A study commissioned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company reveals that 60 percent of business owners do not have a plan in place to divorce-proof their companies.   According to PRNewswire.com, the study involved six focus groups and 518 business owners.

“If a company is owned by a couple, a divorce can paralyze the business and create divided allegiances among employees and customers,” said Beth Wood, VP of a Mass Mutual division. “It could also jeopardize a family’s wealth and the owners’ retirements,” she said. “Often, a divorce can force the owners to sell the business, with proceeds being divided by the parties involved.”

“When owners aren’t in business with their spouses, a divorce can still hurt the firm greatly, if an ex-spouse is awarded the business in a divorce settlement, throwing ownership and decision-making into doubt, and distracting employees,” Wood said.

MassMutual suggests the following ways to create a divorce-proof plan for your business:

* Buy-sell agreements that can be triggered by certain events, such as a divorce.
* Prenuptial agreements.
* Postnuptial agreements.
* Trusts.

New York City lawyer, Steven Simkin, paid his ex-wife, Laura Blank, 2.7 million dollars for her half of their investment with Bernard Madoff’s fund as a result of their marital settlement agreement.

When Simkin found out the fund was worthless earlier this year, he sued his ex to get the money back, claiming there was a “mutual mistake of fact” which gave his ex a windfall.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Saralee Evans refused to set aside the agreement and dismissed Simkin’s lawsuit.

Read more.

Nelson A. Garcia will present Divorce Legal Seminar in Spanish at the Commission for Women’s Counseling and Career Center in Rockville Maryland on October 13, 2009, from 6:00 to 9:00 pm.  This seminar will help you to learn the different aspects of the process of separation and divorce. You will learn how to choose an attorney, how property is distributed, and how to get a restraining order, in case of domestic violence. How to obtain custody and alimony for your children will also be discussed. At the end of the session, you will have the opportunity to ask questions.  The cost is $30.  Here is the seminar announcement in Spanish.

SUS DERECHOS LEGALES EN EL DIVORCIO:

RESUMEN GENERAL Y TEMAS RELACIONADOS CON LOS HIJOS

Martes, 13 de Octubre, 2009, 6-9 pm

Este seminario, presentado en español, le ayudará a conocer los diferentes aspectos del proceso de separación y divorcio. Se discutirá cómo escoger un abogado, cómo conseguir separación de bienes y la forma de obtener una orden de protección en casos de violencia doméstica. También se discutirá cómo obtener la custodia de sus hijos y asistencia para su manutención. Al cierre de la sesión, habrá oportunidad para preguntas y respuestas.  Costo: $30

Nelson A. García, a family law attorney in the firm of Thyden Gross and Callahan, LLP has volunteered for several years at the Commission for Women as a presenter.  Mr. Garcia also volunteers in free legal clinics at a number of organizations including CASA de Maryland in domestic violence, child custody and divorce matters.  He received his J.D. from Boston College Law School and his B.A. in English and Business co-majors from Florida State University.  He is a member of the Maryland and District of Columbia Bar and is currently Secretary of the Maryland Hispanic Bar Association and a member of its Legislative Committee.

1989:  Steven Spielberg to Amy Irving – $100 million.

1994:  Neil Diamond to Marcia Murphey – $150 million.

2006:  Michael Jordon to Juanita Jordon – $168 million.

2009:  Mel Gibson to Robyn Gibson – possibly $500 million.

As predicted, the New York State Supreme Court has ruled that Dr. Richard Batista, 49, the surgeon who donated a kidney to his wife, Dawnell Bastista, 44, can’t get his kidney back.  As for his claim of damages in the amount of $1.5 million, the court said it was not legal to put a monetary value on a human organ.

“This is a significant decision that clearly finds that human organs are not commodities that can be divided as property in a divorce,” said the wife’s attorney, Douglas Rothkopf.

However the Court did say that Batista’s “sacrifices, magnanimity and devotion” can be taken into account in the case.

Putting a creative spin on the denial of his motion, the husband’s lawyer, Dominic Barbara called the decision a “complete victory” for his client.

Source: Ann Givens at Newsday.Com

James Hresko thought he could prove fraud in his divorce by his ex-wife Marie Heskro.  She told him she had no assets.  They settled their divorce with an agreement that gave her the option of buying him out of the house.  After an uncontested divorce, she exercised her option.  James thought she would have to get a mortgage to buy him out and he was stunned when she paid him $30,000 in cash.

James filed a motion to revise the judgment of divorce claiming that Marie had fraudulently concealed assets.

Thirty days after a divorce is entered in the court records by the clerk, it becomes final and unappealable.  In order to set it aside then, you must show that it was the product of fraud, mistake or irregularity.

But fraud comes in two varieties.  In Maryland, the type of fraud required to reopen a case must be extrinsic fraud and not fraud which is intrinsic to the trial itself.  Think you know how this case turns out?  Stay tuned for more discussion of extrinsic and intrinsic fraud.

If you think that money buys happiness, or a little more money will solve your problems, I can assure you that more money will bring a whole new set of problems into your life.

Just ask Keith Lee and Lori Andochick of Frederick County, Maryland, who married in 1993, separated in 2004 and were divorced in 2007.   As a partner in the investment firm of Brown Capital of Baltimore, Maryland, Mr. Lee made $1,760,282 in 2006.  Dr. Andochick, a dentist, made $267,000 that year.

The Court awarded Dr. Andochick $10,000 a month in spousal support, $15,000 a month in child support for their two children, $2,200 a month in other costs for the children, a monetary award payable at $250,000 a year for five years and attorney fees.

Mr. Lee appealed the alimony award.  The Court of Special Appeals reversed the case.  The Court calculated the annual numbers on Mr. Lee like this:

Gross Income                         $1,760.282
Less Taxes                                ($762,282)
Less Debt Obligations             ($636,588)
Child Support and Alimony*  ($278,400)
Monetary Award                      ($250,000)

Total                                         ($166,988)

In other words, Mr. Lee would have had to borrow about $167,000 a year just to make ends meet and even then he would have nothing left over for food and personal expenses.  The Appeals Court found that the trial judge “did not do the math”.

* see comments

Joe the Plumber stopped by to see me about his divorce today. “I worked all these years using my own blood, sweat and tears to build up my business. She wants part of it. And Barack Obama wants some of it.”

“Come on, Joe, it’s not that bad. Let’s look at it more carefully,” I say. “Obama’s tax plan provides a $3,000 tax credit for every new job you create, a reduction in taxes if you make less than $250,000 a year, and no capital gains if you sell your business.”

“It doesn’t sound so bad when you put it that way. But what about my wife? She never worked a day during our marriage,” says Joe.

“Your wife gave up her own career to raise your kids and make a home for you so that you were able to work so hard to build up your business. The law provides that the judge has to consider, among other factors, the contributions, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party.”

“So what you’re telling me,” says Joe, “is that I have two silent partners in my business – my lazy Uncle Sam and my wife.”

“That’s one way of looking at it, Joe,” I tell him. “Where are you going?”

As Joe leaves my office, he turns and says, “I’m going to see if my wife wants to buy my plumbing business.”

Which strategies do people and their lawyers employ during divorces? There are only two social strategies that human beings use, according to Herb Guggenheim writing for CapitalM, the local Mensa newsletter. Those strategies are:

1. Reciprocal Altruism.

This approach is based on the idea that if you do kind things for other people, they will do kind things for you. It is the psychological equivalent of the Golden Rule, that is do unto others that which you would have them do unto you. It is the American cliche, “You pat my back and I’ll pat yours.” It is the French saying, “You send the elevator up to me and I’ll send it back down to you.”

2. I’m Only in It for Myself.

These people see the world as a hostile place. It is dog eat dog. Only the strong survive. These social Darwinist believe that while the inferior, weak people are busy being nice to each other, they will swoop down and take what they want, when they want, no matter what the consequences may be.

If both parties use Reciprocal Altruism, the divorce can be settled rather handily. If both are using I’m Only in It for Myself, then it seems they are destined to have a long and costly litigation. What happens if they are each using a different strategy? It seems to me, the I’m Only in It for Myself strategist will walk all over the Reciprocal Altruism strategist and end up with the better part of the marital estate. Guggenheim says, that while he can sleep better at night as a Reciprocal Altruist, it is his observation that people who take what they want seldom suffer for it.

Perhaps the best strategy is a blend of both. Focus on what you want and ask for it. Be polite but firm in the asking — an iron fist in a velvet glove. Like the Eagle on the Quarter, hold out the olive branch in one hand (settlement) and the arrows in the other (litigation). Then your spouse can decide which strategy it is going to be.

It all started over dinner at the Isla Del Sol yachting club in St. Petersburg, Florida, according to John Barry at TampaBay.Com. Bob Luzenberg was having dinner with his second wife. Marlene Forand was their waiter. Bob came back a few nights later without the wife, said he was soon to be divorced. He told her he was an inventor with patents. Marlene was a licensed practical nurse, but she said if he could make something, she could market it. Bob Luzenberg and Marlene Forand got married in 1984.

Their businesses together prospered, but their marriage did not. Their divorce started in 1995. They’re still fighting over the money in court. They’ve run through 10 judges and 16 lawyers and their courthouse files fill 13 volumes.

The Florida divorce judge ordered Bob to pay Marlene a lump sum of $240,000, permanent alimony of $6,000 a month, medical insurance of $500 a month, 29 percent of Bob’s interest in a company called World Drink USA, and half of Bob’s interest in seven other companies, half interest in all of Bob’s patents, and all of Marlene’s attorney’s fees.

But Bob moved to Alabama, and when Marlene finally got him to pay over $200,000 in 2003, she netted only $80,000 after attorney fees. She has now fired her attorneys and is representing herself.

As Marlene has discovered the hard way, getting a judgment is not the same as getting the cash. You become a judgment creditor and can use the tools of the court to collect your judgment like attachment of assets and garnishment of wages. But if your spouse is unemployed or without assets, he is said to be judgment proof and you can’t collect. I wish I had a nickel for every noncollectable judgment in my file cabinet.