Divorce, in the public perception, is rarely a friendly undertaking. Even on this blog we often follow stories of contentious celebrity divorces and separations that don’t end well, with the theme usually being that couples are rarely on their best behavior when it comes time for a divorce.

An article from USA Today, however, makes the claim that divorce is getting friendlier for a lot of couples.

The article offers a couple of quick examples of what it sees as a potentially growing trend of divorces that are less contentious than perhaps they have been in the past. One dad, John Jarvis, of Phoenix, stays in his ex-wife’s guest room when he visits their 13-year-old daughter. Another divorcé, Bob Murphy of Chandler, Arizona, offered his ex-wife a key to his house.

One possible explanation for this trend in nicer divorces could be that those who watched a generation of nasty divorces wanted to change the pattern and avoid falling into the same traps. These people either saw their own parents divorce, or saw the negative impact that it had on their friends.

Hence a new approach to divorce, with less fighting and more conflict resolution. This new model can place increasing emphasis on mediation, collaboration or even, USA Today, reports, do-it-yourself kits for divorce.

Friendlier divorces are even taking hold when there are children involved in the divorce. A more amicable divorce can be a lot easier on children who are caught in the middle.

Not to mention the fact that a friendly divorce can save couples a lot of money and emotional stress. The typical mediated divorce costs around $1,000, according to family lawyer John Zarzynski, who co-founded Agreement House. The typical traditional divorce, with lawyers and court appearances, financial negotiations and custody battles, can cost $15-25,000 and take years.

The traditional divorce is still the most prevalent form. Some say that the process inherently causes divorcing couples to feel that they must go into battle with their ex. Disagreements about custody, child support, property and finances can create a sense of opposition to an ex, rather than fostering cooperation for the sake of themselves or their children.

“It makes it almost impossible to have a civil relationship going forward,” said Zarzynski. “You don’t forget what it’s like to be cross-examined by your spouse’s lawyer. It sets them up for years and years of not being able to communicate well.”

Mediation is one option when it comes to the friendly divorce, and collaboration is another. With these options, the court is not directly involved. While there might be lawyers involved, so are subject experts, and all work together to come up with a solution that meets everybody’s needs. Supporters of these techniques argue that the newly shaped families start off on a more stable foot.

There aren’t solid numbers on how many mediation and collaboration divorces are out there, but anecdotally, Zarzynksi has seen the number of mediation and collaboration divorces he’s worked on per year rise from roughly a dozen to 75 in recent years.

Bob Murphy, having seen his brothers go through nasty divorces, wanted no part of that. Instead of a divorce that took years, his took hours.

And while John Jarvis said his arrangement to stay at his ex-wife’s house might sound a little odd, he gets to spend more time with his daughter, and the couple hasn’t had to cut ties with each other’s family and friends.

Divorce doesn’t often lead to friendships, but the trend in mediated and collaborated divorces could mean that break-ups have a slightly brighter future.

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

Las Vegas is a city known for quick marriages, but Nevada’s governor, Gov. Jim Gibbons, recently finalized his divorce from wife Dawn when a family court judge in Reno, Nevada, signed the divorce decree.

According to the Associated Press, the first family of Nevada has officially split.

The Gibbons’s divorce marks the first time in the state’s history that a sitting governor has gotten a divorce. That’s not the only first, however. Gibbons was also the first incumbent governor to lose a party primary. Gibbons lost the Republican primary a month ago, to a former federal judge, and so he won’t be returning to the governor’s role.

The divorce between Jim Gibbons and ex-wife Dawn was not an extremely amicable one. They had reached a tentative divorce settlement in December, the AP article says, but even since then they raised disputes about details in the case.

The couple still had some things to work out, but Judge Frances Doherty was confident that the pair’s lawyers could settle those outstanding matters among themselves. Such items that were still in dispute include political memorabilia, some as objects signed by President Ronald Reagan.

Dawn Gibbons was emotional after the trial, appearing in tears after she left the courtroom. She declined comment, but her lawyer, Cal Dunlap, spoke on her behalf, saying, “she’s officially divorced.”

Governor Gibbons after the court appearance said, “Nobody is happy about today. The only thing that pleases me is that I can stop paying attorney fees.”

This divorce has not been without its dramatic turns and salvos lobbed back and forth. Gov. Gibbons, for his part, filed for the divorce in 2008, comparing his wife in one court document to an “enraged ferret in a phone booth.”

Dawn Gibbons, on the other hand, claimed that Jim was having affairs with the estranged wife of a doctor in Reno, and with a Playboy model. Gov. Gibbons denied these allegations.

According to the divorce settlement that was reached recently, Gov. Gibbons will have to pay 25 percent of his gross income in alimony to Dawn. That’s around $4,000 per month through the end of his term as governor, which will come later this year.

The pair already sold their home in Reno, and will sell 40 acres of land in Lamoille, Nevada.

The political memorabilia mentioned above include some correspondence from President Reagan, and 10 White House Christmas cards from both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

The governor claims that he already gave away the Christmas cards to big-time campaign contributors. The judge, then, told him to give Dawn the names of those that he gave them to. She described them as “framed paintings” depicting White House Christmas scenes.

“I would love to have my half of those,” she told the AP.

The governor, on the other hand, claimed that there were no paintings. “They are just poster,” he said. “Lithographs. They are not thousands and thousands of dollars.” He said that all of his political memorabilia was in storage. “She can have what’s in the warehouse,” he said in court.

There is little else to determine in the case. “If we are down to this last issue, I think we can all feel pretty good about what you have done here,” the judge told the participants.

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

The recent announcement that Kelsey Grammer and his wife Camille are divorcing has been big news. What’s an even bigger story is the fact that the multi-millionaire Grammer did not have a prenuptial agreement.

A recent article on a pop-culture website gives us a list of the top ten celebrities that didn’t have a prenup when they needed it most. Here is a sampling from the list of famous and most expensive divorces without a prenup.

When Mel Gibson got divorced after 28 years of marriage, he was forced to give up a full 50 percent of the money he earned over the course of their marriage.The result? A whooping $900 million was divided between the two, leaving his ex-wife Robyn with $450 million.

Another major notable divorce was the dream couple Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe. Both are household names, but at the time of their divorce, Reese Witherspoon was making approximately 8 times per movie what her husband earned, $20 million a picture versus $2.5 million. Their lack of a prenup caused Witherspoon to split the savings fifty-fifty.

A prenup-lacking divorce that could have ended up costing the main bread winner a lot more than it did was the Madonna-Guy Ritchie divorce. Despite the fact that Madonna was worth an estimated $500 million, and the fact that she didn’t have a prenup, she should consider herself lucky that she was able to settle for a rumored $76-to-$92 million divorce settlement.

One couple that isn’t divorced, but is still lacking a prenup, is Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi. Ellen was quoted stating her opinion that prenups are unromantic, and that this was the reason that, despite her $63 million net worth, she does not have one. Giving away half of her multi-million dollar fortune would, however, probably also not sit well with the actress and talk show host.

In 1990, Roseanne Barr’s attorney suggested that she get a prenup with her soon-to-be husband Tom Arnold. Roseanne’s attorney was fired. Four years later the two divorced and Tom Arnold walked away with $50 million, probably to her lawyer’s satisfaction.

The near-divorce between Larry King and his eighth wife almost went down as one of the largest of all time. Larry King allegedly cheated on his wife with her sister, and, lacking a prenup, a divorce could have cost him over $70 million. Fortunately for King, and his financial portfolio, he was able to reunite the marriage.

There seems to be no end to the list of famous people who have decided to let the local and state laws split their assets during a divorce. Prenuptial agreements are, if nothing else, a great tool to keep things predictable. But for every prepared couple, there will be a Rosanne and Ellen ready to ignore the common sense of a prenup for what they deem to be a more romantic route.

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

The economic downturn is placing major stresses on marriages today, and there is another side effect showing itself: when couples divorce but don’t have the economic resources to move out from their family home.

Couples are left to weather the emotional difficulty of living with a spouse that they’ve separated from, because a lack of resources and a tough housing market make it impossible to maintain two separate households.

It’s divorce without the separation.

ABC Primetime followed one of these couples, Chris and Shari, of Tempe, Arizona, who are in just that situation. They live in a million-dollar house in a nice neighborhood, but the dropping value of the house with the onset of the recession has severely limited their options. As the housing market plummeted, so did their 18-year marriage.

They gathered a family meeting with their three kids, where they broke the news about their separation.

“They kind of took turns telling us stuff,” said oldest daughter Carissa. “They always assured us, ‘we’re never going to do anything like this, that will never be us that gets divorced. We’re going to be the few that never do.”

Middle daughter Jessica said, “When I found out that this was going to happen, I think I was heartbroken.”

As a part of the arrangements in the wake of the divorce, Chris and Shari decided that they would both stay in the house until they could sell it. It was a temporary solution, with a defined endpoint—the sale of the house.

Shari was uncertain about how to place limitations on the arrangement, however. “I believe,” she said, “and have read and heard from the experts that it is much better for the children to live together for a while. I have never found in print how long that while is.”

Their plan was to divide the assets from the sale of the house. Then, the housing market in Phoenix collapsed, and their plan became less certain.

They weren’t idealists about the situation. “It’s not a better way to do it,” said Chris, an IT manager. “I think for a while, maybe, it’s a good thing. I think it was good for the kids for a while.”

ABC Primetime followed them for nine months, as they navigated the transitional period of their divorce without the separation. This included family therapy sessions, couple’s therapy, and meetings with lawyers.

Disagreements were common. They argued frequently while living under the same roof. The negative parts of their relationship continued, even if they weren’t technically together. They argued in front of their children. The plan that they had made was not coming together.

They grew distant, even in navigating daily life living in the same house. They passed in the hallways without making eye contact. “It’s a lot harder than I expected,” said Shari.

Shari now sleeps in a small guest room, while her husband works in his study just through a shared wall. “Too close for comfort,” she said.

Nobody would argue that their plan went well. In fact, it’s the opposite. But a recession forces people, including divorcing couples, to improvise in ways that they couldn’t imagine.

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

If you listen to the news at all, then you have undoubtedly heard the profanity filled rants that allegedly came from Mel Gibson toward Oksana Grigorieva, his ex-girlfriend and mother of his daughter. What you may not have heard are the rumors that have begun to swirl around that Grigorieva may have tried to extort Gibson with these tapes.

According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s detectives are investigating just that.

Steve Whitmore, the spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, refused to elaborate any more into the rumors than that, stating only that “detectives will follow the investigation wherever it leads.”

Grigorieva, a 40 year old Russian singer, has used her spokesman to deny any of the allegations. Stephen Jaffe, Grigorieva’s spokesperson, was quoted saying that “there is no credible evidence whatsoever of extortion by [Grigorieva], and she stands steadfastly by that statement.”

The timing of the tapes’ release does raise an eyebrow due to the fact that the two are currently in the middle of a custody dispute over their eight month old daughter. The records in that case are sealed.

The effects of these tapes on Gibson will likely be devastating. According to The New York Times, Gibson has already started losing foreign film buyers.

Gibson actually hasn’t acted in a Hollywood film since Signs in 2002, but has been successful in getting millions of dollars in foreign investments to make movies for foreign theater chains.

Gibson has been hit hard in the European and Middle Eastern press. James Ulmer, who has ranked actors’ values and has a special knowledge of foreign markets, was quoted as saying he was “surprised at how much of an emotional impact this has had on the Europeans.”

Between this incident and his anti-Semitic rant following a DUI arrest in 2006, Gibson may just be seen as too difficult a client and too risky an investment.

It might be a surprise that Gibson’s films have had such an important base in foreign theaters. The 1995 blockbuster Braveheart earned nearly two thirds of its $210 million from foreign box offices. That works out to approximately $134.4 million.

These tapes, whether or not they were ever used in an attempt to extort Gibson, are probably going to take a good chunk out of his foreign and domestic following. For now, we have to wait to see what Gibson says when he finally addresses the media about this issue. Until Gibson talks, the rumors about extortion, tape manipulation, and even the certainty that it is his voice, will be speculated on. It will be interesting to watch and see how Gibson will handle this situation.

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

The British Columbia government has plans to make what the Vancouver Sun calls “revolutionary changes” to family law in the province.

These changes will better reflect modern society, to update the Family Relations Act that was passed 30 years ago. The government’s proposal will revise the legal definition of a parent, and it will update property rules, children’s interests in parenting disputes, and even the terms that come with family legal issues, like “custody,” “access” and “guardianship.”

The proposed revisions will also look to change the nature of the separation process, rendering it less adversarial than it is now. The hope is that these revisions will make it easier for couples to find solutions to problems out of court. Such issues that they would like to move out of the courtroom would be matters like child custody and division of assets.

Vancouver lawyer Georgialee Lang had strong feelings about the proposed changes. “This is groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking,” she told the Vancouver Sun. “I think they’ve done a very comprehensive job.” She also said that herself and many other lawyers have wanted revisions like these for a long time.

Attorney-General Mike de Jong and his office released over 170 pages of changes that are recommended, so that the public can offer their reactions and their comments through October.

De Jong stressed how much families have changed since the adoption of the 30-year-old Family Relations Act. “Increasing numbers of children are living with single parents or step-parents,” he said. “The traditional family structure has changed, divorce and separation are far more common than they once were and we have a far better understanding today than perhaps we once did about the challenges associated with family violence and the impact that conflict has on children.”

De Jong went on to reiterate how the existing model was “very adversarial,” and that B.C. politicians agreed that there was a better way to deal with relationships that come apart. He said that he wanted to see couples resolve their issues without immediately going to court.

“We will always need the court,” he said, “but we do not need a system that is primarily an adversarial system.”

The new law will allow couples to show that they’ve thought about ways to resolve their issues outside of the courtroom before taking issues to a judge. The laws will also create rules that are more predictable and easier to understand when it comes to negotiated agreements.

According to the Vancouver Sun, reaction to the recommended revisions was positive right off the bat.

Tracy Porteous, the director of the Ending Violence Association, said that the government is taking a big step forward “to increase the safety of women and children with respect to enforcement of protection orders and looking at the best interest of the child.”

The revisions have been in the works for four years. Many of them will work to make rules like division of property and the guardian of children more clear, so that there is less uncertainty in the process.

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

Elon Musk, the man that director Jon Favreau modeled the movie super-hero Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey Junior in the recent Iron Man movie, is apparently bankrupt.

Musk was a founder of PayPal, which netted him a cool $200 million not very long ago. Since then, to earn the right to be the inspiration for Tony Stark, Musk helped design the Falcon 9 booster used by NASA, created Solar City, a leader in solar power and even helped create the hands down coolest electric car, the Tesla.

Now, according to an article in The New York Times, Musk told the divorce court that he is broke.

His wife, novelist Justine Musk, is trying to receive the house, alimony, child support and a cool $6 million in cash. On top of all that, Justine also wants part of the Tesla Motors and part of the stock in Musk’s rocket company SpaceX.

Musk claims to have put is final $35 million into Tesla, which nearly bankrupted two years ago.

Musk’s decision to save his stake in the company, according to experts, might make him an incredibly wealthy man yet again. The company went public in late June and raised $266 million in it’s initial public offering—making up for the $260.7 million Musk has personally invested in the company since its inception.

Musk and his wife Justine Musk do have a prenuptial agreement, which they signed shortly after marrying, but Justine is contesting this agreement in court.

There seems to be no doubt that Musk is a wealthy man and will rebound. Justine describes him as a billionaire who is merely have cash liquidity issues.

Justine has a blog where she has taken on critics that have claimed that she is merely a gold-digger looking to get something out for nothing.

“Is that what I deserve?” Mrs. Musk wrote about the negative descriptions of her, “Golddigging… I don’t know. Who exactly deserves that kind of wealth? But based on our life and history together, is that reasonable” I think so.”

Musk recently wrote an open letter in the Huffington Post in which he described how California’s divorce laws are causing his financial strains.

What caught me by surprise, and forced me to seek emergency loans from friends, were the enormous legal fees I had to pay my ex-wife’s divorce lawyers. In a California divorce, the wealthier spouse must pay both sides of the battle even if they are not the aggressor.

The legal and accounting bills for the divorce total four million dollars so far, which is an average of roughly $170,000 per month for the past 24 months.

At the end of the day, looking at the future prospects for Musk, there should be plenty of money to go around and keep both parties living the life they grew accustomed to as a couple. Whether or not the prenuptial agreement will hold or if Justine Musk will be able to receive the amount she wants is something we are going to have to wait to see how the court decides.

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

The very public and increasingly strange McCourt divorce case is starting to look like an episode of CSI.

Recently, the lawyer for Frank McCourt—the owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers who is embroiled in a nasty divorce from wife Jamie—has won what ESPN calls “a major victory” in the divorce proceedings. The victory was the result of science, allegations of deceit and a struggle for access to the lucrative Dodger franchise.

According to the article, forensic scientists from both sides in the case analyzed a document that has escalated the war of words in the divorce. They were searching the document for signs of tampering.

The document is a postnuptial marital property agreement that put the couple’s homes into Jamie’s name, from March of 2004. That fact is all that the two sides agree on about the document that they signed just before moving from Boston to Los Angeles to begin their life on the West coast.

Frank McCourt’s side has argued that the document, which consists of seven pages and two schedules on the back that divided up the couple’s assets, gave him control of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team.

Jamie, however, contended that she had never signed the document. And that is where the latest dispute in this tumultuous and public divorce case comes from. Jamie McCourt is fighting for some level of control of the baseball team, while Frank is working to deny her that access.

The physical documents were brought from a Boston law firm vault for analysis in court, and to be subjected to the eyes of the forensic scientists. Jamie McCourt’s legal representation claims that there are six copies of the prenuptial agreement, and that three of those didn’t include the schedule that divided up their assets and supposedly granted control of the Dodgers to Frank McCourt.

Instead, Jamie argues, three of the documents were signed at a different time than the initial three. Those are the ones that didn’t have the schedule on them, according to her side of the story.

And what is the main piece of evidence under scientific evaluation? It’s a staple.

According to Frank McCourt’s lawyer Stephen Susman, the documents that they found have the same staple holding them together that was used in 2004, at the time of the signing.

In what some consider the final blow to Jamie’s claim, there is also the imprint of her signature on a page of the document that clearly states that Frank McCourt is the owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

This latest piece of scientific detection could keep Jamie from gaining a 50 percent share of the Dodgers franchise.

“We’ve got the same staple and her signature on something she claims she never signed,” said Susman, “which proves all along she was not telling the truth.”

Jamie still contends that the lawyer who drafted the document, Larry Silverstein, may have gone over a different draft with her than the one that Frank McCourt had signed.

This divorce case gave few signs that it would go away quietly, and if this latest dispute is any indication, gossip hounds can look forward to extra innings for the McCourts.

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

In this week’s celebrity divorce news, R&B singer, actress and record producer Christina Milian has filed for divorce from her husband, the record producer known as The-Dream. Also, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has filed for divorce from his wife of 16 years, after which she was arrested for DUI.

Milian and her husband, Terius “The-Dream” Nash, confirmed their split via their representatives, signaling an end to their year-long marriage, according to People.com. They had decided to split up in late 2009, but the couple kept the news private until recently in order to protect the privacy of their newborn daughter, Violet.

Questions had arisen not long ago as pictures came out of The-Dream in an embrace with and personal assistant at the beach in the Caribbean. Confirmation that Milian and The-Dream were no longer together quickly followed.

The couple eloped in Las Vegas in September of 2009, after The-Dream proposed to Milian in July with a 6-carat diamond ring. Their daughter was born in February.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., meanwhile, filed for divorce from his wife Mary, just days before she was set to appear in court to face DUI charges.

While neither party is speaking with the media, the New York Daily News is reporting that sources are suggesting that Mary’s trouble with the law sprang from Robert Kennedy’s efforts to get a divorce.

On May 13, a day after Robert Kennedy filed for divorce, the police were called to the troubled couple’s home in Bedford, New York. In the domestic incident report, it was recorded that Robert told police that his wife was intoxicated.

Following close on the heels of those legal troubles came Mary’s May 15 DUI arrest. She was stopped outside of the St. Patrick’s School in Westchester, and she measured a blood-alcohol content of 0.11 percent. She pleaded not guilty to the charge, but still had her license suspended and was ordered by a judge to undergo an evaluation to determine if she had an alcohol abuse problem.

This is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s second divorce. He was married to his first wife, Emily Ruth Black, for almost 12 years before he quickly divorced her in 1994. Only weeks later, he married Mary.

She is an architectural designer, according to the New York Daily News. Recently, she was featured in a coffee table book about herself and RFK converting their home into a more environmentally friendly “green house.” She also worked with her husband on environmental initiatives like the National Resources Defense Council and his Riverkeeper and Waterkeeper movements.

A source told the New York Daily News that RFK’s decision to divorce his wife was not related to the legal issues that she has faced recently.

Mary is scheduled to appear in court again in late July. Her lawyer declined to comment to the press about the case, and Robert did not return calls from the press.

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

In Japan, there is a battle raging among the progressives and the conservatives. The Democratic Party of Japan, the progressives, came into power last year with a plan to give women the freedom to choose their married name. The current law in Japan allows only one surname per family, which is traditionally the man’s.

Many feel this requirement is wrong, and that neither side should have to change their names.

The Democrats came into power after 55 years of nearly continuous conservative control of Japan. Part of the agenda was a bill that would allow Japanese women and men to keep separate surnames after marriage.

Conservative politicians have stalled the bill, and accused the Democrats of pushing an agenda that would destroy Japanese family traditions, according to the Chicago Tribune.

According the leader of the former ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which counter-intuitively is the conservative party, allowing two surnames for one couple “would destroy the country.”

With elections looming, a poor showing at the polls could make it difficult for the Democrats to progress on this bill.

Japan is one of the few countries that still require both members of a marriage to have the same surname. Even China and South Korea allow women to have different surnames than their husbands.

Many of the Japanese women that have progressed into the professional, corporate and academic world want the right to retain their maiden names and many even use aliases at work.

With the Democrats in power, Japan may have a historically rare opportunity to make this change and give women the freedom of keeping their names.

This opportunity may be slipping as a strong opposition is mounting. “I don’t understand the mentality of couples who marry to be together but prefer separate surnames,” said Shizuka Kamei, leader of the People’s New Party. “Do we want to see door signs showing various surnames written on them at each home?”

Absent from Kamei’s argument, however, was an explanation how separate names on door signs would destroy the country.

The current system is disproportionately burdensome on the women. It places inconsistencies on social activities and can even cause the loss of identity for women.

In some very rare cases, Japanese couples use the wife’s surname. But this is typically done is the rare case that the women is an only child or to benefit the couple financially.

To force a couple to have to choose a single surname is putting an unnecessary amount of stress on a couple. With many women starting their careers before getting married, it can become an increasingly difficult task to convert an entire profession world and reputation to a new name. When a successful professional man meets a successful professional woman, it just seems wrong to require one of them to cave and have to re-establish their name among their peers.

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