There may be no crying in baseball, but there are plenty of fights that occur both on and off the field.

Take the owners of the LA Dodgers, Frank and Jamie McCourt. The couple filed for divorce in October 2009 and they continue to battle out their complicated issues in the courts.

After 30 years of marriage, Jamie McCourt filed for divorce from her husband in which she cited irreconcilable differences. Since then the power couple has fought over ownership of the Dodgers and other assets.

According to an article in the LA Times, Frank McCourt fired his wife after the Dodgers lost the 2009 playoffs against the Philadelphia Phillies. Jamie was CEO at the time and Frank fired her due to poor performance.

Jamie McCourt said that she and her husband agreed she would remain CEO until the end of the season. In turn she agreed wait to and file the divorce after the season was over.

But things went sour fast.

Frank McCourt claimed that his wife had cheated on him with their personal driver and whisked him away on a vacation at the Dodger’s expense. Now the couple’s main dispute is over spousal support, an issue that appears to be getting harder and harder to settle.

In the initial divorce papers, Jamie McCourt requested temporary spousal support in the amount of $488,000 per month. But she recently increased the amount for alimony to $988,845 per month. Jamie said that her estranged husband lied about his finances to the divorce court and that he had a lot more money than he claimed.

Jamie and her divorce attorney, Dennis Wasser, alleged that Frank used “blatant sheet manipulations” in his 2009 financial statement that he provided to the divorce courts in June.

The financial statement estimated his net work at $163 million. But in a financial statement written nine months earlier, his net worth was valued at $835 million.

Wasser said that “what has occurred here is some extensive planning for divorce court in terms of attempting to diminish on paper the value of the Dodgers.”

Both Jamie and her attorney feel as though she should receive a larger amount for spousal alimony to continue the way of life she has become so accustomed too.

But they also believe that Frank will have enough to money to continue his lifestyle as well. The judge will decide if Jamie deserves more alimony at the hearing on March 29th.

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

Families do not always approve of who their loved ones choose to marry.

Five years ago, a Saudi couple was forced to get a divorce because the wife’s brothers did not approve of her husband’s lineage. But recently they were granted the right to reunite their marriage, according to Reuters.

The couple had initially married in 2003 after her father approved of the union. And before Fatima Azazz and Mansour al-Timani could marry, the bride’s family checked the lineage or background of her future husband, al-Timani.

It is custom in Islamic culture to determine if the future husband comes from a good tribe before their families join in matrimony.

When the family initially checked his background, they found that al-Timani’s lineage was from a good family. He was from the town of Jouf and belonged to the Shammar Tribe.

The marriage was allowed to proceed, but things changed shortly after Azazz’s father passed away. Her half brothers said they no longer approved of her husband’s lineage and wanted the marriage annulled.

Reuters reported that in 2006 her half brothers claimed al-Timani lied to the family about this lineage and that his lineage was beneath their family.
They petitioned a court in Jouf, Saudi Arabia, to annul the marriage on grounds of tribal incompatibility. The court ruled in their favor and forced al-Timani and Azazz to separate.

After the divorce, they could no longer live together. Azazz went to live in a state run orphanage in Dammam where she gave birth to their second child, and al-Timani lived in an apartment with their 6 year old daughter.

Al-Timani stated that the courts never asked their side of the story and that he never lied to the half-brothers about his lineage.

Al-Timani also said that his wife’s brothers petitioned for the divorce because of a financial dispute over money after their father died.

Ahmad K al-Sudairi, the couple’s attorney, prepared a 20 page document to present King Abdullah in hopes to reverse the ruling. The King in turn had the cessation court review the divorce case.

The court ruled that the couple could be reunited, but that it could take awhile before the ruling takes effect.

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

In Texas, a unique divorce case is raising the attention of lawmakers, all the way up to the attorney general, who has made the claim that one can’t get a divorce in a state that doesn’t recognize the marriage to begin with.

The Austin-American Statesman is reporting that Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, taking advantage of that state’s law legalizing gay marriage. After they were married, they returned to their home in Austin, where they adopted a child and carried on with their life.

The couple was separated almost a year ago, however, and now they have found themselves in court to determine the terms of their divorce. Whether or not they can even get a divorce, however, is under dispute from some Texas lawmakers.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott intervened in the case, in which, according to the couple’s lawyer, a judge had agreed to grant the couple a divorce and ordered that they put that agreement in writing for the court to sign later. This ruling was the culmination of a two-day hearing to determine custody of their child and separation of property.

After the judge granted the divorce, Abbott filed a petition to intervene. He notes his opinion that rather than granting the divorce, the judge should instead declare that the marriage is void. A spokesman for the Attorney General said in a statement that the State maintains that the Court has no legal authority to grant this divorce, and as a result, the State must intervene in this case to defend the Texas Constitution.

In essence, Abbott’s position is that the case could be resolved sufficiently by voiding the marriage, rather than granting a divorce. Or as his representation put it, the parties can achieve a legal termination of their Massachusetts marriage, through an enforceable judgment.

We never asked them to grant us a same-sex marriage, said Naylor in response to the intervention. We only asked them to legally recognize that we needed a divorce.

Abbott has intervened in such cases before, as in the case of two men who wanted a divorce in Dallas County. The judge in that case determined that the prohibition on same sex marriage violated the right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Abbott appealed that ruling, and the case is still pending.

The judge in the current case brought up the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states. Abbott argued that this clause would not come into play in the case.

Texas is among the states that passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman. In 2005, the Texas legislature passed it with a majority of 76 percent.

Massachusetts passed the law allowing same-sex couples to marry in November of 2003, in a decision by the highest court in the state.

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

In Chicago, an ugly divorce and custody battle has turned into a dispute over a child’s exposure to various religions.

Joseph Reyes, a 35-year-old law student, and his estranged wife are in a heated debate about which religious experiences their child can be exposed to, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

On Tuesday, the child custody case made its way to court, as Reyes was arraigned in a Chicago court. The charge was that he violated a temporary restraining order dictating that he could not expose the couple’s 3-year-old daughter to a religion other than Judaism. Reyes’ estranged wife is the one who ordered the restraining order.

Reyes did not deny taking his daughter to a Catholic cathedral in mid-January. Reyes, who is Catholic, was accompanied to the cathedral by a local television news camera crew.

The couple is in a fierce dispute about whether or not they agreed to raise their child in the Jewish faith. Reyes has argued firmly that they never agreed to such a provision of child-rearing, nor did they keep kosher or observe the tenets of the faith, and that they only went to synagogue together with their daughter.

Joseph Reyes had converted to Judaism after the birth of their daughter, though he had returned to Catholicism when the couple separated. Rebecca Reyes was not present at the hearing, and her attorneys did not wish to make a statement about the case.

According to court records, Rebecca Reyes filed the restraining order in question after Joseph sent her a photo of their daughter at her baptism at Queen of Martyrs Catholic Church.

I sent her pictures which she took as malicious, said Joseph outside of the courtroom. He offered that he sent the pictures merely to share his daughter’s experience getting dressed up and enjoying the occasion.

Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan approved the restraining order, however, and an appellate court threw out Joseph Reyes’ appeal. When he and his attorneys appeared in front of Judge Jordan again, they requested that a new judge be assigned to the case. Judge Jordan granted that request.

If Joseph is found to be in violation of the temporary restraining order, he could be sentenced to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

Joseph Reyes had a lot to say about the situation, even as his estranged wife chose not to publically discuss it. This is, in her mind, more about control, he said. He went on to explain that he converted to Judaism because of pressure he felt from his wife. When it came to his daughter’s religious upbringing, he was conflicted, but felt pushed by his wife.

Rebecca pushed me in the direction of waiting to come by it on her own, he said. On the decision to raise their daughter in a Jewish household, he said Maybe Rebecca decided unilaterally, but I never signed on to that.

Rebecca Reyes currently has sole custody of their daughter, and Joseph Reyes takes her every other weekend and every Thursday evening. The divorce case in ongoing.

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

A man currently on trial for allegedly killing his wife after she served him divorce papers recently took back his murder confession.

Werner Lippe had married his wife Faith in 1990. According to an Associated Press article, Werner and Faith began to argue tremendously during the later years of their marriage.

Lippe allegedly had their 15-year-old son tape arguments he had with Faith in order to use them against her in the divorce proceedings.

Faith eventually served her husband with divorce papers. The two scheduled a meeting between them and their attorneys to hammer out the details of child custody and alimony. Both were issues that neither agreed upon.

But before they could have their meeting about the divorce proceedings, Faith went missing.

On October 3rd, Faith had missed several of her appointments. Werner later said the he saw her drive away in a SUV but he could not tell who was driving the vehicle.

Faith never came back home that evening and Werner became concerned. He visited a friend the next day and asked about the proper amount of time before a missing person’s report can be filed.

Later that day he called 911 and advised the police that Faith was missing. The police searched the Lippe household, but found no evidence of foul play.

It wasn’t until later that Werner confessed to his wife’s murder. He was speaking with his friend, James Learnihan, when he said he burned his wife’s body in a barrel he kept at his home.

But Learnihan was wired and police got a taped confession from Lippe.
Once the police confronted Lipped about the tape, he confessed again.
Shortly after his arrest, he changed his story. Lippe said that the he was scared of his friend and thought he was being framed. He only confessed again to the police because they were not listening to his pleas of innocence.

If convicted, Lippe faces 25 years in prison. Lippe had two previous marriages that both ended in divorce and neither lasted over two years.

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

Kate Walsh, famous actress on TV shows such as “Private Practice” and “Grey’s Anatomy,” recently finalized her long divorce battle with her husband of 14 months Alex Young.

The two married in September 2007, enjoying their marital bliss for a little over a year, until they separated in November 2008.

The New York Daily News reported that Young filed for divorce from the star citing “irreconcilable differences,” but no other details were given. The two agreed to keep most of the details regarding their divorce confidential.

In the beginning, the divorce proceedings appeared to run smooth. It looked hopeful that this Hollywood couple was going to split amicably. When they broke the news of their divorce to the public, they released a statement saying that they would remain friends even after the divorce was final.

But even though they started out with good intentions, true colors showed when the couple had to split their assets, decide who gets what and determine if any alimony would be paid. The big issue occurred when Walsh decided she did not want to pay Young, a top-ranking executive at 20th Century Fox, any alimony.

Young then requested to know the value of Walsh’s contract with ABC in hopes that it would help him obtain spousal support. But the judge overseeing the divorce proceedings denied Young’s request for alimony.

But Walsh and Young eventually came to a settlement to finalize their divorce. Young will receive a cash settlement of $627,000 and half of the residuals for work performed by Walsh during their marriage. Residuals are payments made to Walsh for replays of her television shows. And Walsh gets to keep the house, some bank accounts and a piano.

In a bizarre twist, the two will split the remaining assets by simply flipping a coin. According to a USA Today article, the settlement agreement stated that, “one half of the community property furniture and artwork to be divided by alternating picks after the flip of a coin to determine who will pick first.”

At least they avoided any child custody issues as the couple has no children together.

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

In a divorce case that sounds like something out of a detective novel, a judge recently determined that the private detective hired by a man to follow his wife was a legitimate part of the divorce process.

According to the story in the New York Law Journal, the Orange County, New York, man hired the private investigator to follow his wife to a hotel, where she was having an affair with a priest. The husband gave the recording to the church where his wife worked, and she was forced to resign.

At the urging of the church, the man turned over the recording of the event to the court. The wife in the case claimed that by hiring the detective her husband had violated an order of protection that prohibited him from going to her home or her workplace.

Family Court Judge Debra J. Keidaisch disagreed with that opinion, however. The judge claimed that the husband in the case reserved the right to collect evidence enabling him to defend himself in the divorce case.

“The hiring of a professional licensed private investigator in a matrimonial action to gather evidence is for a proper and legitimate purpose,” Judge Keidaisch wrote in her opinion.

When the woman filed for divorce in November of 2008, her husband offered the counter-allegation that his wife had been having an affair. In early 2009, the court issued the order of protection that kept him from coming within 1,000 feet of his wife’s home or workplace, except to go to church or for court-ordered visitation. The court order was entered without finding any fault with the husband.

The decision in the case stated that the husband’s private investigator followed his wife to a motel, where he recorded the liaison between her and who the decision labeled “Priest L.” This priest had been assigned to the church where the wife was working. This priest also regularly said Sunday Mass while the wife, husband and their daughter were in attendance.

After he heard the news about his wife, the husband was unable to take communion because he was so distraught. He told the news to another priest, but he was so embarrassed that he asked that priest not to reveal the news to the monsignor. Only after the monsignor arrived at his home did the husband give up the DVD of the encounter between his wife and Priest L.

The wife did not contest the affair. She did, however, make the claim that her husband had disobeyed the court order. She also said that he was not legally obligated to release the DVD to church officials, which in effect led to her necessary resignation.

“Under the circumstances, the hiring of the private investigator, in and of itself, was not an unlawful intrusion upon the rights of the wife secured by the order of protection,” the decision continued. In other words, the husband was not simply required to accept the claims of his wife that she had discontinued her affair with the priest.

In addition, the judge said that handing over the DVD was not harassment, because the father still had contact with Priest L. at church, which qualified as a legitimate and justifiable reason to release the video.

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

When Tetyana Nikitana was shot to death recently as she left the school where she was a teacher, the suspect, according to police, was her former mother-in-law. Nikitian, 34, was a mother of two and an immigrant from the Ukraine living in Utah.

According to the Deseret News, the suspect in the shooting is 70-year-old Mary Nance Hanson, the mother of Nikitana’s ex-husband, Dan Jankowski. Police stated that Jankowski was not a suspect in the case, nor was a he a person of interest. “He is just a relative of the suspect,” said Lt. Don Hutson told the Deseret News

Police are still hoping to piece together the case, and determine the motives that Hanson may have had for such a gruesome act. Hanson was the one who called 911 after the shooting.

A study of the divorce record between Nikitana and Jankowski revealed the couple’s tumultuous divorce after six years of marriage, filled with fear and animosity. In those records, starting in 2005, Nikitana stated that she feared for her life and those of her children at the hands of her husband.

Jankowski, on the other hand, filed a large volume of divorce records the belief that his then-wife was attempting to frame him with domestic abuse. He was also very concerned that Nikitana would leave the country with the couple’s two children. That fear led to a dispute over the children’s passports.

There were hundreds of pages of divorce records filed by the couple. The records covered the more typical issues that arise in a divorce, like child custody and finances, but, according to the Deseret News, disputes seemed to range into less conventional territory. There were arguments over playground equipment, gold crosses for the kids, wooden plates. There were also much more serious issues, including suggestions of child neglect, threats and domestic violence.

The divorce was filed in 2005, yet the dispute was still going on through December of 2009.

Police obtained a warrant to search the home shared by Hanson and Jankowski. In an interview with KSL in Salt Lake City, Jankowski said that he did not know why his mother would want to kill his ex-wife, and that he had had concerns about the state of her mental health in the past. Jankowski also spent a large amount of time, even hours, talking to police.

“I had no idea she was going to do anything like this,” Jankowski said about his mother, Mary Hanson.

Jankowski and Nikitana got a bifurcated divorce in early January of 2006, which meant that the union was dissolved but that they still had to figure out certain legal decisions. In August 2005 and January 2006, Nikitana tried to get protective orders against her husband, claiming, according to the Deseret News, that “her husband forcefully picked her up and threw her onto the floor in front of the children, leaving bruises and red finger marks.”

Jankowski firmly denied these allegations.

Nikitana had faced scrutiny from the Division of Children and Family Services when, in 2003, she faced a charge that she had left her children in a car alone while she went to a beauty salon. The case was resolved after DCFS visited their home and found it clean and the children healthy.

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

Some states require a legal separation before a couple files for divorce. This gives the couple time to think about the divorce and determine their ultimate goals and to do what is best for all parties involved.

However, living apart often means a couple’s expenses double. With the tough economy, some couples are unable to fill the separation requirement.

Now, some legislators are starting to take a different look at this required separation. They want to determine if there are less expensive ways to fulfill the current legislation without breaking the bank.

According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland legislator and attorney Luiz Simmons recently proposed a law that would allow couples seeking divorce to live in the same residence for a year.

That catch is that while the couple lives in the same home, they cannot engage in sexual relations with one another.

Current Maryland law states that any couple filing an uncontested divorce must go through a one year separation before the divorce can be finalized. During the separation, the couple must split and live in separate households.

Simmons said that when both members are forced to live a part for a year, they can become more financially stressed. And if children are involved, then the expenses could significantly increase.

But if the couple is allowed to remain in the same household and refrain from sex, then they will have the emotional separation without the added stress of making additional payments.

Skeptics of the proposed legislation raise the concern how the courts will determine that the couple abstained from sex for a full year.

But that would be an issue even if the couple lived apart for a whole year and some say that will be up to the courts to decide.

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