wife, a younger Latvian woman named Milena Grzibovska, filed for divorce in 2008.

The couple’s divorce was finalized in 2010, and Remis believes that his former spouse has moved back to her native Latvia.

Nevertheless, in a recent deposition, Remis still said, “I need to have the wedding recreated exactly as it was so the remaining 15 percent of the wedding that was not shot can be shot.” And, under his reasoning, “we would need to recreate everything to complete that.”

Of course, it would seem that “everything” would include the now-departed bride, who would probably not be keen on flying halfway around the world to reenact a wedding with her former spouse.

Despite the obvious hurdles Remis faces in the reenactment of his wedding, he also faces long odds in court, as several letters to the judge provide convincing evidence in favor of H&H Photography.

As the co-founder of the studio put it in a letter to the court, the subsequent divorce “renders the further demands for photos, etc., ridiculous.”

Indeed, the demand does seem ridiculous, but it may be motivated more by money than sentiment. Sources indicate that Remis initially failed to pay more than $1,000 in fees demanded by the studio, which threatened to send the bill to a collection agency if Remis failed to pay.

Shortly after this threat, Remis filed his lawsuit, which contains numerous allegations of shoddy photography and unprofessional conduct by employees of the studio.

The tone of reports on the matter suggest that Remis will likely not win the case outright, although it appears that both sides may be open to settling.

In the future, one hopes that Remis will attempt to recover from the emotion pain of his divorce by using less litigious strategies.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

A new study found that getting a divorce may lead to an earlier death, but experts are quick to note that this study does not conclusively prove that seeking a divorce is bad for a person’s health.

According to a recent report in the Detroit Free Press, a study conducted by the University of Arizona found that divorced adults have a higher risk of early death than adults who are married.

The study was essentially a review of more than 30 other studies that had been conducted on the matter, as the researchers in Arizona merged the various findings together in an empirically sound manner.

The researchers found that adults who have been divorced were 23 percent more likely to die an early death than similar adults who were married. Shockingly, the researchers found that divorce may be just as dangerous as smoking, drinking heavily, being overweight, or failing to exercise.

Of course, despite these staggering statistics, researchers warned that their work did not conclusively find a link between poor health and divorce, and cautioned that their work did have some flaws.

For example, the various studies followed divorced and married couples for only 11 years, which may not offer a long enough time period to draw such conclusions. In addition, only a limited amount of people were surveyed, which does minimize the results of the study a bit.

In response, though, supporters of the study will observe that the researchers tracked several million people in 11 different countries, which supports their claim that an adequate number of people were tracked, despite the limited geographic scope of the studies.

The study, which is deemed “meta-analysis,’ or the study of studies, examined existing evidence culled over the course of three decades to draw its broader conclusions about divorce and poor health.

The researchers also cautioned that, despite the apparent risk of poor health, many people who obtain a divorce end up happier than they were before the separation.

According to the survey, most divorced people report high levels of satisfaction after their divorces and almost 75 percent end up remarrying.

However, despite the high rate of success, roughly 10 percent of people who file for divorce report that they struggle with serious health issues, perhaps due to depression or other forms of mental anguish.

Researchers believe that these unhappy divorced people account for a significant portion of the people who experience serious health problems after a divorce.

Finally, the researchers also cautioned that divorce seemed to have a disproportionate impact on men, as 31 percent of men has an increased risk for early death after divorce, compared with only 18 percent of women.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Details of celebrity divorces are often plastered all over the news, but not every celebrity divorce is created equal. Some celebrity separations are so costly that they stretch the bounds of one’s imagination.

Recently, the editors at Investing Answers, Inc. created a list of the six most expensive divorces for celebrity athletes, and the list contains a few surprising residents.

The leaders, though, will not come as surprising. Topping the list of most expensive celebrity divorces are Kobe Bryant and his wife, Vanessa Bryant, who divorced late last year, despite Kobe’s efforts to keep his spouse in the form of a $4 million diamond ring.

The ring, alas, was not enough to convince Vanessa to remain in the marriage, and experts expect that she could receive upwards of $75 million in the divorce, which is partially a result of Bryant’s failure to include a prenuptial agreement in their initial marriage agreement.

Sources also indicate that Vanessa Bryant could receive alimony for the rest of her life under California’s friendly divorce laws.

Next on the list of most expensive athlete divorces are Tiger Woods and his embattled wife Elin Nordegren, who were the subject of constant media attention after a bizarre incident in which Tiger ran his SUV into a fire hydrant and his wife allegedly freed him from the car by bashing it with a golf club.

After this incident, it was revealed that the famous golfer had engaged in numerous affairs, which led Nordegren to promptly file for divorce from her philandering husband.

Some experts believe that Woods got a good deal in the divorce settlement, as he only paid Nordegren a reported $100 million, which represents a relatively small portion of his total net worth, which is estimated to be between $500 and $600 million.

Third on the list of athlete divorces is baseball player Alex Rodriguez, who divorced Cynthia Scurtis after he was photographed with an exotic dancer and rumored to be romantically involved with pop star Madonna.

The couple did sign a prenuptial agreement, which may have minimized Rodriguez’s losses, as he reportedly gave her tens of millions of dollars, as well as the couple’s $12 million mansion in Florida.

Next on the list is basketball star Michael Jordan, who divorced his wife Juanita Vanoy after more than two decades of marriage. The divorce reportedly cost Jordan $168 million, which, at the time, represented the largest athlete divorce settlement ever.

Rounding out the list are golfer Greg Norman and cyclist Lance Armstrong, whose divorces cost them roughly $103 million and $14 million, respectively.

The lesson here, as always, is that if you are going to marry a wildly successful athlete, you would be well advised to sign a prenuptial agreement at the beginning of the union, to help minimize divorce costs down the road.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Just over half of all adult Americans are currently married, which represents the lowest such rate for several decades, and has caused social researchers to explore the reasons why young Americans are choosing not to get married.

According to a recent report from TIME magazine, the nation’s low marriage rate may be a direct result of young couples’ fears of eventually having to file for divorce.

In a recent survey of cohabitating couples (people who are living together but are not married), researchers from Cornell University discovered that many women were concerned about getting married because they feared being “trapped” in a bad relationship.

Researchers found that low-income women were especially concerned about the potential financial effects of divorce, and many chose to avoid marriage out of fear of hypothetical divorce issues.

The survey also discovered that a significant majority of women who responded—67 percent—said they were worried about the possible economic and social problems that might arise from a divorce.

And, while fears of divorce are rising and the marriage rate drops, cohabitation rates are rising steeply across the country. Many observers feel that this trend is related to economic factors, not social fears.

According to some experts, middle-class women are less frightened of marriage because, on average, they feel that they can afford the potential end of a marriage. For people with steady incomes, issues like child support or alimony are not as troublesome.

For folks on the lower steps of the income ladder, however, marriage and divorce might pose daunting financial difficulties.

Lower-income women, for example, are often the primary breadwinners in the home, as low-income men continue to face frighteningly high levels of unemployment.

Since women with low incomes tend to be the primary money-earners, they are often reluctant to marry because marriage to an unemployed man adds another mouth to feed, without adding any additional income to the family.

As a result, lower-income women believe that marriage may serve as a trap, with extra responsibilities heaped onto an already busy daily docket.

This belief may also help explain why lower-income couples tend to cohabitate for longer periods of time than couples with higher incomes. Sources indicate that many high-income duos cohabitate for a few years as a prelude to eventual marriage.

Of course, the nature of marriage and divorce has evolved steadily since the inception of both institutions. And today’s marriages, while ostensibly based on love and affection, still play an important role as an economic engine in the modern world.

Because marriage decisions have such important economic consequences, financial realities will continue to influence people’s decisions about whether they should get married. And it seems that fears of divorce may also play a powerful role in these important decisions.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

As he continues to poll strongly in the race to represent the Republican party in the 2012 presidential election, Newt Gingrich has started to face more questions about his previous divorces, which remain a potential roadblock for the conservative candidate.

And reporters are leaving no stone unturned in their pursuit of the truth about Gingrich’s first divorce, which he claims was first pursued by his wife, rather than through his own initiative, according to a recent report in the New York Times.

Court documents suggest that Gingrich’s first divorce in 1980, in which he separated from his wife, Jackie Battley Gingrich, was initiated by the politician, rather than his wife.

According to sources, court documents discovered in Carroll County, Georgia show that Gingrich himself asked for the divorce. And his wife did not seem to support this decision, as she asked a judge to block the divorce because, at the time, she did “not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken.”

This information directly contradicts a statement on the Gingrich campaign’s website, which claims that Gingrich did not actively seek a divorce from his first wife.

Gingrich’s 1980 divorce was particularly noteworthy because it occurred around the same time that Jackie Gingrich was receiving medical treatment for cancer, although the tumor that doctors removed from her body proved to be benign.

This tale, however, proved to be fodder for Gingrich’s critics, who questioned the sincerity of his socially conservative views after he allegedly opened divorce discussions while his wife was in the hospital.

In 1985, the first Mrs. Gingrich told the Washington Post that her husband’s offer of a divorce “came as a complete surprise,” despite Gingrich’s alleged claims that the couple had been talking about it for a decade.

Despite claims that Gingrich proposed a divorce while his wife was suffering from cancer, Jackie’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, recently claimed that her parents had discussed divorce before the tumor operation.

Gingrich Cushman has also made several campaign appearances on behalf of her father, and appears to support Gingrich despite his own admission that he has made errors in personal judgment during his life.

The media’s focus on Gingrich’s personal history—which includes three marriages and two divorces—has been criticized by the candidate’s supporters.

Some believe that his personal life is irrelevant to his ability to the lead the country, and that voters should judge Gingrich based on his police proposals, not his past divorce filings.

On the other hand, critics of Gingrich believe that his past offers an important glimpse into the man’s values, which would inevitably play an important role in how he governs, if he is eventually elected.

Regardless of which side is correct, the media’s focus on Gingrich’s personal life seems a bit old-fashioned, as divorce no longer carries the same social stigma it may have held several decades ago.

Gone are the days when a trip to a divorce attorney caused a serious dent to one’s personal reputation. Well, this theory may prove true when it comes to most Americans, but it may be suspended for people who are running for the nation’s most important elected office.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

A businessman in Los Angeles is facing the possibility of several years in prison after allegedly bilking Eddie Murphy’s ex-wife out of several million dollars she had gained from her divorce settlement with the famous actor and comedian.

While the divorcee is referred to in court papers only by her initials, sources indicate that the victim of the alleged fraud is Nicole Murphy, who recently divorced Eddie Murphy after a 12-year marriage.

For allegedly stealing most of the $7 million Nicole Murphy had received from her ex-husband as part of their divorce agreement, 45-year-old Troy David Stratos is facing 14 different criminal charges, including fraud, money laundering, and obstructing justice.

Sources indicate that Nicole Murphy also filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against Stratos last year, and then re-filed the same claim against Stratos in state court in Florida this May.

According to court documents, Stratos allegedly convinced Murphy to let him invest the proceeds of her alimony settlement.

Stratos had presented himself as an entrepreneur, and claimed that that he was a movie producer, as well as a talent promoter.

Stratos’ appeal proved convincing, as Murphy established a revocable trust that allowed Stratos to invest her money as he pleased. This decision, however, proved to be disastrous, as Stratos allegedly spent the bulk of the money on himself.

In addition to spending the money on goods for himself, Stratos also established a bank account in Florida and used Murphy’s own money to pay certain expenses that he had promised he would cover himself.

The alleged fraud, however, did not stop there. Stratos convinced Murphy that she should purchase luxury vehicles to package with her mansion in Granite Bay, California, in order to improve her odds of selling the home.

But instead of selling the house, Stratos remained in the residence rent-free, and used the vehicles as his personal cars, without making any real effort at selling the home. Stratos also convinced Murphy to refinance several of her mortgages, which allowed Stratos to pocket more short-term cash.

All told, Murphy alleges that Stratos and other defendants named in the federal lawsuit stole upwards of $11 million. If he is convicted on all 14 charges, Stratos faces up to 30 years in prison.

And, while this may seem like an extreme example of fraud, women who receive large divorce settlements are often uncertain how to invest their new money.

As a result, many people are vulnerable to potential scam artists after receiving a healthy divorce settlement.

If you or someone you love has recently received a large sum of money after a divorce, do some research for financial professionals that can help you safely invest your cash. If someone promises high interest rates with little risk, be very cautious about signing on to such an unrealistic bargain.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.