Does it really cost $19 million to get divorced in Los Angeles?  According to the March 6, 2010, Los Angeles Times, that is how much Frank and Jamie McCourt’s divorce could end up costing.  As the Times points out, that is more than the Dodgers will spend on their starting infield this season.  My initial reaction to reading that story on an overcast and rainy Saturday morning:  You’ve got to be kidding me!  No way!  Get out!  So how many of the destitute in Haiti could be saved with $19 million dollars?  Of course, the same argument could be made about the cost of an average litigated divorce in Los Angeles, which is $50,000.00…if you are lucky.  Frank and Jamie have hired multiple law firms and forensic accountants.  We’re told that the ownership of the Dodgers is at stake because Frank McCourt contends that he has a post-nuptial agreement that makes him the sole owner of the Dodgers.  Jamie McCourt contends the post-nuptial is no good, and that makes the Dodgers community property, which means she owns one-half of the team.  It appears that the McCourt’s have the money to spend, all $19 million of it, and the lawyers and accountants will help them spend it, presumably wisely.  The Times headline said, “Cost of owners’ split seems out of the ballpark.”  That may be the understatement of the season.  The McCourt’s apparently have the ability to spend $19 million to see who gets the Dodgers, but I doubt the average middle class couple can afford $50,000.00 or more to litigate their differences.  My advice is simple:  Try mediation or collaborative divorce first.  If you and your spouse are successful, you’ll save enough money to fund your children’s college educations and still have money left over for Dodger tickets, a couple Dodger dogs and beers.

Tax time is fast approaching.   Divorced couples want to know who gets to claim their child or children as a dependent(s) on their tax returns.   Unless there is a Court order stating otherwise, it’s the primary custodial parent who gets to claim a child as a dependent.   The primary custodial parent is defined as the parent with whom the child spends the most time during the year.   However, the custodial parent may allow the noncustodial parent to claim the dependency exception instead by signing IRS Form 8332.   If both parents claim the child or children as dependent(s), the IRS will likely audit the tax returns to see who qualifies for the dependency exemption(s).   If your ex-spouse wrongly took the dependency exemption and it resulted in an IRS audit that cost you money, you may be able to obtain reimbursement in the family court.   If you allow your ex-spouse to take the dependency exemption, and they are also under a Court order to pay you child support, make sure the order says your ex-spouse may only take the dependency exemption if they are current on their child support and there are no arrears owing at the time of tax filing.

If you are divorcing, please consider these digital safeguards to protect your privacy:   First:  Stop posting on social networking sites.  Second: Get a new e-mail address.  Third:  Have your computer swept by a professional for any “snooping” software.  I’ll have more to say about protecting your digital privacy in divorce in a future article that will be posted on my web site.  So, please check back.

     Whether you are divorced or going through a divorce, you must see the new movie “It’s Complicated.”  The central figure in this movie is Jane, the mother of three grown children, who is played in a brilliant comedy performance by Meryl Streep.   After being divorced for 10 years, she ends up having an affair with her ex-husband, played by Alec Baldwin, who is married to a younger woman.   Jane’s world is rocked with uncertainty, while her ex-husband decides they’ve now become the people they both wanted each other to be.   Add into the mix a possible new romance for Jane with an architect played by Steve Martin and her three grown children who are still dealing with their parents’ divorce, and you can understand why the name of this movie is “It’s Complicated.”
     There are hilarious moments throughout “It’s Complicated,” but the movie also speaks to how people can move on from their divorce and resolve matters successfully for the benefit of their children and themselves.   The laughter does not drown out the deeper truths about dealing with life after divorce, which are made easy by the comedy and acting talents of Ms. Streep and Mr. Baldwin.   Without giving anything away, I thought the end of this movie was very satisfying, not entirely predictable, and I walked out of the theater feeling better than when I walked in.

The following is a true story. At least those who claim they saw and heard it happen swear it is true.
Once upon a time, a Los Angeles Superior Court family law judge was hearing a case where there was no name on the child’s birth certificate. Mom and dad each had attorneys and they both asked the judge to assign the child “their” requested name. The judge happened to be retiring two days later. He warned the parties to settle or he “would” pick a name. There was no agreement, and after a break the judge took the bench and he entered an order naming the baby. However, the judge did not select either of the requested names. Instead, the judge named the baby after himself! It was then suspected that the parties went into the hallway and settled their fight.

Swing and a miss for Jamie McCourt in family court today.  Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon rejected Jamie McCourt’s bid to be reinstated as chief executive of the Los Angeles Dodgers. “From an employment analysis, there’s no law that would support the court reinstating an employee,” Commissioner Gordon said, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. On that, Commissioner Gordon is absolutely right. At the end of the day, Jamie McCourt was an employee of the Dodgers. The bigger issue is whether the team is community property, which would make her a co-owner with her husband, Frank McCourt. That is going to be decided at a trial—probably a trial on that issue alone. Frank McCourt contends there is a property agreement that gives him sole ownership of the Dodgers. You can bet that trial will go extra innings, i.e. whoever loses will probably appeal. Meantime, according to the L.A. Times, attorneys for Frank McCourt said their client paid Jamie McCourt $500,000.00 to cover her salary from October 1st to December 31st. That apparently doesn’t even include all the Dodger dogs you can eat. Next up, a hearing set for December 15th on Jamie McCourt’s request for spousal support. We need Vin Scully to call play by play on this divorce.

Forget the Yankees and Phillies. If you want to see some real fast balls being thrown, watch the divorce battle for the Los Angeles Dodgers. It is being reported that two months after the purchase of the Dodgers, Frank and Jamie McCourt entered into an agreement that gave Frank McCourt the sole ownership of the Dodgers and provided Jamie McCourt with sole ownership of eight residential properties. This sounds like a post-nuptial agreement to me and it will need to comply with all the same statutory rules that apply to pre-nuptial agreements. Meantime, Jamie McCourt wants temporary spousal support, i.e., alimony of $487,634.00 per month. Nice work if you can get it. Remember, sometimes it’s not who you marry, it’s who you divorce. Anyway, here in California the family court can make temporary orders for Jamie McCourt’s support, but it cannot make a temporary order that determines who own the Dodgers. That may take a separate trial on the so-called agreement that Frank McCourt contends gave him the team as his sole and separate property. Now, if you are a Dodger fan you know none of this is good for the team. Remember what a divorce did to the San Diego Padres.

The Dodger’s post-season isn’t over. It has just moved to a different playing field—the family court. Dodger owner Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie McCourt are apparently ending their marriage. Frank McCourt claims he is the sole owner of the Dodgers. Here in California, all property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. That means there is rebuttable presumption that Jamie McCourt is a one-half owner of the Dodgers. So, how does
Frank McCourt win the Dodgers as his sole and separate property? Perhaps there is a pre-nuptial agreement or post-nuptial agreement that would make it clear he owns the team. Or, there may be some type of document that transmuted the community property Dodgers into the sole and separate property of Frank McCourt. If none of those documents exist, I’m eager to hear the legal theory that awards the team to Frank McCourt.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!