Lifelong alimony payments may have reached the end of their lifespan in Massachusetts on Thursday.

In a unanimous vote, the state Senate passed a bill to update the law regulating the support payments to an ex-spouse after divorce.

The decision finds Massachusetts joining a growing number of states that have recently updated laws regarding alimony payments.  The updates reflect a larger trend in changing social landscapes, including the growing number of women in the workforce over the past few decades.

States like Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah have placed time and age limits, caps, and income criteria on alimony. In Florida, state lawmakers passed a law relieving the divorced spouse of alimony responsibilities if the partner’s net income was significantly higher. A case in Tennessee challenging lifetime alimony is currently before the state’s Supreme Court.

Linda Lea M. Viken, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, recently spoke with the Washington Times about the proposed change to the Massachusetts law.

“The whole purpose of alimony is to allow a former spouse to maintain their standard of living,” Viken told reporters.

In a culture where more women have entered the workforce, fixed or lifelong alimony payments no longer make sense and many states have updated their laws accordingly. Currently, Massachusetts is “a little unique in still having this really strong, permanent-alimony law,” said Viken.

Prior to the current bill, the Massachusetts law had not been updated for 21 years. Should the governor sign the bill, it will help in bringing the state up to speed with others around the country.

Texas and Mississippi only award alimony in cases where marriage has lasted more than 10 years. Utah only requires an ex-spouse to pay alimony for a period of time equal to the length of the marriage.

The Massachusetts, bill, if signed into law, will set forth new guidelines for judges to determine the size and duration of alimony payments. For example, in cases where divorce occurs before five years of marriage, an individual will likely make alimony payments for a few months or years. In cases where divorce takes place after decades of marriage, an individual could potentially receive alimony until the payer reaches the age of retirement.

“This legislation will completely overhaul the state’s current antiquated system of setting alimony,” Denise Squillante, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, told reporters.

Squillante has urged Gov. Patrick to sign the bill. Should it be enacted, the new law will go into effect March 1, 2012.

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

Divorce represents a process that’s often unappealing to people who’ve taken the marital leap. No couple gets married envisioning that their union will end in divorce. Unfortunately, it does happen.

However, today’s economic climate has created an ironic situation. The combination of a terrible housing market and the troubled economy has lowered the divorce rate. People haven’t been able to afford the cost of divorce. In other words, married couples are actually staying together longer, which could mean a second chance at working out issues – or a painful delay of the inevitable.

The sad reality is that as the economy improves and the housing market slowly gets better, the pace of divorce will most likely rise in the coming years.

Divorce Categories

Divorce can become complicated with issues like potential child support and alimony, but the process can be divided into two, basic categories:

• No Fault Divorce
• Fault Divorce

While these categories represent different processes of getting a divorce, the particular laws are unique in each state. Furthermore, most states have a residency requirement as well. So at least one member of the couple must have been a resident of that state for a specific amount of time.

This is why it’s always important to find out what your state expects before filing a divorce petition.

No Fault Divorce

No fault divorce does not require the filing spouse prove that the other partner failed in their marriage. The only thing a spouse needs to do in this type of divorce is give a valid reason for the marriage’s dissolution.

There is somewhat of a catch, however, in that most states still require a legally valid reason for ending the marriage. Typically, this is just a formality that involves checking a box on the divorce petition.

Normally, a spouse cites either “irreconcilable differences” or an “irreparable breakdown of the marriage” as the cause of the marriage’s core problems, although the exact language varies by state. These are just fancy ways of saying that the relationship cannot be restored.

All states honor no fault divorces. However, some states require that the spouses live separately for a certain period of time before either of them can file a divorce petition.

Fault Divorce

Fault divorces are not used as frequently. In fact, most states no longer allow them anymore. The states that do permit fault divorces involve one spouse asking for a divorce based on a certain action of the other partner. Some of the most common reasons a spouse provides are:

• Adultery
• Abandonment
• One spouse is unable to be sexually intimate
• The infliction of emotional or physical pain
• Incarceration

Unlike a no fault divorce, the most states do not require that the spouses live separately for a specific amount of time. In addition, the spouse who proves fault is usually granted a larger portion of marital property or support, which typically means a drawn out, contentious court battle.

Fault Divorce Defenses

A major difference between no fault and fault divorces involves the defense. While there is no real need to go on the attack in a no fault divorce, a strong defense can make all the difference in a fault divorce.

The defenses can run the gamut. For instance, if adultery is at the center of the fault divorce case, the accused spouse can claim connivance. This means that the filing spouse participated in the adultery. Collusion is another reason, which entails that both spouses had previously agreed to fabricate grounds for divorce.

However, any defense might be a wasted effort. The courts have no interest in forcing people to stay together against their will. So it usually grants a divorce to people who ask for one despite any defenses given by the other spouse. The major hurdle is often in determining property division, spousal support, child custody and other aspects of ending the marriage.

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

There is a 133-year-old law on the books in Japan that requires any couple legally married in Japan to pick only one surname. The problem is that the culture makes it almost unequivocally the male’s surname.

According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, a group of Japanese have filed a lawsuit challenging the law on constitutional grounds.

Japanese culture is very different than American culture in several ways. And while in many areas of the United States women are underrepresented and faced with stereotypes, in Japan women have even less of a presence. In corporate, academic and political circles, Japanese women are underrepresented – instead, women are still expected to do most of the homemaking and raise the children.

The lawsuit is being brought by five plaintiffs, four women and one of the women’s partners, seeking $70,000 in damages from the government. The injury they are claiming is distress. They also seek to force the local government offices to accept marriage certificates with different surnames for each party.

Not surprisingly, this lawsuit also has a political angle.

The Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, and his party promised legislation which would allow separate surnames. However, any attempt to pass this kind of legislation has stalled in the face of the conservatives.

According to the article, Japan is the only one of the Group of Eight industrialized nations that require married couples to have the same family name. What might be even more surprising is that both China and South Korea allow married women to have different surnames from their husband.

China is not a county typically known for being on the cutting edge of progressive social issues, but is ahead of Japan on this issue- at least for now.

The law is neutral on its face and allows the married couple to choose which surname they would like to use. But the only time that it is somewhat acceptable for the woman’s name to be used is if she is an only child and her family has put pressure on her to carry on the family name.

If there is a financial incentive, then it is also somewhat common for the family to choose the wife’s name.

There is growing international pressure for Japan to drop the one-surname requirement. In 2009, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women weighed in and have pressured the Japanese government to change the law.

It seems that the Japanese law is going to change, but when and how is still unknown. But with pressure on the ruling party and prime minister, constitutional challenges and international pressure it seems pretty safe to assume that sometime in the not too distant future, this law will be gone.

Despite this somewhat archaic marriage requirement, Japan does have relatively progressive divorce laws. The country offers for grounds for divorce, including “divorce by mutual agreement”.

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

As part of the divorce process, couples must state the ground for a divorce. Most couples file divorce over predictable reasons: Someone has been unfaithful; the couple has grown apart; fights over money.

Sometimes, though, divorce lawyers and judges hear the weird and wild when it comes to the grounds for divorce.

As this graphic shows, couples across the globe have filed for divorce for some bizarre reasons. To add insult to injury, the desire for divorce was sometimes revealed in awkward and insensitive ways.

Strangest Divorce Contentions

Add this infographic to your site:

<a href=”http://www.totaldivorce.com/blog/2011/02/15/strangest-divorce-contentions/” mce_href=”http://www.totaldivorce.com/blog/2011/02/15/strangest-divorce-contentions/” target=”_blank” title=”strange reasons for divorce”>img title=”strange divorce process” src=”http://www.totaldivorce.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/strangest-divorce-contentions-sml.jpg” mce_src=”http://www.totaldivorce.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/strangest-divorce-contentions-sml.jpg” border=”0″ alt=”weird reasons for divorce”></a>

Strangest Divorce Contentions

In 2001, a woman in China filed for divorce after her pet bird tattled of her husband’s infidelities.

A man in India wanted a divorce because his wife didn’t wear modern-enough clothes.

A Romanian woman divorced her husband of 50 years for feeding stray dogs with their limited pension.

In 2008, a Saudi woman wanted a divorce after her husband of 30 years tried to take a peek of her face under her veil while she slept.

In England, a woman divorced her husband because she caught him cheating on her in an online video game.

In 2009, a German woman divorced her husband because she said he cleaned too much.

A man in India accidentally divorced his wife in his sleep. He was sleep-talking and said ‘talaq’ three times which can be an official divorce in Muslim law.

A man divorced his wife after 10 years when he discovered that she had been lying about her age.

A woman in the UK found out her husband was divorcing her from his Facebook post.

A Delhi man filed for divorce after his wife refused to serve tea to his friend.

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

Recently a woman from a small town in Idaho has become catapulted to the national stage. The Associated Press has released information about Holly Lahti, who recently won a $190 million Mega Millions jackpot.

While this is big news on its own right, Lahti’s background is what has really grabbed the eye of several in the media.

Lahti, 29, is a single mother who has been separated from her husband for several years. But because they have only been separated and not legally divorced, her husband might be entitled to some of that money. It’s a gray area of Idaho law.

What makes Lahti’s story even more gripping is the violent relationship she had with her husband. In 2003, police responded to a domestic dispute and arrested both her and her husband, which is often common when the police have difficulty in deciding who started the fight.

Lahti’s mugshot from the incident shows her with a swollen black eye and an apparent cut on her chin. The charges were eventually dropped.

This was not the only time that her husband, Josh Lahti, was in trouble for his abusive conduct. Later in 2003, Josh violated the no-contact order and was charged with second-degree kidnapping, possession of drug paraphernalia, domestic abuse, battery and false imprisonment.

Most of those charges were also dropped, but he did serve 180 days in jail and three years’ probation for kidnapping.

When Josh was contacted about his wife’s good fortune, he responded by saying, “That’s awesome! I won’t have to pay child support!”

Jennifer Mayberry wanted to make sure that people don’t judge Holly based on her mugshot and described her as, “kind. She is friendly. She is shy.”

In most states, when a couple has not lived together for a certain period of time, the new assets will be separate from the marital assets. But Idaho divorce laws are a little different and don’t fully explain the distinction.

Elizabeth Brandt, professor of family law, says that there is no case law on this issue, but that Josh should not expect to get a huge windfall.

“I can’t imagine he will have a significant claim to these earnings in the end,” said Brandt.

But if Holly does decide to get a divorce, it is an issue that will have to be addressed. The bottom line is that no one can say for certain how much money Josh will be able to get out of his marriage.

Holly did decide to take the lump sum of the money, as opposed to the annual payments for the next 25 years. She won $120 million which was reduced by taxes to approximately $80.6 million. Either way, the amount of money that Holly ends up with will be a life changing amount.

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

There is a perception among many in China that their increasing wealth is allowing husbands to have multiple mistresses and secret wives. In response, the Chinese government is creating  database of marriage records to give spouses and girlfriends the opportunity to check the marital status of their lover.

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the state media of China says that Beijing and Shanghai will be the first places to have this online database, and that the entire country’s marital records should be available by 2015.

Apparently the program is already running somewhat behind the initial timeframe because, according to a statement by the Ministry of Civil Affairs a few years ago, this project should be operational by last year. Chinese officials have not explained the delay in the program.

This is an interesting way for the Chinese government to combat bigamy.

Although bigamy is illegal in China, several prominent members of the Chinese Communist Party have been found guilty of bigamy, including former head of the National Bureau of Statistics, Qiu Xiaohua.

When Qiu was found to be in violation of the anti-bigamy laws, he was expelled from the party in 2007 and described as a, “vile social and political influence.”

China’s concern for extramarital affairs may be well founded. According to a study done in 2005, nearly 20 percent of married men in urban areas in China admitted to having an affair within the past twelve months. Interestingly, only around 4 percent of married women surveyed admitted to engaging in an affair in the past twelve months.

Furthermore, according to the civil affairs ministry, in 2009 nearly 2.5 million couples divorced in 2009, almost a 9 percent increase from the year before. It is very likely that the Chinese people are aware of these increases, which has prompted the government to act.

Some of these affairs have made their way into the mainstream news in China. A recent case involved a county official from Hubei after he was detained on suspicion of murder. The investigators believe that he killed his mistress, who was pregnant with twins, after she asked him to either marry her or fork over 2 million yuan, or approximately $302,000.

The marriage database does, however, assume that those who get involved with a married man or woman is concerned that he or she is married. If the men and women who engage in these affairs are genuinely concerned that about the relationship status of their lover, then the database has potential to help.

But if these affairs aren’t build on deceiving the mistress, then the database may fail to implement change. If people don’t care that their lover is married, then making it available online may not matter to them.

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

The UK Supreme Court has taken a major affirmation toward fully recognizing prenuptial agreements, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Traditionally, the United Kingdom has refused to recognize prenuptial agreements as valid binding agreements.  But on October 20^th the court ruled “in favor of a German heiress seeking to protect her considerable fortune from her ex-husband.”

With a strong 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court, lead by Nicholas Phillips (president of the Supreme Court), allowed an Appeals Court ruling to stand which upheld the legality of the prenuptial agreement.

The case was full of potential international law problems.  Katrin Radmacher, 40, a paper industry heiress with at least $86.5 million U.S. dollars, is from Germany.  Her ex-husband, Nicolas Granatino, 39 is a former investment banker from France.  He was attempting to receive a larger portion of Radmacher’s fortune than was prescribed for in the prenuptial agreement.

The prenuptial agreement was signed in Germany, but since the marriage was under English law, the couple lived in England, and the divorce was filed there, the courts were able to apply English law and not rely on complex international law.

Radmacher’s lawyer sees this case as setting a precedent for all prenuptial agreements in the United Kingdom.  Shortly after the judges verdict her lawyer, Simon Bruce, said that this, “means pre-nups are binding as long as they are fair.

Others aren’t as sure that this case will be as major a change.  Sharon Bennett, a family law expert at a North London firm, thinks that the law is unlikely to change as a whole as a result of this one case.

Granatino still received 1 million British Pounds from the divorce, roughly 1.57 million U.S. dollars.  And early on in the marriage, Granatino was earning a full 300,000 pounds, or approximately $471,000 U.S., a year as an investment banker.  In 2003, Granatino left his job to attain a doctorate in biotechnology at Oxford University, and now is only making a faction of his former salary.

The current ambiguous law about prenuptial agreements is going to be reviewed by Britain’s Law Commission.  The catch is, the review isn’t going to happen until 2012.

Until the review of the law, a dangerous level of ambiguity will continue to surround the status of prenuptial agreements in Great Britain.  It is pretty astonishing that in a country like the United Kingdom, the law would be so confusing over such an important topic to many people.

It seems like it should be central to most modern laws to allow private parties to contract to agreements.  Especially when these agreements would aid the courts in reducing cases.  If the United Kingdom does allow for prenuptial agreements, like most countries, then the court will no longer be put in the position of having to decide who gets what property. These decisions can be left to the parties to determine early on.

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

In the newest season of the hit shows, Real Housewives of D.C., on Bravo, Charles and his wife Cat Ommanney are center stage.

The problem? Charles and Cat are no longer together, and he has regretted the spotlight ever since it started. According to a recent article in the New York Times, Charles hasn’t seen the previews and is refusing to watch the show.

Charles is upset be all the attention that this show is bringing to him, and the negative effect it has had on his career.

As Charles points out, there was a time when you could Google Ommanney and see his proud family history of naval admirals, going back to his great-great-great-grandfather, but now all you find are rumors about the couple’s marriage and break up.

Charles, originally from England, was a photojournalist who covered the White House for 9 years, including the George W. Bush years. He made many connections with some of Washington’s most elite, including President Bush (who nicknamed him Chuckles for his personality, and Lion King for his wild hair).

When Charles and Cat met, they fell in love fast, and had a short but intense two year marriage. It was because Charles cared for Cat that he agreed to be a part of the Real Housewives show.

Charles’ decision to be on the show was a shock to his friends who knew him to be camera shy. Charles, according to close friend Christopher Morris, “is a very solitary person… He’s low profile, so being thrust into that environment, it seems odd.” Mr. Morris noted that Charles would often skip White House correspondents’ events because of the publicity.

Charles recounts how when he started the show, his friends became more reluctant to talk to him on the phone or meet for lunch. They would often ask him if he was going to be miked, or if the people from Bravo would be with him filming the encounter. The result of this was to embarrass Charles to the point of near isolation. Despite living in Washington D.C. for almost ten years, when he left for England, there was no one to send him off.

Charles thought that this would be a good way for his wife to do something she was passionate about.

“I wanted happiness for someone I was in love with. I put all my reservations aside and said: ‘Go for it. Do it if it makes you happy.’ Then I regretted it. I lost touch with everyone, and mix that with my marriage falling apart and the show taking over, it was very sad.”

In his attempt to do something selfless, Charles took a risk, and now he may be suffering from it for a long time to come.

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

New York has passed a no-fault divorce law, which will enable couples to divorce without assigning blame to either member of the failed couple, according to Bloomberg.

The law will, in the eyes of its supporters, cut down on long, painful divorce battles played out in courts, costing the participants a lot of money and heartache.

The no-fault divorce bill was passed on July 1, and after that it went to Governor David Paterson’s office. He signed the bill recently.

The new measure will go into effect in 60 days. Divorces that are filed at that point or after will be the ones impacted by the new bill.

“There is a human cost and a financial cost,” said Robert Ross, the supervising judge of the matrimonial division in Nassau County, New York. “It’s hard to know what impact a new law will have, but we do know that a grounds trial, and the expense and delay associated with it, is not a good thing.”

Before the new no-fault divorce bill takes effect, New York divorce laws were the only in the nation to require fault. If two spouses were in disagreement about the terms of the divorce, they could only dissolve their marriage by proving that the other was guilty of something like adultery, cruelty or abandonment.

With such limited options, some couples resorted to trials that battled over who was to blame for a failed marriage, and which sometimes saw couples put together false claims in order to meet the requirements of the law.

It is these kinds of court dispute that the new law will attempt to prevent and avoid.

“Fault allegations and fault trials add significantly to the cost, delay and trauma of matrimonial litigation and are, in many cases, used by litigants to achieve a tactical advantage in matrimonial litigation,” said a study that was presented to a top judge in 2006.

The study was commissioned by the state to study matrimonial law in New York.
A trial stemming from the concerns of the report could last weeks, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and involve children and friends. And while the eventuality of a fault trial is not common, when it does occur it can get, in the words of matrimonial lawyer Ronnie Gouz, “horrible.”

“They are never pleasant,” said Judge Ross. “You are putting two people in the position of pointing the finger at each other and having to defend the finger pointed at them.” He cited the strangeness of some fault cases, in which the court has had to hear from girlfriends and boyfriends, or those who people claim are boyfriends or girlfriends. “Having to sit and listen to these tings can sometimes be an overwhelming experience,” he said.

Another factor in the fault divorce has been the threat of publicizing personal information via a trial. A court trial is often something people are willing to negotiate in order to keep information from getting to the public.
The no-fault divorce eliminates this negotiating tactic.

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.