A recent article in the Chicago Tribune has taken a deeper look into the divorce, specifically at the judge presiding over the case. The judge’s demeanor is especially relevant in this case, as many divorce cases, because there will be no jury and the judge will solely determine the outcome.

The judge for the case is Scott Gordon, a former police officer and a man described repeatedly as “no-nonsense”.

The Tribune article began by describing a telling scene between Judge Gordon and attorney for Frank McCourt, Steve Susman.

Susman is one of the most well respected attorneys in America, and is ranked as one of the top 10 trial lawyers in America.

Susman suggested to Gordon how to number the exhibits for trial, and during the third attempt at explaining the ordering, Gordon cut off Susman.

“You’re from Texas?” Gordon asked. After Susman responded with an affirmative head nod, Gordon continued, “It’s a fantastic state… The last thing I would do in Texas is tell a Texas judge how to run his court.”

Judge Gordon seems to be a good fit for the trial, as Lynn Sodik, a Santa Monica family law attorney states, “He’s perfect for this case… He’s very smart. Sometimes it can be hard when you’ve got heavyweight attorneys, some from out of town. [Gordon’s] not intimidated at all.”

Gordon, 54, studied at the Air Force Academy and at Cal State Dominguez Hills and then joined the Santa Monica Police Department in 1977.

Gordon eventually went to law school and graduated from Southwestern Law School in 1985. He then went to a law firm for several years before joining the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. His areas of expertise was domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault.

Gordon also played a part on the prosecution team in the O.J. Simpson trial. After the trial, Gordon was reportedly disappointed in the system and desired something more meaningful.

After the Simpson trial, Gordon researched and co-wrote a book about eight German terrorists sent to the U.S. by Hitler during World War II.

This led to Gordon working with the United Nations tribunals prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Eventually, Gordon secured more than $1.5 million so the tribunal could use computers instead of handwritten notes, and GPS devices to find crime scenes.

In 2002, Gordon became a court commissioner, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed him a judge in April.

Gordon made a point to remind the parties that their high-profile doesn’t make their case a high-priority in his courtroom. child custody cases and battered spouse cases carry greater urgency than a case to determine the owner of a baseball team.

When Brant met Seymour, he was a billionaire and know for his vast art collection and his very own polo team. She was a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model and the ex-girlfriend of a rock star.

The divorce is gearing up to be one of the biggest. According to an article in the New York Times, when the trial begins on September 20th, the divorce will have caused more than 12,000 pages of public divorce documents, and millions of dollars in lawyer’s fees.

According to the Times, the divorce “[a]t the most basic level… has turned into a case of ‘he said, she said,’ with charges ranging from infidelity to rampant drug use.”

A clear oversight by Brandt has made the divorce even messier: he didn’t have a prenuptial agreement. This means that his net worth of $500 million is left to be divided by the court system, instead of being decided upon in advance.

The ultra-famous, or infamous, depending on your view, real estate mogul Donald Trump has expressed his attitude that Brant should have had a prenuptial agreement.

“I was very surprised when he married her [without a prenup]” said Trump, “It’s a lot easier to get done when you love each other than when you hate each other. And they hate each other. It’s a mess.”

The two lead glamorous lives before ever meeting.

Seymour dated Axl Rose, made the cover of Vogue five times and was a Playboy cover girl in 1991 and 1993.

Brandt made his fortune in newsprint, and at the age of 20 met one of the most well known artists, Andy Warhol. Continuing his contact with artists, such as Julian Schnabel and Richard Prince, which allowed him to put together one of the best collections of modern art.

Once Brandt and Seymour began their relationship, they were a common sight at gallery opening and parties.

The two have two sons, Peter Jr., 16, and Harry, 14, as well as a daughter, Lily, 5.

The divorce hit many close to the couple by surprise. The two did a good job hiding it. Even in February the couple was seen, and photographed, smiling and talking with guests at a party.

As of late, the divorce is getting nastier. Seymour has begun accusing Brant of everything from “bad-mouthing her, changing the locks and safe combinations at their home and telling school officials to not let her pick up Lily after school.”

There are claims of infidelity and even requests for drug and alcohol tests. The divorce is likely to get more intense as the trial approaches. All we can do is stand back and watch the whole scene unfold in front of the judge and public.

But do these social media websites do more than make these once discrete action visible? According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, social media websites might actually make cheating easier.

The website FacebookCheating.com was created in response to this very problem. Ken Savage, founder of FacebookCheating.com, created the website after his wife used Facebook to rekindle a relationship with her ex-boyfriend.

Savage describes the purpose behind his website as, “to help others cope with someone cheating on them as well as shine light upon someone who is using Facebook to cheat.”

Facebook has become such common instrument in divorces that, according to a survey from Divorce-Online.com, approximately 20 percent of divorce cases mention Facebook. This is an especially shocking statistic when you take into account that Facebook has only been around for about six years.

Savage has stated that he doesn’t have a problem with Facebook, in fact he still uses and enjoys the website. Instead, Savage feels that Facebook is used as a tool to make affairs easier.

Facebook isn’t purported to be the cause of these divorces. Social media websites don’t make anyone cheat, nor do they encourage cheating. They do, however, give someone who would cheat the ability to reconnect with someone to participate.

However, there are some experts out there that believe that Facebook can actually influence people to cheat, where they would not if Facebook wasn’t at their disposal.

Stacy Kaiser, a psychotherapist and relationship expert, says about Facebook-started affairs, “It’s not your everyday affair… When it comes to something like Facebook, you are reconnecting with a long-lost love. All those teenage feelings, those college feelings come back again, you feel young again, and it drives you to do something you don’t normally do.”

In Kaiser’s quotation, she fails to note that not all affairs from Facebook are with long-lost loves. Many times Facebook is used to maintain a relationship with someone you have recently met. Or, you could have even met the person through Facebook, and have no actual contact before meeting him or her.

Just how much Facebook does “cause” divorce is debatable, yet nearly unprovable. For every illicit affair that starts due to a chance encounter on Facebook, someone can say that the cheater would have done it with someone else.

It’s important to understand that Facebook can start and end relationships, but it isn’t what should be blamed for spousal infidelity. People make decisions and actions, and personal accountability shouldn’t be lost on a website.

Donald Trump was among those surprised when the two married without a prenup. “It’s a lot easier to get done when you love each other than when you hate each other. And they hate each other. It’s a mess.”

The divorce that has been going on since 2009 has featured a wide range of accusations and bitter disputes. Seymour claimed that Brant was too controlling, and Brant claimed that she was unfaithful and that she had abused alcohol and drugs.

As the 15-year marriage dissolves, the high-brow Connecticut community of Greenwich where they live is watching the ordeal, in the words of the New York Times article reporting on the divorce, as though it were a car crash they wish would go away.

Each side of the power couple met in court this week, to continue their divorce battle. In the courtroom, Seymour and Brant avoided eye contact, as she sat calmly and he fidgeted with paperwork.

This wasn’t the first time they’d been in court. Since Seymour’s March 2009 filing, the couple or their lawyers have been in court five times previously. There was a charge that one of Brant’s security guards wouldn’t let Seymour into the family home, which was later dropped. Mandatory drug testing is ongoing, as mandated by the court. Three different judges have heard portions of the case.

It was the drug testing that was under scrutiny in their recent trip to divorce court. Brant was arguing that he should be able to discontinue the testing, and that he was “clean as a whistle.” The judge turned down the request, offering that it wouldn’t be prudent to change the rules of the divorce at that point in the proceedings.

The judge was also concerned that the estranged couple was getting off track.
Brant vs. Brant is scheduled to go to trial in late September. With a volume and grandiosity that the public has come to expect from the rich, powerful and famous, the two will have already spent millions of dollars on lawyers’ fees by the time the case goes to trial. There are thousands and thousands of pages of paperwork that have been generated in the case.

Their wealthy, famous friends have had to take sides.

Alberto Mugrabi is an art collector and friend, who, in addition to Trump, has looked on the divorce with a hint of melancholy. “It’s a sad occurrence,” he said. “What is amazing to me is how people who have kids can kill each other in a public arena. I just don’t understand it.”

The art dealer Tony Shafrazi was best man at their happy wedding in 1995. “We danced until 7 a.m.,” he said. “It was a very moving, beautiful thing.”

The two met while in New York City in the early 90s. Seymour was a star of the gossip column, dating rock stars like Axl Rose and making headlines. Brant was a millionaire who made his money from making paper and investing in high-priced real estate. He was also a major art collector, and friend of artists Andy Warhol and Julian Schnabel.

A high-profile courtship and marriage gave way to a peaceful existence in Connecticut, that they hid well in advance of their divorce. Many friends were surprised by the filing in 2009.

“It was a shock to me,” said Shafrazi. “We had Christmas in St. Bart’s and there was no sign of trouble.”

As Tiger’s golf game suffers under what could be the stress of the divorce, Elin shared some of her experience in the interview that has the whole world listening to the story of the wife who Tiger cheated on with women around the world.

According to the interview, she never saw it coming. She also never hit her husband with a golf club, as many news sources implied after the night when Tiger ran his car into a tree and injured himself.

“I’ve been through hell,” Nordegren told the magazine. “It’s hard to think you have this life, and then all of a sudden—was it a lie? You’re struggling because it wasn’t real. But I survived. It was hard, but it didn’t kill me.”

The couple has a 3-year-old and an 18-month-old together. Elin and the children have been living a mile away from Tiger in a rented house with five bedrooms and gated security in Windermere, Florida. Tiger has to get permission to get past the guards to see her and the kids.

She said that therapy and long runs were two things that helped her to get through the hardest times in the wake of the scandal. She also kept a journal of what she was going through and what her emotions were at the time. “I haven’t gone back and read what I wrote in December and January,” she said. “I’m afraid to.”

Golf is no longer a part of her life. She said she hasn’t watched a minute of it. She’s even regained her sense of humor, and she laughed at a few of the parodies that were made about her and the situation, calling them “pretty hysterical.”

But just because she can laugh about it now doesn’t mean that there aren’t scars. Nordegren never lusted for the spotlight, so when the gossip news broke nine months ago, she has had to battle with the desire for her life to remain private.

“This was one of the things I had the hardest time with people thinking,” she said. “There was never any violence inside or outside our home. The speculation that I would have used a golf club to hit him is just truly ridiculous.”

She also talked about Tiger’s secretive ways as he cheated with numerous women, and what it felt like to learn about his habits and activities.

“I felt stupid as more things were revealed,” she said. “How could I not know anything? The word betrayal isn’t strong enough. I felt like my whole world had fallen apart. I felt betrayed by many people around me.”

At a press conference at the golf course where Tiger was preparing for his latest tournament, he expressed sadness at the divorce finalization.

“It’s a sad time in our lives, and we’re looking forward to how we can help our kids the best we can. It’s one of those things where it’s a sad time.”

A recent article in the Los Angels Times explores the reasoning for Woods’ incredible decline.

It is impossible to know exactly what is affecting Woods’ game, but it seems relatively easy to assume that at least some of the stress from his personal life is affecting his golf game.

The titles of the article, Too many lawyers, too little practice means his game won’t change anytime soon, seems to muse that the lack of practice due to his divorce proceedings are the cause of his decline.

The article states that “[Woods is] hardly the first guy whose job performance took a nosedive in the middle of divorce proceedings, and he won’t be the last to get his bearings back, either. The only question is when not if.”

Echoing this confidence that Woods is likely to get his game back at any tournament he enters, are the odds makers in Las Vegas.

Tiger Woods has still been listed as the most likely to win the golf tournaments that he has entered, as high as 6-1 favorite in PGA event at Brigdestone.

The article talks about a change that has occurred in Woods’ practice time.

There was “a time when his practice time was almost sacrosanct, when business and everything else had to be put on hold for two weeks or more at a time, if that’s what his playing schedule demanded.”

Woods’ has been admittedly practicing less than he has. His personal life has become a large factor that weighs on him. Because he has been so distracted by his family life and divorce proceedings, Woods has had less time to prepare and focus on his goals.

There seems to be little confidence that Woods will be able to rebound completely until his personal life is finalized. This means that until Tiger Woods can finish his divorce proceedings, he will very likely be less than his potential on the golf course.

However, it is surprising just how certain both the odds makers and the article are that Woods will be a dominant force in the golf world again. In sports, when there are never any guarantees, it is unexpected to see this much certainty that someone like Tiger Woods will be able to regain such an extremely high level of play.

The only way to see of the confidence people have in Tiger Woods is misplaced or accurate is to see how he responds after his divorce is finalized.

Some of the factors that can help gauge if your fights are healthy include, where, when, the tone and what words were used. It is also important to hear the other side out, and not just ignore the other person’s side of the dispute.
At first, this may seem counter-intuitive. How can something that feels so strongly negative be a positive force in a relationship?

Howard Markman, professor of psychology at the University of Denver and co-director of the Center for Marital and Family studies seems to give the missing logical piece when he says, “All couples disagree- it’s how they disagree that makes the difference… You can get angry, but it’s important to talk without fighting.”

It seems like an important cognitive step to take in order to understand this idea. If you are going to disagree with your significant other, and you accept that, then you also have to accept that you need to find a healthy way to encounter your disagreements.

The experts that came up with this idea also have some surprising forms of conflict classified as disagreement. There is no distinction made between “arguing, fighting, bickering or even nagging… They’re all ways of expressing disagreement with another person that often become destructive, with one or both people using insults, clamming up or storming off.”

One of the keys to moving past the negative forms of conflict is learning to talk to the other person. The longer an individual waits to bring up a conflict, the more likely it is that the confrontation is going to turn ugly.

Another good piece of advice is a time limit. When a dispute arises, the couple should agree to give it a set time, like 15 minutes for example, and take turns explaining their side of the dispute.

This style, known as the “speaker-listener technique” is supposed to help keep the parties relaxed, and make the confrontation more cordial.

Disagreements are inevitable, but the no-holds barred argument that can be all-too common is not. Understanding that disagreements will happen, and should happen is an important first step. Then finding the best way to express your point of view, while giving your significant other ample opportunity for his or her view point is also important.

Next time you and your other get in a fight, try to keep some of these tips in mind. It just might be the fix you need to turn your painful and insulting fights into healthy and refreshing discussions.

The product, called WedLock, comes from SafeGuard Guaranty Corp., a company that claims to have created the first divorce insurance product that the world has ever seen, according to the New York Times.

The WedLock insurance policy will pay out its coverage in cash to cover legal fees and set-up for a new house in case of divorce. They sell these policies in monthly units of protection, and those who want to be covered pay a monthly installment of about $16. With each payment of $16 comes $1,250 in coverage, and the coverage accumulates with each payment that you make.

Also, as a bonus for those who continue to question the health of their marriage, SafeGuard will add $250 per year, per unit, to the coverage amount.

If you did get a divorce, you would simply send the company proof of divorce, and receive the amount that you are covered for in a lump sum.

The folks at SafeGuard have developed quite the strategy for preventing people from gaming the system and buying an insurance policy when they already know that they will be getting a divorce. One way is to make it so that a policy does not mature until 48 months after the policy’s effective date. There is, however, a premium for those who are especially jumpy and want to reduce the maturity period to 36 months.

Another rider available for purchase allows a policy holder to get their premiums back should they divorce before the allotted number of months has passed.

Another potential problem could be the high level of risk that SafeGuard could take on if a person or couple was particularly volatile in relationships, or had a family history of divorce. John A. Logan, the CEO of SafeGuard, assured the New York Times that the appropriate research had been done, and that even in a worst case scenario in which every policy holder got a divorce, the policies would not all pay out at the same time.

And why shouldn’t couples simply put the $16 per month into an investment that might create a bigger return than the insurance policy? Or what about the idea that some divorces aren’t expensive, but amicable?

Beware of an ex-spouse who could end up with that nest egg, says Logan.

“There is nothing to stop your spouse from raiding those investments and taking it all,” said the pessimistic Logan. “And then with all the money gone, you’re left with all the legal bills.”

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Logan’s inspiration for the WedLock product sprung from his own personal experience with a divorce that presumably cost him dearly.

Logan is asking for couples to have more faith in his company than in their own marriages, too, as currently these policies aren’t covered by any state guaranty funds. So if SafeGuard goes bankrupt, and Logan finds himself divorced from his company, you are out of luck.

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.

A recent article in the New York Times describes how failing marriages are staying separated, sometimes by choice, others by their own stubbornness.

Family law differs from state to state, but for the most part, regardless of how long the couple stays separated, as long as they are married on paper then they are legally married. And these separated couples are bound by tax filing status, pensions, Social Security and health care.

Most of the time couples choose to stay married, despite the desire to be separated from each other, is due to money.

Sharon O’Neill, a marriage therapist from New York, claims to have seen four cases in the last two years where a married-but-separated couple continued to live in the same house.

“The financial collapse has made people say, ‘Let’s not rush into a divorce, let’s see if we can make something else work,’” states O’Neill.

With the housing market in the tanks, couples may decide that selling the house wouldn’t be financially wise—especially if they purchased the house at the peak of the housing bubble.

Many people, perhaps even most, are staying together for the money, but a still large portion of unhappily married couples remains so for the children.

It is, however, debatable if trying to make an unhappy marriage stay together is really ever in the best interest of the children.

One of the risks of a long term separation, fittingly, is also financial.

Trying to stay married for the financial benefits may, ironically enough, wind up being to your financial detriment. If your estranged spouse decides to rack up large credit card bills, some of your assets might be responsible for the debt. Or, if you win the lottery, you winnings will likely become community property, with your ex being entitled to a portion.

There is also the risk of losing complete contact with your estranged spouse. If you find the love of your life, and want nothing more to remarry, you’d better be able to locate your ex to receive a divorce.

It’s difficult to imagine a more frustrating fate than being perpetually stuck married to someone you shouldn’t have ever been married too.

If you do decide that you don’t want to be married, then you should carefully weigh the options before you.

There are benefits to staying married, in some instances, and benefits to getting a divorce. Worrying about what makes you happy is important to determine what route you should go down.

If you think your best move is to remain married, then make sure you and your spouse are on the same page.

If you remain married, even if you separate from him or her, you will still have contact, and your life will not be fully separated from him or her.