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.

There could be a major change in the works for New York’s archaic style of divorce, the New York Times reports.

Currently, for a citizen of the state of New York state to get a divorce, one of the limited number of allowable reasons have to be given. These reasons include, adultery, cruelty, imprisonment or abandonment.

This style of divorce law has had a number of negative consequences which affect both the spouses seeking a divorce and the legal system as a whole.

The legal system takes a hit because it forces people to flirt with or commit perjury in order to satisfy one of the permissible reasons for divorce when the most reasonable one isn’t good enough: namely, “I don’t like my spouse anymore.”

Malcolm S. Taub, a veteran Manhattan matrimonial lawyer described the current system as “institutionalized perjury” and that said that “this play-acting goes on and everybody looks the other way and follows the script.”

The courts seemed to be trying to phase it out as well. A phrase like, “he bought me a gym membership” is a magic phrase that indicates the husband thought the wife was fat, and could constitute enough of a reason if both sides want a divorce. Robert S. Cohen, a leading New York divorce lawyer stated that, “There’s a clear feeling among the judges that fault should have been long gone from our system.”

State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Sunshine feels that the current system is an invasion of privacy and has no place in our modern society. “Should we really,” Justice Sunshine asked, “in the 21st century be having people get on the stand and testify that ‘my spouse refused to have sex with me’?”

There are instances where a wealthy spouse refuses to go along with the all-too-common charade in order to keep their money. If a spouse becomes wealthy or never signed a prenuptial agreement, then it is often more economical for him or her to keep their spouse in a loveless relationship to avoid the cost of dividing the wealth.

Another negative effect of the current fault system of divorce is the cost. There are many couples in New York that want a divorce, but cannot afford a divorce attorney who can help them learn the magic words to say in order to be granted one.

Currently, if no fault is claimed, then both sides would need to sign an agreement and then live apart for a year. The new proposed plan would get rid of the necessity for an agreement, thus allowing divorces to happen much easier.

The State Senate approved a bill that would remove this need for fault, and soon there could be a final vote that would make this law. New York residents could then be afforded the same rights that people enjoy in nearly every other jurisdiction in the United States.

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

When Julie Chang filed for a divorce from her husband of 13 years, claiming cruelty, it took seven years for the New York courts to let her out of the marriage. According to Chang, those years cost her $40,000, and amounted to “judge-sanctioned harassment.”

“The process of trying to prove fault made an already bad relationship worse,” said Chang, a mother of two, in an article from the Boston Herald. “This whole seven-year process was simply about grounds.”

Now, the law that kept her from getting her divorce granted, the burden of proving
fault in New York State, could be overruled by lawmakers. Every other state in the U.S. has no-fault divorce, but in New York a judge can still only grant a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, adultery, abandonment or a three-year or more prison sentence. When both sides consent to the divorce, they can sign a separation agreement that grants a divorce after a year.

These laws, set in 1966, are now under threat from a bill in the state senate that would allow one spouse in a marriage to opt out of that marriage, just by swearing under oath that the marriage is irretrievably broken down and that it has been for at least six months. Under the new legislation, child support and custody, alimony and property division would need to be resolved already.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat representing the Bronx and co-sponsor of the bill, said that “the requirement of finding fault is often unfair to children and horrendous for victims of domestic violence trapped in abusive marriages with no way out without the consent of the abuser.”

The battle that the new legislation faces is far from a sure thing, however. Advocates for women’s rights have found themselves contending with advocates for victims of domestic violence. The National Organization for Women, for example, says that the bill would make it easier for judges to ignore documented cruelty cases, and make it easier for men with money to hide their assets and leave women poorer.

In a rare occurrence, the Catholic Church and NOW find themselves on the same side of the issue. That church cited the bad message that the bill might send to society, and to young people. “It says marriage is disposable. You can throw it away if it doesn’t work for you.”

NOW also says that judges can be gender biased, and that husbands with money can opt for a no-fault divorce and force wives without as much money into the court process, without money or legal recourse.

The bill passed the Democrat-led Senate in a vote of 32-29 last week, and will soon move to the state Assembly. Both Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Governor David Paterson said that they like the concept of the bill, but that they would not necessarily pass the bill if given the opportunity.

In New York, there were just over 127,000 marriages in the state in 2008, and over 52,000 divorces.

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

A story that sounds like it was taken from a mobster movie has led to a change in California divorce law, as a man sought to prevent his wife from benefiting financially from their divorce.

Why did he want to prevent her from getting money in the divorce, beyond the usual reasons? Well, for starters, she had tried to hire a hit man to have him killed, according to an article from the Associated Press.

A new bill that will be heard in California state congress will see to close a loophole that the authors claim exists in the state’s no-fault divorce code. In particular, it has to do with spouses who attempt to have their husbands done away with. The bill would specifically prevent spouses who solicit murder from collecting financial rewards in divorce cases.

John Pomroy, the husband in the divorce case and a police detective, has spurred the bill onward. His ex-wife tried to hire a member of a biker gang to kill her husband, after she lost custody of the couple’s children in their divorce. She went to prison for her crimes, and when she got out, in 2004, she was able to collect almost $70,000 from their estate in the divorce.

As the law stands now, spouses who are convicted of murder or attempted murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect from the couple’s estate during a divorce. The loophole that’s there currently does not include spouses who hire somebody else to do the dirty work on their behalf. In the bill, a victim’s assets are protected in the event that a spouse tries to line up a hit man.

“If you [pay someone to] commit arson on our house, you don’t get the insurance money,” said Pomroy, in defense of the bill. “You go to prison and all sorts of things happen to you. But if you try to [hire someone] kill someone that is your spouse, the current law allows you to collect something.”

Krystal Callaway Jaime is a supervising attorney for the Family Protection Clinic at the University of California, Davis. Jaime supports the closing of the loophole in California state law. “This bill is very, very necessary,” said Jaime. “It seems obscure, but this does happen more frequently than people realize.”

There are widely varying divorce laws from one state to the next, and in California typically estates are distributed equally to both parties in a divorce case.

In Pomroy’s case, his wife pled guilty to soliciting others to murder him, and she spent around a year in prison. She had been faced with losing their children and the support of her husband’s salary, so she asked members of the Vagos biker gang—who lived down the street—to kill her husband while he was on duty.

Pomroy’s wife’s legal representation, Michael O’Brien, claimed that she didn’t plan to carry out the murder, but that instead she was out of money, addicted to drugs and desperate at the time that she made the attempt to hire a hit man.

Pomroy, for his part, remained unimpressed by his wife’s crime.

“I’m just trying to prevent some poor sap in the future who goes through this, to prevent him from losing his assets to somebody that’s trying to kill him,” said Pomroy.

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

In Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriage was legalized several months ago, local attorney Lawrence Jacobs has a message for same-sex newlyweds: marriage may be legal now, but divorce may be a tougher challenge.

Five states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage at this point, and the legal challenges of same-sex divorces are starting to emerge. According to an article from CNN, the legal complications often arise when same-sex married couples cross state lines to live in places that don’t recognize gay marriage or ban it outright.

Jacobs consults with gay couples who are thinking about getting married. He told CNN: “be careful what you ask for.”

Across the country, cases are coming up that are forcing state governments to make a stand about same-sex divorce laws.

In Texas, the attorney general is attempting to resist a gay divorce that an Austin judge had already approved. That case involves a lesbian couple that in 2004 had married in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal.

The judge in the case determined that a Texas constitutional amendment saying that marriage was a union between a man and a woman violated the federal Equal Protection Act of the Constitution. Greg Abbott, the attorney general, appealed the decision, claiming that “It would not provide the parties with finality and certainty they seek. It would subject them to the worry of protracted litigation, as well as years of legal and personal uncertainty.”

Angelique Naylor, one of the plaintiffs, disagreed, because the couple has a child and share a house. To get a divorce in Massachusetts, legally, they would have to move back to that state and spend a year establishing residence there.

In Pennsylvania, a judge turned down a petition for divorce filed by another lesbian couple that was married in Massachusetts.

Carole Kern, who was involved in the Pennsylvania case, expressed her frustration about the outcome. “I’m still legally married,” she told CNN. “If I want to marry again, I can’t.” Kern is originally from Pennsylvania, and she had gone to Massachusetts with her partner explicitly to get married there.

In Rhode Island, the top court disallowed gay divorce a few years ago.

There is also a middle ground for states in the same-sex marriage scenario.

In Maryland, for example, gay marriage is not legal. The state will, however, recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in states where they are legal. This according to a recent decision from the state’s attorney general. Some legal experts are predicting that this will enable Maryland to perform same-sex divorces.

In California, same-sex marriage was allowed for a time in 2008 before the law was repealed. Marriages performed during that time are still recognized by the state, and now there are gay marriage divorce cases period being seen in state courts.

The Constitution generally calls for states to recognize the laws of other states, and states do recognize heterosexual marriages from one to the next. In gay marriage cases, however, the rules vary more widely, and the landscape is less clear.

The problems at hand get at the heart of the gay marriage issue. If a state allows a same-sex married couple to divorce, for example, it would have to recognize the validity of the marriage.

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

Lawmakers in Arizona have voted down legislation that would have let one member of a divorcing couple prolong the divorce process for up to 6 months.

With a 33-23 vote, the Arizona House voted down legislation that would have allowed one of the parties in a divorce case to demand that the divorce procedure go on for four months longer than is now required, according to the East Valley Tribune.

Currently, Arizona is a no fault state, where couples need only report that a marriage is “irretrievably broken” in order to legally end it. Under existing Arizona divorce laws, a judge needs to wait only 60 days after a petition gets filed to grant a formal divorce decree.

One supporter of the failed legislation argued that the state should take an interest in keeping couples together. Representative Nancy Barto, a Republican out of Phoenix, tried to sway her colleagues towards just such a perspective.
“Financially, homes that break up cost the state,” she argued. “It should be the policy of our state to encourage families to stay together.”

Opponents of the bill say that the longer waiting periods could mean more uncertainty for children and higher stress for couples already having trouble.

Barto’s initial proposal included extending the 60 day requirement to formally finalize a divorce after 180 days in all cases. When that was met with opposition, Barto drafted a scaled-back version of the bill. Instead requiring 180 days, either party in a divorce could request the stay of finalization from the court.

“The judge has to issue the order,” said Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican out of Gilbert. Biggs, who is also an attorney, told the East Valley Tribune that he was glad about the change in the bill that let the court decide whether to allow the delay.

Still, he thought that the bill wasn’t where it should be. “In order to get around it, the non-moving party has now got the burden of proof and must show ‘good cause’ why that should not go forward. I think that’s not appropriate.” Biggs believes that the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to delay the divorce to prove why the couple should remain together for an additional four months.

This may not be the last time that the Arizona House has to deal with the issue, however. While it has been put down for now, there is preliminary approval by the Senate for a measure that is exactly the same as the one that has just been rejected. Senator Linda Gray has sponsored this bill.

Barto might also be able to use parliamentary procedure to bring her own bill back. This keeps alive the possibility of another vote on the issue by the Arizona House.

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

The American Free Press is reporting that, in Iran, a new program is offering young people a diploma for attending courses. The subject matter: courting.

The diploma is designed to be earned before marrying, and is part of a government plan to reduce the divorce rate in the country.

The National Youth Organisation is offering the courting diploma as an online course to teach Iranian youth how to identify the right life partner, how to know if he or she is right for marriage, how to propose, and ways to find happiness in marriage.

Designed by academics and clerics, it is an interactive course lasting three months, and to stay in the course students have to take a weekly test of their courting knowledge.

Traditionally, hardline Iranian leaders look down on dating relationships outside of wedlock, and want men and women to get together and marry in their early twenties. Single people in their thirties are looked down upon by these same traditionalists.

Conservatives rose to power in Iran five years ago, and since then their representatives in government have repeated the goal of “facilitating marriage for young people.” The population in Iran is particularly young, with 60 percent of Iran’s 70 million citizens under 30.

Statistics show, however, that the average age when couples marry has risen to 29. Economic hardship and changes in values are the main reasons that couples are marrying later in their lives. Women are driving these changes as well, as more and more go to college, for example.

The marriage diploma has received a good deal of ribbing online, which AFP calls “a torrent of jokes.” Officials, though, are adamant about the need for awareness. At the same time, however, they haven’t said much about the course itself, and what might be involved in it.

Head of the National Youth Organisation Mehrdad Bazrpash said “marriage needs hundreds of hours of education,” as he inaugurated the program in Tehran.

According to Iranian officials, the divorce rate in Iran has risen by 15.7 percent from 2008 to 2009. In that same time, there was only a 2.1 percent increase in marriages.

In Tehran, a quarter of marriages end in divorce, according to the same officials.

Psychologist and adviser to the National Youth Organisation Ahmad Borjali said that “divorce is taboo and against values, but educational work does not cost much. Face-to-face education is much more important, and this can be a start given the size of the country.”

Critics of the government have, perhaps predictably, been critical of this marriage diploma initiative as well.

“Our society is confused between tradition and modernity,” sociologist Shahla Ezazi told AFP. “Awareness is fine but the question is what kind of family they are seeking to promote. There are both traditional and arranged marriages and modern love marriages. But most propaganda is focused on reinforcing men’s leadership and women’s obedience.”

Publicity for the marriage diploma seemed to show a conservative approach to marriage, encouraging match-making and looking down on unmarried relationships.

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