So, TO has a bench warrant out for missing a child support hearing appearance. Bench warrants are not "no big deal" as his attorney claims. You can be arrested, you can be sent to jail. These are not good things.
Why did he miss the court appearance? It was the date of his open workout. His attorney claims the point of the workout was to get a new contract so he could have income to pay his child support. Which sounds good in theory. Except the man had a myriad of dates to choose from for his workout. He didn't have to pick the one day he was supposed to be in court. That's ignoring the fact no one showed for his workout anyway.
The Court is looking for responsbility where kids are concerned. If you can't even be bothered to arrange your schedule to make a hearing, the court does not want to hear any excuse from you. Court takes priority over pretty much anything else. You be in court or they MAKE you be in court -- often in an ugly orange jumpsuit.
According to his attorney, the child support is based on his old contract with the Cowboys from 2007. Now, TO has not played for the Cowboys since at least 2008 (don't make me look it up, I try to forget those years in Dallas). His last contract with the Bengals was nowhere near that much. Why hasn't he requested a modification long before this? Then he could have had his workout and his court date.
Now, that he is missed a court date? Court is not going to be sympathetic to his pleas of poverty. Especially when its his four kids who are paying for dad's irresponsibility.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Could Football Have a McCourt Problem?
On Friday, I had the honor of meeting and speaking to Richard Cass, the President of the Baltimore Ravens. He was the keynote speaker at a conference I was attending. I also got a chance to speak to him at the reception after the conference. He even shook my hand. Squeeing like a fan girl would not have been professional, but I really wanted to do so.
During his speech, Mr. Cass mentioned that one of the cool things about the NFL was that it was basically 31 family owned teams -- and Green Bay which is community owned. It makes it easier to know who is in charge of the team and makes for a different attitude towards the business of football. Now some could argue that the idea of an NFL team as a Mom and Pop business is long gone. Let the business blogs argue that one out. This is a family law blog.
Which brings up my concern. If the team is family owned, what happens when the family disintegrates? What happens when Mom and Pop split up? We also saw what happened to the Dodgers in the McCourt divorce (quick note, that one finally settled - Frank got the team, Jami got cash, MLB still ticked at everyone involved).
I asked Mr. Cass that very question. He very graciously answered me. Seriously, the guy is super nice and approachable. He said it was unlikely to happen because the teams are not business where you have to sort out shares, etc. In the NFL one person has to own at least 30% and one person has to have total voting control. He also mentioned that the NFL has debt limits rules to keep a team's finances from getting too out of whack.
All that may be true, but Mr. Cass is clearly not a family law attorney. I hate to disagree with such a great guy, but I just don't see how these things save a team from a McCourt style fight over ownership. I raised these issues in a previous post of the Blank divorce and the Falcons.
Yes, the teams are family owned. But to keep the families from being personally liable for the debts of a team, they tend to be corporations or limited liability partnerships. One person may have voting control, but they are still businesses.
Businesses get divided in divorces ALL the time. A spouse may have made monetary contributions to the business. A spouse may have made non-monetary contributions such as working at the business without pay or even just making sure the face of the business has a clean shirt and ate recently. All of these factors go into dividing up a business.
In community property states such as California or Texas, the law may consider the teams to be comunity property automatically entitling the spouse to half. This would effect 5 teams in the NFL -- the Chargers, the 49ers, the Raiders, the Texans and the Cowboys. Other states may also be community property states.
Marital property states, such as Maryland where the Ravens are based, would consider whether marital funds were used to purchase or maintain the team. Marital funds are any money earned during the course of the marriage (with some exceptions). In a marital property state, the court would consider the contributions of each spouse, the source of the funds, and what an equitable distribution of the property would be.
It is conceivable that a court may consider a team part of the community/marital property subject to division in th event of a divorce. A court is not really going to care about the NFL bylaws -- except for possibly guidance on how teams are owned, structured and what the League might do in the event of a court fight. But, the NFL bylaws are not the law of the land. A judge is bound to apply the rules of the state in which the court hearing the divorce is located.
All is not lost. The team is probably not the only asset of the divorcing couple. They most likely have other assets in the pot of community/marital property that need to be divided up. Contrary to popular belief, it is not half of everything as in half of each thing. It is half (or whatever figure) of the total. So in this situation, a judge realizing the NFL really frowns on split ownership (remember guidance of the bylaws) such that frowning could result in the complete loss of the asset to both parties, will most likely give the team to one party and more cash and other assets to the other party. In other words, one spouse gets the team and the other spouse gets more of the other goodies in the pot.
Of course, the problem arises when BOTH spouses want to control the team. A judge is probably not going to divide ownership -- even without the bylaws -- because that would require the spouses to continue working together. If they got along, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. A judge would have to choose between the spouses. Some very fancy lawyering would have to go on here. If someone is determined to keep ownership of a team in event of a divorce and can afford to keep fighting, this would go to trial.
In summary, sorry, Mr. Cass, I can see a prolonged court fight over control of a team despite all the rules the NFL has in place. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't meant it won't.
During his speech, Mr. Cass mentioned that one of the cool things about the NFL was that it was basically 31 family owned teams -- and Green Bay which is community owned. It makes it easier to know who is in charge of the team and makes for a different attitude towards the business of football. Now some could argue that the idea of an NFL team as a Mom and Pop business is long gone. Let the business blogs argue that one out. This is a family law blog.
Which brings up my concern. If the team is family owned, what happens when the family disintegrates? What happens when Mom and Pop split up? We also saw what happened to the Dodgers in the McCourt divorce (quick note, that one finally settled - Frank got the team, Jami got cash, MLB still ticked at everyone involved).
I asked Mr. Cass that very question. He very graciously answered me. Seriously, the guy is super nice and approachable. He said it was unlikely to happen because the teams are not business where you have to sort out shares, etc. In the NFL one person has to own at least 30% and one person has to have total voting control. He also mentioned that the NFL has debt limits rules to keep a team's finances from getting too out of whack.
All that may be true, but Mr. Cass is clearly not a family law attorney. I hate to disagree with such a great guy, but I just don't see how these things save a team from a McCourt style fight over ownership. I raised these issues in a previous post of the Blank divorce and the Falcons.
Yes, the teams are family owned. But to keep the families from being personally liable for the debts of a team, they tend to be corporations or limited liability partnerships. One person may have voting control, but they are still businesses.
Businesses get divided in divorces ALL the time. A spouse may have made monetary contributions to the business. A spouse may have made non-monetary contributions such as working at the business without pay or even just making sure the face of the business has a clean shirt and ate recently. All of these factors go into dividing up a business.
In community property states such as California or Texas, the law may consider the teams to be comunity property automatically entitling the spouse to half. This would effect 5 teams in the NFL -- the Chargers, the 49ers, the Raiders, the Texans and the Cowboys. Other states may also be community property states.
Marital property states, such as Maryland where the Ravens are based, would consider whether marital funds were used to purchase or maintain the team. Marital funds are any money earned during the course of the marriage (with some exceptions). In a marital property state, the court would consider the contributions of each spouse, the source of the funds, and what an equitable distribution of the property would be.
It is conceivable that a court may consider a team part of the community/marital property subject to division in th event of a divorce. A court is not really going to care about the NFL bylaws -- except for possibly guidance on how teams are owned, structured and what the League might do in the event of a court fight. But, the NFL bylaws are not the law of the land. A judge is bound to apply the rules of the state in which the court hearing the divorce is located.
All is not lost. The team is probably not the only asset of the divorcing couple. They most likely have other assets in the pot of community/marital property that need to be divided up. Contrary to popular belief, it is not half of everything as in half of each thing. It is half (or whatever figure) of the total. So in this situation, a judge realizing the NFL really frowns on split ownership (remember guidance of the bylaws) such that frowning could result in the complete loss of the asset to both parties, will most likely give the team to one party and more cash and other assets to the other party. In other words, one spouse gets the team and the other spouse gets more of the other goodies in the pot.
Of course, the problem arises when BOTH spouses want to control the team. A judge is probably not going to divide ownership -- even without the bylaws -- because that would require the spouses to continue working together. If they got along, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. A judge would have to choose between the spouses. Some very fancy lawyering would have to go on here. If someone is determined to keep ownership of a team in event of a divorce and can afford to keep fighting, this would go to trial.
In summary, sorry, Mr. Cass, I can see a prolonged court fight over control of a team despite all the rules the NFL has in place. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't meant it won't.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The Pain of Divorce
Last night I was working at a pro bono clinic. Slow night due to all the rain we have had. Another attorney -- who does not do family law -- and I were talking. He mentioned some scene in Entourage (a show I have not scene) where the agent says he would murder his wife rather than go through the pain of divorce.
Now, I get it. Divorce is horribly painful -- both emotionally and financially. It is basically saying that the people once in love now can't stand to live together. All that warm fuzzy love turns to cold prickly hate. It can get messy, even for the most calm, mature person.
Then there is the financial aspect. You gotta decide who gets what and how much. If you worked hard to develop your skills to advance in your chosen profession, it really sucks to hand half of it to someone else. (Of course most people ignore the help the other spouse provided so that you could develop the skills to advance in your chosen profession).
But murder? Really? That is the better choice?
Let's compare for a moment the two options.
Divorce:
Dividing up the stuff. Sure your spouse gets half (for the sake of simplicity, we are going with a straight division of property, MMV in each particular case). But only the half that was earned up to the date of the divorce. After that, you got all the rest of your life to accumulate more -- that your ex can't have. If you do remarry -- Prenup is a really good idea to protect your new stuff.
Alimony. Maryland has moved away from permanent alimony, and I believe so have most states. Permanent alimony was a check to the spouse for the rest of the spouse's life or until the spouse remarried. Not a lot of incentive to move on with one's life there. Now, the courts favor something called rehabilitative alimony. Rehabilitative alimony is only for a limited time until the spouse can get back on his/her feet and become self-supporting. Incentive to get off one's butt and work, because the checks won't keep coming forever. There are a lot of factors to consider in determining rehabilitative alimony: length of marriage, age of kids if any, skills of the spouse, time needed to acquire a job or skills to become self-supporting. But, the key here is that it ends at a definite date. It is over eventually. Then you never have to pay the spouse again. Your ex can't come back and say "Oh I know I was supposed to be self-supporting by now, but I'm not, keep paying."
In summary: After a painful period of time, the divorce is over and you get to go on with your life, accumulating more stuff and keeping the money you earn.
Murder
You will get caught. You will go to jail for the rest of your life. You will not have the opportunity to enjoy all the stuff you managed to keep your spouse from having, you will not have any money to spend because you lost your job because you went to jail. You will have no opportunity to recover from this because you will most likely die in jail.
In summary: You never get a chance to recover from being an idiot for thinking murder was a good option.
Did I make that clear for everyone?
One final note: bet a family law lawyer is cheaper than a criminal lawyer in the long run too.
Now, I get it. Divorce is horribly painful -- both emotionally and financially. It is basically saying that the people once in love now can't stand to live together. All that warm fuzzy love turns to cold prickly hate. It can get messy, even for the most calm, mature person.
Then there is the financial aspect. You gotta decide who gets what and how much. If you worked hard to develop your skills to advance in your chosen profession, it really sucks to hand half of it to someone else. (Of course most people ignore the help the other spouse provided so that you could develop the skills to advance in your chosen profession).
But murder? Really? That is the better choice?
Let's compare for a moment the two options.
Divorce:
Dividing up the stuff. Sure your spouse gets half (for the sake of simplicity, we are going with a straight division of property, MMV in each particular case). But only the half that was earned up to the date of the divorce. After that, you got all the rest of your life to accumulate more -- that your ex can't have. If you do remarry -- Prenup is a really good idea to protect your new stuff.
Alimony. Maryland has moved away from permanent alimony, and I believe so have most states. Permanent alimony was a check to the spouse for the rest of the spouse's life or until the spouse remarried. Not a lot of incentive to move on with one's life there. Now, the courts favor something called rehabilitative alimony. Rehabilitative alimony is only for a limited time until the spouse can get back on his/her feet and become self-supporting. Incentive to get off one's butt and work, because the checks won't keep coming forever. There are a lot of factors to consider in determining rehabilitative alimony: length of marriage, age of kids if any, skills of the spouse, time needed to acquire a job or skills to become self-supporting. But, the key here is that it ends at a definite date. It is over eventually. Then you never have to pay the spouse again. Your ex can't come back and say "Oh I know I was supposed to be self-supporting by now, but I'm not, keep paying."
In summary: After a painful period of time, the divorce is over and you get to go on with your life, accumulating more stuff and keeping the money you earn.
Murder
You will get caught. You will go to jail for the rest of your life. You will not have the opportunity to enjoy all the stuff you managed to keep your spouse from having, you will not have any money to spend because you lost your job because you went to jail. You will have no opportunity to recover from this because you will most likely die in jail.
In summary: You never get a chance to recover from being an idiot for thinking murder was a good option.
Did I make that clear for everyone?
One final note: bet a family law lawyer is cheaper than a criminal lawyer in the long run too.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Another Divorce, Another Team
It was announced today that Arthur Blank and his wife of 16 years are separating. Arthur Blank is the owner of the Atlanta Falcons. He married his current wife in 1995 and bought the team in 2002. The press release said the separation will have no effect on his business enterprises.
The last time this happened was the McCourt divorce which engulfed the Dodgers. The mess got so bad that MLB had to take over running the team.
Most NFL teams are owned by corporations, although NFL Bylaws require one person to have majority ownership. The NFL wants one person making the decisions. That person might then incorporate in order to protect assets or for other business reasons. So, it sounds like everything would be protected in the event of a divorce.
I reached out to a friend who is a Georgia lawyer to see if GA is a community property state (He's also a Falcons fan). No word yet from him on the news.
If Georgia is a community property state and he bought the team with marital funds, even if he incorporated, she has rights to the team. (Or some share of it). Here's why. There might be a corporation that owns the Falcons. But corporations issues shares. If his shares have any value, they are a marital asset. Which means they can be divided in the event of a divorce. If GA is a marital property state, same thing essentially.
Now, it is possible that Blank bought the team with separate funds earned before the parties married. If the source of the funds for buying the team can be traced to separate -- not marital -- property, then the team is free and clear.
Also, it is possible that unlike Jami McCourt, Mrs. Blank wants nothing to do with running a team. She may relinquish her interest in the team in exchange for some other financial consideration. Happens all the time in divorces. Okay, usually not sports teams, but there is always something that someone really wants.
That is why practicing family law is so much fun. You can get creative. You can negotiate and think outside the box to reach a solution agreeable to all parties. You don't have to go to court and pursue a scorched earth strategy. In fact, court is not a good place to get what you want. The court is bound by statutes, precedent and other considerations. There may limits to what a court can grant. But, a really good family law attorney can reach an agreement that a court could not grant, but is still enforceable and acceptable.
Here's hoping the Blanks go the peaceful route not the McCourt route. Football just survived one nasty court fight, it does not need another one.
The last time this happened was the McCourt divorce which engulfed the Dodgers. The mess got so bad that MLB had to take over running the team.
Most NFL teams are owned by corporations, although NFL Bylaws require one person to have majority ownership. The NFL wants one person making the decisions. That person might then incorporate in order to protect assets or for other business reasons. So, it sounds like everything would be protected in the event of a divorce.
I reached out to a friend who is a Georgia lawyer to see if GA is a community property state (He's also a Falcons fan). No word yet from him on the news.
If Georgia is a community property state and he bought the team with marital funds, even if he incorporated, she has rights to the team. (Or some share of it). Here's why. There might be a corporation that owns the Falcons. But corporations issues shares. If his shares have any value, they are a marital asset. Which means they can be divided in the event of a divorce. If GA is a marital property state, same thing essentially.
Now, it is possible that Blank bought the team with separate funds earned before the parties married. If the source of the funds for buying the team can be traced to separate -- not marital -- property, then the team is free and clear.
Also, it is possible that unlike Jami McCourt, Mrs. Blank wants nothing to do with running a team. She may relinquish her interest in the team in exchange for some other financial consideration. Happens all the time in divorces. Okay, usually not sports teams, but there is always something that someone really wants.
That is why practicing family law is so much fun. You can get creative. You can negotiate and think outside the box to reach a solution agreeable to all parties. You don't have to go to court and pursue a scorched earth strategy. In fact, court is not a good place to get what you want. The court is bound by statutes, precedent and other considerations. There may limits to what a court can grant. But, a really good family law attorney can reach an agreement that a court could not grant, but is still enforceable and acceptable.
Here's hoping the Blanks go the peaceful route not the McCourt route. Football just survived one nasty court fight, it does not need another one.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Shut the Heck Up
Gilbert Arenas lost his bid to keep his ex-girlfriend/fiance from appearing on the show Basketball Wives (a misnomer of a reality show as all the participants are ex-wives or ex-girlfriends of b-ball players). One of his arguments in asking for the injunction was the invasion of his privacy that would occur if the ex were allowed on the show to complain about him. The judge found that this claim was so much noise signifying nothing. Specifically, Arenas has a twitter account -- with allegedly thousands of followers -- from which he tweets constantly about his personal life. In other words, you can't claim your personal life is personal if you splash it all over the internet.
Newsflash: the internet is not private.
Everything you post on the internet is public. Someone somewhere will see it. Even if you have "privacy" settings, do the people who have access to your "private" account also have privacy settings? Do their friends? And so on and so on and so on. If you post it, they will see it.
This is true for celebrities with thousands of twitter followers and true for folks with all of 5 friends on Facebook. Let me repeat: the internet is not private.
If you are going through a custody/divorce/child support, do not post on facebook, twitter, google+ or anyplace on the internet anything about your ex. Just don't. Smart attorneys (like me) will get that information and use it against you. The judge won't buy your argument of "I was just venting, I didn't think anyone would see it."
Besides, do you want your kids to see what you posted about the other parent or have their friends see it? It doesn't help the situation, can only hurt it, so just don't do it. Resist the temptation to "get even."
If you have been so foolish as to do post all over the internet what a jerkface your ex is, do not then try to remove it. You can bet your last pleading that someone already screen captured the posting and sent it to your ex. Who then helpfully forwarded it to the lawyer. Now, they can bring up something called "spoliation of evidence" meaning you destroyed possible evidence in the case. This is a very bad thing to have happen.
One last thing about the internet, do not friend your ex, or have your friends do so for you just to gather incriminating evidence. Yeah, it sounds like a good idea. In practice it 1) doesn't help things at all and 2) just makes you look petty and vindicative in court. As an attorney, I really try to avoid having my clients look petty and vindicative.
In short -- SHUT THE HELL UP. It will help your case much better than any posting anywhere on the internet you can make.
Newsflash: the internet is not private.
Everything you post on the internet is public. Someone somewhere will see it. Even if you have "privacy" settings, do the people who have access to your "private" account also have privacy settings? Do their friends? And so on and so on and so on. If you post it, they will see it.
This is true for celebrities with thousands of twitter followers and true for folks with all of 5 friends on Facebook. Let me repeat: the internet is not private.
If you are going through a custody/divorce/child support, do not post on facebook, twitter, google+ or anyplace on the internet anything about your ex. Just don't. Smart attorneys (like me) will get that information and use it against you. The judge won't buy your argument of "I was just venting, I didn't think anyone would see it."
Besides, do you want your kids to see what you posted about the other parent or have their friends see it? It doesn't help the situation, can only hurt it, so just don't do it. Resist the temptation to "get even."
If you have been so foolish as to do post all over the internet what a jerkface your ex is, do not then try to remove it. You can bet your last pleading that someone already screen captured the posting and sent it to your ex. Who then helpfully forwarded it to the lawyer. Now, they can bring up something called "spoliation of evidence" meaning you destroyed possible evidence in the case. This is a very bad thing to have happen.
One last thing about the internet, do not friend your ex, or have your friends do so for you just to gather incriminating evidence. Yeah, it sounds like a good idea. In practice it 1) doesn't help things at all and 2) just makes you look petty and vindicative in court. As an attorney, I really try to avoid having my clients look petty and vindicative.
In short -- SHUT THE HELL UP. It will help your case much better than any posting anywhere on the internet you can make.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Record Setting Child Support Hearing
Okay, this one is not about celebrities, but I couldn't believe it when I read it. It is record setting not because of the amount. $14K in back child support is nothing these days. It's how long the case has gone on. The divorce was finalized in 1977. Yeah, last century.
Apparently, when the couple split, Dad agreed to pay Mom $14K in child support and half of the sale of the house. He sold the house and kept all the money. Mom has been fighting ever since. She lost on everything related to not getting the money from the house. I don't know why. Then she found out that child support enforcement has no statute of limitations. I can bet Dad thought with the kids grown, he was home free. Dad thought wrong. With interest and penalties it is now over 100K he owes*.
He could have been over and done with it long ago. Now he is 77 years old and still dealing with it. I know I don't want to still be dealing with old debts when I am 77.
Mom is not exactly into moving on either. She is still apparently bitter over the divorce. Telling your ex he is "stuck on stupid" is really not a good way to resolve things. Folks tend to get less agreeable the more you call them stupid. I want to know how she has afforded a lawyer all these years. At some point, realizing a contingency fee was not going to come through (you can take collection on a contingency fee, not the custody proceedings), the attorney was going to want something for the time and effort spent. Attorneys only have their time and effort to sell, it deserves reasonable compensation.
The moral here: pay your child support when incurred, unless you want your social security garnished. The other moral: name calling is incredibly unhelpful in family law proceedings.
* I have no idea why the tax refunds were not withheld. Guess no one thought to do that, even though it is routine now.
Apparently, when the couple split, Dad agreed to pay Mom $14K in child support and half of the sale of the house. He sold the house and kept all the money. Mom has been fighting ever since. She lost on everything related to not getting the money from the house. I don't know why. Then she found out that child support enforcement has no statute of limitations. I can bet Dad thought with the kids grown, he was home free. Dad thought wrong. With interest and penalties it is now over 100K he owes*.
He could have been over and done with it long ago. Now he is 77 years old and still dealing with it. I know I don't want to still be dealing with old debts when I am 77.
Mom is not exactly into moving on either. She is still apparently bitter over the divorce. Telling your ex he is "stuck on stupid" is really not a good way to resolve things. Folks tend to get less agreeable the more you call them stupid. I want to know how she has afforded a lawyer all these years. At some point, realizing a contingency fee was not going to come through (you can take collection on a contingency fee, not the custody proceedings), the attorney was going to want something for the time and effort spent. Attorneys only have their time and effort to sell, it deserves reasonable compensation.
The moral here: pay your child support when incurred, unless you want your social security garnished. The other moral: name calling is incredibly unhelpful in family law proceedings.
* I have no idea why the tax refunds were not withheld. Guess no one thought to do that, even though it is routine now.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
McCourts in Court - Update
UPDATE: I knew I should have posted this sooner. MLB rejected the tv deal today 6/20/11. Bud Selig said it would benefit Frank personally too much. This voids the settlement. The War of the McCourts is back on. Again, the lawyers should have planned for this obvious contingency.
They are defintely going back to Court. The McCourts have agreed to have a trial. Umm, that is usually what happens when they can't agree. An agreement usually avoids a trial.
Apparently, the McCourts are so hung up on who owns the Dodgers (not a lot of argument over anything else) that all they could agree to was to have a one day trial on whether or not the team is community property. If it is community property, Frank can buy Jamie out. If it is separate property, then Jamie gets $100 million and all the houses. No word on what happens to the houses if the team is community property.
Of there are asterisks all over the place. First of all, MLB must approve the settlement. Considering Bud Selig is not happy with the McCourts right now, that is not a done deal. MLB must also approve the Fox TV deal so that Frank has the money to buy out Jami if necessary (they got SIX houses, surely unloading a couple of those might help his finances). See the previous sentence about Bud Selig's opinion of the McCourts.
Now most folks don't have a baseball team to argue over. But, you would be amazed at what people will argue over in a divorce. It's not about the object that is the point of contention. It's about not letting the other person have it. With a sports team, there is also the prestige of owning such a team. A prestige that can be denied to the spouse.
However, the key to remember in any divorce is not so much what you get, but the end goal. You want a divorce. You want this person out of your life. If you continue to fight, you still have to interact with the person. Which can be the other person's motivation. By refusing to engage, you get what you really want -- freedom -- and deny the other person their desire -- continued interaction.
This does not mean be a doormat. But it does mean sometimes walking away rather than continuing to fight. Sometimes keeping the bigger picture in mind is the best strategy.
Someone tell the McCourts this (but not their expensive lawyers who don't even know how to hit print more than once).
They are defintely going back to Court. The McCourts have agreed to have a trial. Umm, that is usually what happens when they can't agree. An agreement usually avoids a trial.
Apparently, the McCourts are so hung up on who owns the Dodgers (not a lot of argument over anything else) that all they could agree to was to have a one day trial on whether or not the team is community property. If it is community property, Frank can buy Jamie out. If it is separate property, then Jamie gets $100 million and all the houses. No word on what happens to the houses if the team is community property.
Of there are asterisks all over the place. First of all, MLB must approve the settlement. Considering Bud Selig is not happy with the McCourts right now, that is not a done deal. MLB must also approve the Fox TV deal so that Frank has the money to buy out Jami if necessary (they got SIX houses, surely unloading a couple of those might help his finances). See the previous sentence about Bud Selig's opinion of the McCourts.
Now most folks don't have a baseball team to argue over. But, you would be amazed at what people will argue over in a divorce. It's not about the object that is the point of contention. It's about not letting the other person have it. With a sports team, there is also the prestige of owning such a team. A prestige that can be denied to the spouse.
However, the key to remember in any divorce is not so much what you get, but the end goal. You want a divorce. You want this person out of your life. If you continue to fight, you still have to interact with the person. Which can be the other person's motivation. By refusing to engage, you get what you really want -- freedom -- and deny the other person their desire -- continued interaction.
This does not mean be a doormat. But it does mean sometimes walking away rather than continuing to fight. Sometimes keeping the bigger picture in mind is the best strategy.
Someone tell the McCourts this (but not their expensive lawyers who don't even know how to hit print more than once).
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
What's Old is New -- Athletes and Child Support
While researching what expenses should be considered when calculating child support, I ran across this case:
Jackson v. Proctor
Seems Mr. Jackson and Ms. Proctor were the proud parents of a little girl. Well, Ms. Proctor was proud. Dad was trying to cheapskate the child support. Mom was a full time student. Dad played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. At the time of the filing for child support in 1997, Dad was making 18K a month. The final order required him to pay $2500 a month in child support*. He complained that was too much and was unfair.
Let's do the math. 18,000 - 2500 = 15500. In Maryland (yay, a case in the state where I am licensed) child support is calculated before taxes. Even taking out taxes, that leaves a lot left over for living expenses -- providing you aren't buying a lot of bling or big houses and cars. $2500 is a mere 13% of the Dad's monthly income.
This is what we love to call an "above the guidelines" case. The Guidelines are the chart of basic child support that the wise legislators in Annapolis decided was necessary to care for a child. It's a simple chart. You have income down one side (both parent's combined income since both parents are presumed to contribute to their child's support) and the number of children across the top. You figure the combined income, then go to the chart and find where the income cross the number of children. That's the basic child support amount. In 2010, the legislature finally updated the numbers for the first time in umpteen years. This case was decided under the "old" guidelines.
The problem is that the chart only goes up to so much per month. The old guidelines only went to $10K a month. The new ones go all the way up to $15K. If the parents' income is greater than the chart has, the judge has to go "above the guidelines" to determine the correct child support amount. Now, people much, much, much smarter than me and much, much, much more involved in the issue talk about parabolic curves and extrapolations and the like. All that gives me a headache. Basically, a judge has to determine what is the appropriate amount of child support to care for a child in a manner befitting the parent's lifestyle and income.
Sorry, its a fact of live, but a football player making 18K+ a month is going to have a better lifestyle than someone working at McDonald's. The child of the football player should have a corresponding better lifestyle -- whether the child lives with the football player or not. Parents are expects to support and care for their minor children (adult children are a whole other matter -- GET. A. JOB.)
Dad in this case though, wanted his offspring to live at Mom's lifestyle. He claimed that Mom didn't live that extravangantly so why should the child? Yes, Dad actually tried to argue that is was wrong that Mom lived within her means. Mom responded that she would provide the things a child of a football player should have, if she had the money to do so. Since Dad was not paying child support to allow her to do so, she could not.
The Court followed Mom's reasoning. They further did not take too kindly to Dad trying to stiff his own kid out of kid's activities. The Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest appellate court) agreed with the trial court.
Look, every parent paying child support believes the other parent is wasting the money on his/herself instead of spending it on the child. But, a well-paid athlete can afford to provide for his child's reasonable needs without getting too hung up on a little bit going to benefit mom too (like a better house in a safer neighborhood). If your child is cared for and protected, pay up. If not, ask for custody yourself.
But remember, it is for your kid. No matter how you get along with Mom, don't stiff your kid.
*This despite evidence his income had tripled since the original filing.
Jackson v. Proctor
Seems Mr. Jackson and Ms. Proctor were the proud parents of a little girl. Well, Ms. Proctor was proud. Dad was trying to cheapskate the child support. Mom was a full time student. Dad played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. At the time of the filing for child support in 1997, Dad was making 18K a month. The final order required him to pay $2500 a month in child support*. He complained that was too much and was unfair.
Let's do the math. 18,000 - 2500 = 15500. In Maryland (yay, a case in the state where I am licensed) child support is calculated before taxes. Even taking out taxes, that leaves a lot left over for living expenses -- providing you aren't buying a lot of bling or big houses and cars. $2500 is a mere 13% of the Dad's monthly income.
This is what we love to call an "above the guidelines" case. The Guidelines are the chart of basic child support that the wise legislators in Annapolis decided was necessary to care for a child. It's a simple chart. You have income down one side (both parent's combined income since both parents are presumed to contribute to their child's support) and the number of children across the top. You figure the combined income, then go to the chart and find where the income cross the number of children. That's the basic child support amount. In 2010, the legislature finally updated the numbers for the first time in umpteen years. This case was decided under the "old" guidelines.
The problem is that the chart only goes up to so much per month. The old guidelines only went to $10K a month. The new ones go all the way up to $15K. If the parents' income is greater than the chart has, the judge has to go "above the guidelines" to determine the correct child support amount. Now, people much, much, much smarter than me and much, much, much more involved in the issue talk about parabolic curves and extrapolations and the like. All that gives me a headache. Basically, a judge has to determine what is the appropriate amount of child support to care for a child in a manner befitting the parent's lifestyle and income.
Sorry, its a fact of live, but a football player making 18K+ a month is going to have a better lifestyle than someone working at McDonald's. The child of the football player should have a corresponding better lifestyle -- whether the child lives with the football player or not. Parents are expects to support and care for their minor children (adult children are a whole other matter -- GET. A. JOB.)
Dad in this case though, wanted his offspring to live at Mom's lifestyle. He claimed that Mom didn't live that extravangantly so why should the child? Yes, Dad actually tried to argue that is was wrong that Mom lived within her means. Mom responded that she would provide the things a child of a football player should have, if she had the money to do so. Since Dad was not paying child support to allow her to do so, she could not.
The Court followed Mom's reasoning. They further did not take too kindly to Dad trying to stiff his own kid out of kid's activities. The Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest appellate court) agreed with the trial court.
Look, every parent paying child support believes the other parent is wasting the money on his/herself instead of spending it on the child. But, a well-paid athlete can afford to provide for his child's reasonable needs without getting too hung up on a little bit going to benefit mom too (like a better house in a safer neighborhood). If your child is cared for and protected, pay up. If not, ask for custody yourself.
But remember, it is for your kid. No matter how you get along with Mom, don't stiff your kid.
*This despite evidence his income had tripled since the original filing.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Oh No - Ocho Does Reality TV
Yes, he did the TO and Ocho show last year. The ratings about equalled the Bengals play on the field. With the NFL Lockout stretching into its THIRD month, Ocho is getting bored. He tried bull riding, snake wrangling and a few other things. Now he wants to do another reality show.
This reality show will be with Basketball Wives Alumna Evelyn Lozada (someone fill me in here on who she is). Ocho and Ms. Lozada will allow the cameras to follow them around as they attempt to parent their children. Not children they have with each other, Ocho and Evelyn are engaged to be married. Apparently, Evelyn has one child and Ocho has 4 children with three different women. Great, they are going to start married and blended family life with a reality show. That bodes so well for their future.
Let me make this simple, adults can choose to do reality shows all they want. You want to have your every move documents so numnuts with access to the internet but no mental filter can criticize everything you do, go right ahead. But leave the kids the hell out of it.
Kids don't get a say in this. They can't even object to any of the terms of the contract. They can't say "No Mom, No Dad, I don't want a camera following me everywhere I go." And if you think child labor laws apply to reality shows like they do scripted tv shows think again. Nope, these kids will be on camera for hours, with no relief. Unless the parents call a halt to the filming. Considering the parents think the show is a good idea in the first place, figure the odds of that happening.
It is exploitation of children pure and simple. It is not in the best interest of the children to have their lives put all over tv. Kids needs safety to make the mistakes kids make. Not to have those mistakes blown up to get ratings.
Now, all these kids have other parents. Hopefully the father of Evelyn's child and the mother's of Ocho's kids will refuse permission. One can hope. Of course, it depends on how much the other parent gets paid out of it. (What you are shocked parents would put money ahead of their kids' best interest? Come spend a day in my law practice.) Or even if the other parent says no, the reality show wannabe stars can just go to a judge. That is what Denise Richards did with regards to her girls with Charlie Sheen. Charlie in one of the few things he has done right recently said no to exploiting his children. The judge said it would all right. REALLY JUDGE? I guess in LA even the judges are star struck.
Hopefully, this show will no do well in the ratings and get cancelled. Hopefully, Ocho and Evelyn will put their fame whoredom on hold at least where their children are involved. Hopefully, I will win the lottery this week. Guess which one of those is most likely to happen.
This reality show will be with Basketball Wives Alumna Evelyn Lozada (someone fill me in here on who she is). Ocho and Ms. Lozada will allow the cameras to follow them around as they attempt to parent their children. Not children they have with each other, Ocho and Evelyn are engaged to be married. Apparently, Evelyn has one child and Ocho has 4 children with three different women. Great, they are going to start married and blended family life with a reality show. That bodes so well for their future.
Let me make this simple, adults can choose to do reality shows all they want. You want to have your every move documents so numnuts with access to the internet but no mental filter can criticize everything you do, go right ahead. But leave the kids the hell out of it.
Kids don't get a say in this. They can't even object to any of the terms of the contract. They can't say "No Mom, No Dad, I don't want a camera following me everywhere I go." And if you think child labor laws apply to reality shows like they do scripted tv shows think again. Nope, these kids will be on camera for hours, with no relief. Unless the parents call a halt to the filming. Considering the parents think the show is a good idea in the first place, figure the odds of that happening.
It is exploitation of children pure and simple. It is not in the best interest of the children to have their lives put all over tv. Kids needs safety to make the mistakes kids make. Not to have those mistakes blown up to get ratings.
Now, all these kids have other parents. Hopefully the father of Evelyn's child and the mother's of Ocho's kids will refuse permission. One can hope. Of course, it depends on how much the other parent gets paid out of it. (What you are shocked parents would put money ahead of their kids' best interest? Come spend a day in my law practice.) Or even if the other parent says no, the reality show wannabe stars can just go to a judge. That is what Denise Richards did with regards to her girls with Charlie Sheen. Charlie in one of the few things he has done right recently said no to exploiting his children. The judge said it would all right. REALLY JUDGE? I guess in LA even the judges are star struck.
Hopefully, this show will no do well in the ratings and get cancelled. Hopefully, Ocho and Evelyn will put their fame whoredom on hold at least where their children are involved. Hopefully, I will win the lottery this week. Guess which one of those is most likely to happen.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Death of Osama Bin Laden
I should really be writing about the Royal Wedding or the draft or something, but really, is there any other news today?
I will always remember where I was and what I was doing when first heard. I was reading Television without Pity while watching Firefly on the Science Channel. Then the news came across Solosez (a listserv for solo and small firm attorneys run by the ABA). I couldn't believe it. After that, things get a little blurry. I know I didn't turn on the tv right away, I am sure I went some website. Then I grabbed my phone and called my dad. I was weeping. The last time I was weeping like that in phone call home was to tell him I passed the Maryland Bar. EPLawDad hadn't heard. He told EPLawBro to turn on the tv. Bro was being a Bro and didn't want to turn the channel. I later found out (thank you Facebook) that he was watching the Phillies game where they broke out into spontaneous shouts of USA. EPLawDad used "the voice" and Bro turned the channel. Great rejoicing.
Then I called the rest of my family and began emailing friends. It was just such a relief. This man had been the boogey man for 20 years. Now he was gone. I remember seeing his Nightline interview in 1995(?) where he declared war on the US. He scared me then. After 9-11, all I wanted was him dead.
I am a lawyer. I truly believe in the rule of law. I believe in everyone deserves their day in court. I also try not to "hate" anyone. I reserve that truly strong emotion for the truly evil. Osama Bin Laden qualified, in my book, as truly evil. As a human being who believes in the basic dignity of everyone, it is hard to justify rejoicing in the death of anyone. But, to me, some people are so truly evil, so far beyond the bounds of human decency and civilized behavior, that death is the only option. A trial in this case would have served nothing but to create a security nightmate. Wanted dead or alive, means bring 'em back dead, save everyone the cost of a trial.
I believe in the rule of law. I believe in human dignity. I have no problem with Osama Bin Laden being dead, dead, dead. I save my sympathy for the families of his victims.
I wanted to go join the crowd at the White House last night, but had to work this morning. Sometimes I hate being a grown up. But, this I vow, for all of Al Qaeda's victims, I will make it out to Arlington Cemetary and the 9-11 Memorial this week.
God Bless the USA.
I will always remember where I was and what I was doing when first heard. I was reading Television without Pity while watching Firefly on the Science Channel. Then the news came across Solosez (a listserv for solo and small firm attorneys run by the ABA). I couldn't believe it. After that, things get a little blurry. I know I didn't turn on the tv right away, I am sure I went some website. Then I grabbed my phone and called my dad. I was weeping. The last time I was weeping like that in phone call home was to tell him I passed the Maryland Bar. EPLawDad hadn't heard. He told EPLawBro to turn on the tv. Bro was being a Bro and didn't want to turn the channel. I later found out (thank you Facebook) that he was watching the Phillies game where they broke out into spontaneous shouts of USA. EPLawDad used "the voice" and Bro turned the channel. Great rejoicing.
Then I called the rest of my family and began emailing friends. It was just such a relief. This man had been the boogey man for 20 years. Now he was gone. I remember seeing his Nightline interview in 1995(?) where he declared war on the US. He scared me then. After 9-11, all I wanted was him dead.
I am a lawyer. I truly believe in the rule of law. I believe in everyone deserves their day in court. I also try not to "hate" anyone. I reserve that truly strong emotion for the truly evil. Osama Bin Laden qualified, in my book, as truly evil. As a human being who believes in the basic dignity of everyone, it is hard to justify rejoicing in the death of anyone. But, to me, some people are so truly evil, so far beyond the bounds of human decency and civilized behavior, that death is the only option. A trial in this case would have served nothing but to create a security nightmate. Wanted dead or alive, means bring 'em back dead, save everyone the cost of a trial.
I believe in the rule of law. I believe in human dignity. I have no problem with Osama Bin Laden being dead, dead, dead. I save my sympathy for the families of his victims.
I wanted to go join the crowd at the White House last night, but had to work this morning. Sometimes I hate being a grown up. But, this I vow, for all of Al Qaeda's victims, I will make it out to Arlington Cemetary and the 9-11 Memorial this week.
God Bless the USA.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The McCourts in Court
This case is just wonderful for lawyers. Maybe not so much for the parties involved. It definitely has not been good for the Dodgers. What should have been a straighforward, simple divorce -- after all there was a postnuptial agreement -- has so far led to rulings on the validity of that agreement, a lawsuit against the firm who drafted the agreement, an request by the law firm for a declaratory ruling that the firm met its ethical obligations, and finally MLB taking over the Dodgers.
Jami and Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers after they were married. They had fun running the team. In 2004, they had the law firm draw up a postnuptial property and settlement agreement. This agreement says who gets what in the event of a divorce. Among other things, the ownership of the Dodgers was addressed in this document. Frank says the agreement gave him sole control and she got all the houses they accumulated (6). Jami says that is not the agreement, she wouldn't have signed away the Dodgers. This would not have mattered if the parties stayed married. But, they didn't. The marriage fell apart and away to court the McCourts went.
Frank was convinced he had an ironclad agreement. Apparently, despite paying big bucks for his attorneys, no one told him there was no such thing as an ironclad agreement. If there were, contract disputes would never see the light of a courtroom.
Jami challenged the agreement in court. Apparently, there was a wording problem. Not all the copies of the agreement say the same thing. (no one had ever heard of copy machines or hitting print multiple times to avoid this?) In some copies the word "inclusive" is used to describe what property Frank would get and other places it says "exclusive." Seriously, NO ONE NOTICED TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORDS WERE USED????? An attorney for the firm who wrote up the agreement admits to flubbing the words. Honestly, if you are paying these guys as much as Frank was most likely paying his attorneys, you would think they would at least take the time to proofread all the copies.
There was an actual hearing on the agreement itself in December 2010. A judge ruled the agreement was invalid. This meant no agreement dividing up the property existed. Frank had an interest in Jami's property and Jami had an interest in Frank's property. Everything was up for grabs.
Frank was not happy about having to share the Dodgers with his ex-wife. Frank hired Sullivan & Cromwell to represent him in any claims he may have against the misdrafting firm of Bingham McCutchen. Before Frank's new attorneys could act, Bingham hit back. In something I have never heard before, they filed suit against their client. For some reason, they filed in Boston, although all events seem to be based in California, which is also the current residence of Frank. Bingham asks the court to rule that the firm mets it obligations to its client and did nothing wrong. They also ask for all their attorneys' fees for representing Frank so far in this mess. This is unusual in that attorneys don't normally go to court to prove they were right. They defend when sued, but they don't bring the pre-emptive non-malpractice claim. I have to wonder about the ethics of this as well. You can't put a clause in the retainer agreement that says "fees are reasonable" or that the client can't sue you for malpractice. So, how can a firm affirmatively ask a court that the firm did not commit malpractice. Also, they asked for the ruling in Boston. Some legal principles may preclude a lawsuit then in California on the same subject, but I just don't see a California court meekly agreeing with whatever a Massachusetts court says on a malpractice claim.
Jami is ecstatic of course. She just wants to be a part of the Dodgers. Or be paid off for her share. This could be quite lucrative -- if Frank has the cash handy to pay her off. Which leads to the latest bit in this saga.
The finances of the Dodgers are a mess. To get sole control, one party would have to buy out the other party. MLB, just like all the other leagues, has rules about debt and using the team as collateral. Frank could only borrow so much to buy out Jami. He reportedly sought a loan on advance television fees. He went to Bud Selig to get permission to do this, which was denied. Frank then threatened to sue MLB. Frank doesn't read agreements real well. There is a clause in the ownership contract that prohibits said owner from suing MLB (n.b. wonder how enforceable that little clause is. Courts don't like clauses that deny people their day in court). At this point, Bud Selig as MLB comissioner has had it with the McCourt drama. Does anyone know where the Dodgers are in the standings? I sure don't. But lots of people know when the McCourts were in court last and what happened. Selig decided enough was enough. He announced on Wednesday that MLB would run the Dodgers. Another nifty clause in the ownership contract allows this "in the best interest of baseball"*
Most people will never have a fight over who gets the sports team. However, property agreements can be useful in resolving divorce disputes, no matter the amount of property. The key is to have a well-drafted one that clearly states each party's intentions. It may still wind up in court, but it is a starting point. Divorces get nasty enough, trying to value the property during the divorce is just asking for a long court case. Property settlement agreements can avoid some of the time and expense, if properly drafted.
So, what have we learned from all this:
1. There is no such as an ironclad marital property agreement.
2. Make sure all the copies of said agreement are the same word for word.
3. Read and understand what you are signing.
4. It never gets old saying McCourts in Court.
5. It's not the amount of money you pay your attorney that ensures competence.
*No, I have no idea if the NFL has a similar clause so Goodell can make Jones and Snyder go away. Feel free to investigate this and get back to me.
Jami and Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers after they were married. They had fun running the team. In 2004, they had the law firm draw up a postnuptial property and settlement agreement. This agreement says who gets what in the event of a divorce. Among other things, the ownership of the Dodgers was addressed in this document. Frank says the agreement gave him sole control and she got all the houses they accumulated (6). Jami says that is not the agreement, she wouldn't have signed away the Dodgers. This would not have mattered if the parties stayed married. But, they didn't. The marriage fell apart and away to court the McCourts went.
Frank was convinced he had an ironclad agreement. Apparently, despite paying big bucks for his attorneys, no one told him there was no such thing as an ironclad agreement. If there were, contract disputes would never see the light of a courtroom.
Jami challenged the agreement in court. Apparently, there was a wording problem. Not all the copies of the agreement say the same thing. (no one had ever heard of copy machines or hitting print multiple times to avoid this?) In some copies the word "inclusive" is used to describe what property Frank would get and other places it says "exclusive." Seriously, NO ONE NOTICED TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORDS WERE USED????? An attorney for the firm who wrote up the agreement admits to flubbing the words. Honestly, if you are paying these guys as much as Frank was most likely paying his attorneys, you would think they would at least take the time to proofread all the copies.
There was an actual hearing on the agreement itself in December 2010. A judge ruled the agreement was invalid. This meant no agreement dividing up the property existed. Frank had an interest in Jami's property and Jami had an interest in Frank's property. Everything was up for grabs.
Frank was not happy about having to share the Dodgers with his ex-wife. Frank hired Sullivan & Cromwell to represent him in any claims he may have against the misdrafting firm of Bingham McCutchen. Before Frank's new attorneys could act, Bingham hit back. In something I have never heard before, they filed suit against their client. For some reason, they filed in Boston, although all events seem to be based in California, which is also the current residence of Frank. Bingham asks the court to rule that the firm mets it obligations to its client and did nothing wrong. They also ask for all their attorneys' fees for representing Frank so far in this mess. This is unusual in that attorneys don't normally go to court to prove they were right. They defend when sued, but they don't bring the pre-emptive non-malpractice claim. I have to wonder about the ethics of this as well. You can't put a clause in the retainer agreement that says "fees are reasonable" or that the client can't sue you for malpractice. So, how can a firm affirmatively ask a court that the firm did not commit malpractice. Also, they asked for the ruling in Boston. Some legal principles may preclude a lawsuit then in California on the same subject, but I just don't see a California court meekly agreeing with whatever a Massachusetts court says on a malpractice claim.
Jami is ecstatic of course. She just wants to be a part of the Dodgers. Or be paid off for her share. This could be quite lucrative -- if Frank has the cash handy to pay her off. Which leads to the latest bit in this saga.
The finances of the Dodgers are a mess. To get sole control, one party would have to buy out the other party. MLB, just like all the other leagues, has rules about debt and using the team as collateral. Frank could only borrow so much to buy out Jami. He reportedly sought a loan on advance television fees. He went to Bud Selig to get permission to do this, which was denied. Frank then threatened to sue MLB. Frank doesn't read agreements real well. There is a clause in the ownership contract that prohibits said owner from suing MLB (n.b. wonder how enforceable that little clause is. Courts don't like clauses that deny people their day in court). At this point, Bud Selig as MLB comissioner has had it with the McCourt drama. Does anyone know where the Dodgers are in the standings? I sure don't. But lots of people know when the McCourts were in court last and what happened. Selig decided enough was enough. He announced on Wednesday that MLB would run the Dodgers. Another nifty clause in the ownership contract allows this "in the best interest of baseball"*
Most people will never have a fight over who gets the sports team. However, property agreements can be useful in resolving divorce disputes, no matter the amount of property. The key is to have a well-drafted one that clearly states each party's intentions. It may still wind up in court, but it is a starting point. Divorces get nasty enough, trying to value the property during the divorce is just asking for a long court case. Property settlement agreements can avoid some of the time and expense, if properly drafted.
So, what have we learned from all this:
1. There is no such as an ironclad marital property agreement.
2. Make sure all the copies of said agreement are the same word for word.
3. Read and understand what you are signing.
4. It never gets old saying McCourts in Court.
5. It's not the amount of money you pay your attorney that ensures competence.
*No, I have no idea if the NFL has a similar clause so Goodell can make Jones and Snyder go away. Feel free to investigate this and get back to me.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Not Just the Team Loses
Sorry I have not posted in a while. Hate when life and the day job gets in the way of the fun stuff. Except what I have to post today is not so fun.
It has long been presumed that domestic violence is a problem in professional athlete families. It seems that the NFL has the biggest problem in this area. Now it seems the NFL fans have a problem too.
When the team one roots for loses, it is terrible. You know you have to go to work on Monday and try to explain to all your colleagues what happened. (Last year, as a Dallas fan, I just said "We suck" a lot). It bums you out. But, there is always next week (unless one roots for the Lions, Bengals, Browns or Raiders). Eventually, you get over it. You might be a bit morose for a bit or even a bit short with the family. Nothing serious though.
Except for some fans. For some fans, a team loss is just another excuse to beat the crap out of their significant other. A new study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics shows a 10% increase in domestic violence after a team loss, especially if the team should have won. In other words, guys get mad that their team didn't win a game they should have and they take it out on their wives or girlfriends. They don't get mad at the team. Mostly because going to confront a 300 pound guy about a loss in a game is not a good idea. See, abusers know who they can get away with abusing. It ain't the 300 pound guy or their bosses. It's the person they claim they love.
They were not more violent when the team lost when it was unexpected to lose. It appears then there is a link between unmet expectations (team loses when it should have won) and the violence. These spoiled men then take their anger for not getting what they want on the person they claim to love. Much like a child throwing a temper tantrum because mommy won't buy him a new toy. These men never grew up, never learned to deal with adversity. It's always someone's fault.
Here's a thought. Just watch the damn game. If it was all about who was "supposed" to win, they wouldn't bother to play. They would just post the win based on expectations. So grow the hell up. It's a game. It's not like it really effects your life whether your favorite football team wins or loses. Your life will go on just the same.
It has long been presumed that domestic violence is a problem in professional athlete families. It seems that the NFL has the biggest problem in this area. Now it seems the NFL fans have a problem too.
When the team one roots for loses, it is terrible. You know you have to go to work on Monday and try to explain to all your colleagues what happened. (Last year, as a Dallas fan, I just said "We suck" a lot). It bums you out. But, there is always next week (unless one roots for the Lions, Bengals, Browns or Raiders). Eventually, you get over it. You might be a bit morose for a bit or even a bit short with the family. Nothing serious though.
Except for some fans. For some fans, a team loss is just another excuse to beat the crap out of their significant other. A new study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics shows a 10% increase in domestic violence after a team loss, especially if the team should have won. In other words, guys get mad that their team didn't win a game they should have and they take it out on their wives or girlfriends. They don't get mad at the team. Mostly because going to confront a 300 pound guy about a loss in a game is not a good idea. See, abusers know who they can get away with abusing. It ain't the 300 pound guy or their bosses. It's the person they claim they love.
They were not more violent when the team lost when it was unexpected to lose. It appears then there is a link between unmet expectations (team loses when it should have won) and the violence. These spoiled men then take their anger for not getting what they want on the person they claim to love. Much like a child throwing a temper tantrum because mommy won't buy him a new toy. These men never grew up, never learned to deal with adversity. It's always someone's fault.
Here's a thought. Just watch the damn game. If it was all about who was "supposed" to win, they wouldn't bother to play. They would just post the win based on expectations. So grow the hell up. It's a game. It's not like it really effects your life whether your favorite football team wins or loses. Your life will go on just the same.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Announcing the Divorce Field Madness Tourney
I checked with a friend if I was legally obligated to do a March Madness tourney on this blog since it is sports related. I have never filled out a bracket for the Tourney and really didn't want to start. Fortunately, my friend who knows my dislike of March Madness very well and has occassional flashes of brilliance, suggested I do a family law tourney.
The idea is simple. I took stories from the last year (mostly) that involved sports figures and family law. I broke them into four sports categories: NFL, NBA, MLB and Other. I had to go with Other because apparently all the other sports -- including hockey -- are far to genteel for their family law issues to make the news. The details of each case can be found under the "Divorce Field Madness Tourney" tab at the top of the page. To play, just vote for your favorite cases in the polls below. The top two from each category will go on to the next round. The next round will have the top case from each category move on. From there, the final four will be paired in a way I find interesting (hey I am running this thing, I get to seed it). Then finally the votes will be for the most intriguing, interested, screwed up, expensive, whatever family law story of the year.
The sixteen cases are in the poll on your right. Scroll through to vote for each category. You may vote for more than one case in each category. However, this is not Chicago, you may only vote once. And no dead people voting.
Feel free to comment on the cases in the Comments Section. Enjoy.
The idea is simple. I took stories from the last year (mostly) that involved sports figures and family law. I broke them into four sports categories: NFL, NBA, MLB and Other. I had to go with Other because apparently all the other sports -- including hockey -- are far to genteel for their family law issues to make the news. The details of each case can be found under the "Divorce Field Madness Tourney" tab at the top of the page. To play, just vote for your favorite cases in the polls below. The top two from each category will go on to the next round. The next round will have the top case from each category move on. From there, the final four will be paired in a way I find interesting (hey I am running this thing, I get to seed it). Then finally the votes will be for the most intriguing, interested, screwed up, expensive, whatever family law story of the year.
The sixteen cases are in the poll on your right. Scroll through to vote for each category. You may vote for more than one case in each category. However, this is not Chicago, you may only vote once. And no dead people voting.
Feel free to comment on the cases in the Comments Section. Enjoy.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Dads Do Too Get Custody
This got a little lost in all the lockout/decertification news out of the NFL. There are other sports you know (I have just learned this).
Dwayne Wade of the Heat was granted custody of his two sons on Friday. Full physical custody. They arrived to live with their father in Miami on Friday. His teammates gave him a standing ovation in the locker room when he shared the news.
It was sadly a very long and nasty custody battle. The final opinion of the Judge was 102 pages, the longest in Cook County history. That is a long opinion for any case, let alone a family law case. According to the article, Wade's ex-wife made several baseless allegations against Wade and his fitness as a parent.
That is just wrong. Parents should not be tearing each other down just to gain an alleged advantage. Leaving aside the fact that this often does not work (Courts aren't stupid, they know when someone is trying to put something over on the court), it only hurts the kids. The kids become pawns in the divorce. Whoever gets the kids "wins." It becomes about winning, not the best interest of the kids.
Most courts have done away with maternal preference for custody and the "tender years" exception. The "tender years" exceptions means that young kids should be with their mother. The law has caught up with reality -- dads can change diapers (if I figured it out, anyone can), dads can feed the children (okay breast feeding is a problem but no kid died from being a bottle baby that I know of), dads can get up in the middle of the night when the kid is cranky. In other words, either parent can provide a loving, caring environment for the child.
It used to be that for dad to get custody, he had to prove mom was unfit. This lead to a lot of baseless allegations against mom. Thinks like "mom has a boyfriend, she shouldn't have the kids," "mom has a drink after dinner, she is an alcoholic and shouldn't have the kids." This led to mom fighting back. And a horrible double standard. Mom having a boyfriend was considered bad because who knew what that guy would do to the kids. Dad having a girlfriend was good because there was a woman there to help him care for the kids. REALLY??????? It all got very insane for dads trying to get custody of their kids.
Now the standard is Best Interest of the Child. No more showing the mom is unfit. It means showing which parent is better for the child in this particular case. Dad may love helping the kids with homework and getting them up and out the door for school. Mom may want to scream everytime she thinks about having to make dinner. Mom may love all the projects associated with Girl or Boy Scouting. Dad may prefer root canal without anesthesia to attending one more PTA meeting. Doesn't mean either parent is bad. Just means one is a little better at parenting than the other. The perfect solution would be each parent caring for the kids according to their strengths.
Well, that's the perfect solution. In the real world, it rarely works that way. Dads still have a heck of a fight on their hands to even get joint custody. Many courts still assume mom is the best parent until proven otherwse. Mr. Wade had the money to fight his ex-wife for several years. Not every dad has the money or the energy to fight that long. All I can say is Dads, don't give up. Your kids are worth it. Just ask Mr. Wade.
Dwayne Wade of the Heat was granted custody of his two sons on Friday. Full physical custody. They arrived to live with their father in Miami on Friday. His teammates gave him a standing ovation in the locker room when he shared the news.
It was sadly a very long and nasty custody battle. The final opinion of the Judge was 102 pages, the longest in Cook County history. That is a long opinion for any case, let alone a family law case. According to the article, Wade's ex-wife made several baseless allegations against Wade and his fitness as a parent.
That is just wrong. Parents should not be tearing each other down just to gain an alleged advantage. Leaving aside the fact that this often does not work (Courts aren't stupid, they know when someone is trying to put something over on the court), it only hurts the kids. The kids become pawns in the divorce. Whoever gets the kids "wins." It becomes about winning, not the best interest of the kids.
Most courts have done away with maternal preference for custody and the "tender years" exception. The "tender years" exceptions means that young kids should be with their mother. The law has caught up with reality -- dads can change diapers (if I figured it out, anyone can), dads can feed the children (okay breast feeding is a problem but no kid died from being a bottle baby that I know of), dads can get up in the middle of the night when the kid is cranky. In other words, either parent can provide a loving, caring environment for the child.
It used to be that for dad to get custody, he had to prove mom was unfit. This lead to a lot of baseless allegations against mom. Thinks like "mom has a boyfriend, she shouldn't have the kids," "mom has a drink after dinner, she is an alcoholic and shouldn't have the kids." This led to mom fighting back. And a horrible double standard. Mom having a boyfriend was considered bad because who knew what that guy would do to the kids. Dad having a girlfriend was good because there was a woman there to help him care for the kids. REALLY??????? It all got very insane for dads trying to get custody of their kids.
Now the standard is Best Interest of the Child. No more showing the mom is unfit. It means showing which parent is better for the child in this particular case. Dad may love helping the kids with homework and getting them up and out the door for school. Mom may want to scream everytime she thinks about having to make dinner. Mom may love all the projects associated with Girl or Boy Scouting. Dad may prefer root canal without anesthesia to attending one more PTA meeting. Doesn't mean either parent is bad. Just means one is a little better at parenting than the other. The perfect solution would be each parent caring for the kids according to their strengths.
Well, that's the perfect solution. In the real world, it rarely works that way. Dads still have a heck of a fight on their hands to even get joint custody. Many courts still assume mom is the best parent until proven otherwse. Mr. Wade had the money to fight his ex-wife for several years. Not every dad has the money or the energy to fight that long. All I can say is Dads, don't give up. Your kids are worth it. Just ask Mr. Wade.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
LOCKOUT!
It actually happened. The implications of both the players' lawsuit and the owners' lockout are well covered by PFT, The Volokh Conspiracy and The Sports Law Professor Blog.
While there may be no football for awhile, custody, child support and divorce cases continue. Heck, the players have nothing better to do right now, might as well get those cases moving. There are two types of cases, those that are currently litigated and those which have been litigated and the player may want a modification. There are different things to consider in each type. Let's examine them.
Custody:
In litigation: As always the court will be looking at the "best interest of the child." Is an unemployed dad, the best custodial parent right now? Dad won't be going to offseason lockouts, he won't be traveling for games during the season, etc. If Mom does work, maybe living with Dad is the best to avoid putting the child in daycare. If Mom doesn't work, as Mom has been providing the majority of care because of Dad's work schedule, should she retain custody?
This all assumes that Dad is too involved in being a football player to care for the children. It is a vast generalizations, that is certainly not true individual cases. Football player dads can be just as involved in their kid's lives as any other Dad. But, there unique work schedules and incredible amounts of travel have to be considered. With a work stoppage, all that changes to just any other out of work Dad. If the judge believes the work stoppage may continue for awhile, he may award custody to dad. Or he may decide Mom is the best as the most stable parent all along, looking at the long term. Judges know this lockout won't last forever. They have to make the best decision for the children, not just today and the future. But, if I represented Dad, I would be arguing the current situation that we have today.
Already Litigated: Judges probably won't accept a work stoppage that is mostly likely temporary as a "material change in circumstances" such that moving the children around is warranted. In joint custody situations, Dad can probably get a few more nights. In sole custody situations, hey, it's a great time to spend more time with your kids. Get a weekend overnight that you couldn't have during the season because you worked weekends. See if Mom lets you have the kids for a week (as long as they get to school). Taking a trip is probably not a good idea since you don't know when your next paycheck will be. There are lots of free or low cost things you can do with your kids though. Time to do those things you would promised you would do "when you had the time." Time is all you have now. No offseason workouts with your teammates at the team facilities, no OTAs, maybe no training camp. Take advantage of the downtime to hang with your kids. Even if you never missed a visitation, try to spend some extra time with the kids. They will love you forever for it.
Alimony
In Litigation: Again, depends on how the judge sees it. If the judge knows this is temporary, he may look at the player's contract and based alimony on that income. This is the most likely scenario. No player is ever guaranteed a spot on a team and a continue paycheck (Not even Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Believe me if they had not come back from their knee surgeries as well as they did, they would have been cut). The only thing guaranteed to a player is the guaranteed money stated in the contract. Given that reality, a temporary work stoppage has no more effect on a player's income that being waived by a team. A judge has to look at the income and make a decision about the player's future ability to make payments. On the other hand, the judge could look just at current income ( 0 ) and know that the player could be cut when -- and if -- training camps ever open again. The judge could then say the player is not voluntary impoverished since the owners locked him out of his employment. He could then look at the player's ability to get another job and what that job would pay. The decision about alimony would be based on that likelihood of getting employment.
Already Litigated: The player could really be screwed here. In some states (like Maryland), alimony is not modifiable. What was established when the divorce was litigated is what the player is stuck paying, regardless of financial situation. The good news is that alimony is not the lifetime pension it is was once. In the 21st century, the wife is expected to get off her butt and get a job. Just because she was married to a rich football player once up a time does not negate her need to be self-supporting.
Child Support
In Litigation: Much the same analysis as alimony. With one huge exception -- you are expected to sacrifice and do what you can to support your children. Supporting your ex-wife, not so much sacrifice expected. A player would be expected to get a job during the work stoppage to make sure his kids have food on the table, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs. The judge may figure child support based on the player's football income, presuming the stoppage will be temporary. Temporary unemployment will not relieve one of the obligation to pay child support. The judge may consider the temporary job in assigning a temporary amount to be increased when the player returns to the playing field.
Already Litigated: The standard for a change in child support payments is the same as for a change in custody -- "material change in circumstances." It is up to a judge to decide whether a most likely temporary work stoppage is enough to warrant a permanent change in payment amount. This is unlikely. Whether dad is working or not, the kids still need to be supported. The amount won't likely change. The judge could decide to temporarily suspend payments until the player returns to the field. The player would then be responsible for all the back payments. This is unlikely though. The lockout should not impose a hardship on the children who had no say in whether it occurred or not. The children cannot make up the difference of the child support payments. Dads need to continue making these payments, whatever other sacrifices they make during the lockout.
Obviously, the players should have been saving their money for just this situation. They should have enough money saved to meet all their financial obligations until the paycheck resumes. Some will have done so. For those players and their families, life will go on just as before. For those that didn't, they may be explaining their lack of financial responsibility to a judge. It will not be pretty. I don't see any judge being particularly sympathetic to someone who makes more at the League minimum than most people make not saving some of that money for the lean times.
We all hope this Lockout is temporary and we have football come fall. For the players facing family law issues, this just complicates an already difficult time. Resolving it quickly will mean one less uncertainty to deal with in court.
While there may be no football for awhile, custody, child support and divorce cases continue. Heck, the players have nothing better to do right now, might as well get those cases moving. There are two types of cases, those that are currently litigated and those which have been litigated and the player may want a modification. There are different things to consider in each type. Let's examine them.
Custody:
In litigation: As always the court will be looking at the "best interest of the child." Is an unemployed dad, the best custodial parent right now? Dad won't be going to offseason lockouts, he won't be traveling for games during the season, etc. If Mom does work, maybe living with Dad is the best to avoid putting the child in daycare. If Mom doesn't work, as Mom has been providing the majority of care because of Dad's work schedule, should she retain custody?
This all assumes that Dad is too involved in being a football player to care for the children. It is a vast generalizations, that is certainly not true individual cases. Football player dads can be just as involved in their kid's lives as any other Dad. But, there unique work schedules and incredible amounts of travel have to be considered. With a work stoppage, all that changes to just any other out of work Dad. If the judge believes the work stoppage may continue for awhile, he may award custody to dad. Or he may decide Mom is the best as the most stable parent all along, looking at the long term. Judges know this lockout won't last forever. They have to make the best decision for the children, not just today and the future. But, if I represented Dad, I would be arguing the current situation that we have today.
Already Litigated: Judges probably won't accept a work stoppage that is mostly likely temporary as a "material change in circumstances" such that moving the children around is warranted. In joint custody situations, Dad can probably get a few more nights. In sole custody situations, hey, it's a great time to spend more time with your kids. Get a weekend overnight that you couldn't have during the season because you worked weekends. See if Mom lets you have the kids for a week (as long as they get to school). Taking a trip is probably not a good idea since you don't know when your next paycheck will be. There are lots of free or low cost things you can do with your kids though. Time to do those things you would promised you would do "when you had the time." Time is all you have now. No offseason workouts with your teammates at the team facilities, no OTAs, maybe no training camp. Take advantage of the downtime to hang with your kids. Even if you never missed a visitation, try to spend some extra time with the kids. They will love you forever for it.
Alimony
In Litigation: Again, depends on how the judge sees it. If the judge knows this is temporary, he may look at the player's contract and based alimony on that income. This is the most likely scenario. No player is ever guaranteed a spot on a team and a continue paycheck (Not even Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Believe me if they had not come back from their knee surgeries as well as they did, they would have been cut). The only thing guaranteed to a player is the guaranteed money stated in the contract. Given that reality, a temporary work stoppage has no more effect on a player's income that being waived by a team. A judge has to look at the income and make a decision about the player's future ability to make payments. On the other hand, the judge could look just at current income ( 0 ) and know that the player could be cut when -- and if -- training camps ever open again. The judge could then say the player is not voluntary impoverished since the owners locked him out of his employment. He could then look at the player's ability to get another job and what that job would pay. The decision about alimony would be based on that likelihood of getting employment.
Already Litigated: The player could really be screwed here. In some states (like Maryland), alimony is not modifiable. What was established when the divorce was litigated is what the player is stuck paying, regardless of financial situation. The good news is that alimony is not the lifetime pension it is was once. In the 21st century, the wife is expected to get off her butt and get a job. Just because she was married to a rich football player once up a time does not negate her need to be self-supporting.
Child Support
In Litigation: Much the same analysis as alimony. With one huge exception -- you are expected to sacrifice and do what you can to support your children. Supporting your ex-wife, not so much sacrifice expected. A player would be expected to get a job during the work stoppage to make sure his kids have food on the table, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs. The judge may figure child support based on the player's football income, presuming the stoppage will be temporary. Temporary unemployment will not relieve one of the obligation to pay child support. The judge may consider the temporary job in assigning a temporary amount to be increased when the player returns to the playing field.
Already Litigated: The standard for a change in child support payments is the same as for a change in custody -- "material change in circumstances." It is up to a judge to decide whether a most likely temporary work stoppage is enough to warrant a permanent change in payment amount. This is unlikely. Whether dad is working or not, the kids still need to be supported. The amount won't likely change. The judge could decide to temporarily suspend payments until the player returns to the field. The player would then be responsible for all the back payments. This is unlikely though. The lockout should not impose a hardship on the children who had no say in whether it occurred or not. The children cannot make up the difference of the child support payments. Dads need to continue making these payments, whatever other sacrifices they make during the lockout.
Obviously, the players should have been saving their money for just this situation. They should have enough money saved to meet all their financial obligations until the paycheck resumes. Some will have done so. For those players and their families, life will go on just as before. For those that didn't, they may be explaining their lack of financial responsibility to a judge. It will not be pretty. I don't see any judge being particularly sympathetic to someone who makes more at the League minimum than most people make not saving some of that money for the lean times.
We all hope this Lockout is temporary and we have football come fall. For the players facing family law issues, this just complicates an already difficult time. Resolving it quickly will mean one less uncertainty to deal with in court.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Owners Open Your Books
One of the sticking points in the NFL CBA is that the owners refuse to open their books. They claim they need to claw back some of the monetary gains made by the players in the last CBA because teams are not "profitable." Apparently, the players are just supposed to take their word for it and give back the money.
The players union, not being stupid*, is not going for it. They have consistently asked for financial information. The League has responded by offering to provide aggregate numbers with no data or documentation to back up the numbers.
Again, the players, not being stupid, are demanding the actual numbers so their own accountant can review everything. The owners are still balking.
In a child support case, one can't just say what one's income is. One must produce documentation in the form of pay stubs and bank statements. If one fails to produce this information there is big trouble. It must be produced under oath too (at least in Maryland). Which means if you lie, you can be criminally charged with perjury.
This is for everyone. Your average folks who have some savings, the big rich folks with multiple houses, and the folks living paycheck to paycheck. Even those receiving state assistance must produce verified proof of benefits.
Yet, the NFL in a major negotiation with the players to work out the new financial agreement (among other things) for the future of a multi billion dollar industry, want the NFLPA to just take their word for it? Not happening. If the player's union sues, they will have to produce a lot more in court. If they don't they will face a lot more trouble from the judge than a simple "produce the stuff, please" that happens in most family law cases. They could be facing huge monetary sanctions. It certainly will influence any final ruling.
It is better to disclose up front, than be forced to disclose. The court always hates the side that tries to hide information.
*At least not stupid on this issue. They may be acting stupidly in other areas. The owners may also be acting stupidly in other areas too, while smart in others. The scream you may hear at 11:59 ET tonight will be me if there is a work stoppage.
The players union, not being stupid*, is not going for it. They have consistently asked for financial information. The League has responded by offering to provide aggregate numbers with no data or documentation to back up the numbers.
Again, the players, not being stupid, are demanding the actual numbers so their own accountant can review everything. The owners are still balking.
In a child support case, one can't just say what one's income is. One must produce documentation in the form of pay stubs and bank statements. If one fails to produce this information there is big trouble. It must be produced under oath too (at least in Maryland). Which means if you lie, you can be criminally charged with perjury.
This is for everyone. Your average folks who have some savings, the big rich folks with multiple houses, and the folks living paycheck to paycheck. Even those receiving state assistance must produce verified proof of benefits.
Yet, the NFL in a major negotiation with the players to work out the new financial agreement (among other things) for the future of a multi billion dollar industry, want the NFLPA to just take their word for it? Not happening. If the player's union sues, they will have to produce a lot more in court. If they don't they will face a lot more trouble from the judge than a simple "produce the stuff, please" that happens in most family law cases. They could be facing huge monetary sanctions. It certainly will influence any final ruling.
It is better to disclose up front, than be forced to disclose. The court always hates the side that tries to hide information.
*At least not stupid on this issue. They may be acting stupidly in other areas. The owners may also be acting stupidly in other areas too, while smart in others. The scream you may hear at 11:59 ET tonight will be me if there is a work stoppage.
Putting It All in Perspective
I woke up to news of the horrific 8.9 earthquake that hit Japan this morning. It was followed by a tsunami with a wave reported as high as 23 feet. Waves are beginning to hit Hawaii as I type this. The devastation is incredible. Hundreds missing, including possibly a boat with 100 passengers and a train. Nuclear plants are also affected, with evacuations ordered near one. No one knows what the final death toll will be. The Christchurch quake was just a couple weeks ago with equal devastation.
It really snaps things into perspective. Mike Florio over at ProFootballTalk posted about this in an excellent piece concerning the NFL CBA. Is trying to figure out how to divide up a $9 BILLION pie that important? I think not.
Looking at it from the family law perspective, it really brings the big picture into focus. Does it really matter who the kids live with as long as they are safe and cared for? Who cares who gets the house as long as it is still standing? Oh and the golf clubs, third car, stamp collection or whatever? Really, is that worth the fight over? Your ex wants a few extra bucks in child support? If you can afford it, pay it. It's for the kids, who you love so much. I am not saying these things are never fighting over. But, make sure the fight is for the right reasons. Don't keep arguing with your ex just because you are mad at the break up of the relationship. Keep the focus on what really matters. Love. Going home at the end of the day to a warm house. Waking up the next day knowing you will see your kids smiling faces, get a hug and a kiss from them.
There are people in Christchuch and Japan who will never experience those things again. Don't take what you have for granted. Appreciate it every day.
If you want to help the people of Christchurch or Japan, I am sure the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, Mercy Corps and many other fine organzations are accepting donations. All of the organizations I have listed are rated by Charity Navigator.
It really snaps things into perspective. Mike Florio over at ProFootballTalk posted about this in an excellent piece concerning the NFL CBA. Is trying to figure out how to divide up a $9 BILLION pie that important? I think not.
Looking at it from the family law perspective, it really brings the big picture into focus. Does it really matter who the kids live with as long as they are safe and cared for? Who cares who gets the house as long as it is still standing? Oh and the golf clubs, third car, stamp collection or whatever? Really, is that worth the fight over? Your ex wants a few extra bucks in child support? If you can afford it, pay it. It's for the kids, who you love so much. I am not saying these things are never fighting over. But, make sure the fight is for the right reasons. Don't keep arguing with your ex just because you are mad at the break up of the relationship. Keep the focus on what really matters. Love. Going home at the end of the day to a warm house. Waking up the next day knowing you will see your kids smiling faces, get a hug and a kiss from them.
There are people in Christchuch and Japan who will never experience those things again. Don't take what you have for granted. Appreciate it every day.
If you want to help the people of Christchurch or Japan, I am sure the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, Mercy Corps and many other fine organzations are accepting donations. All of the organizations I have listed are rated by Charity Navigator.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Oh Good Grief.
You have no idea how much I wanted to entitle this post "Guys, keep it zipped up." However, I decided that was a little unfair. It's not always the guy's fault when things like this happens. After all, it takes two to tango.
What did happen?
Former Bear Shaun Gayle testifed on Tuesday in the murder trial of his pregnant girlfriend. Allegedly, his pregnant girlfriend was shot by another woman who had a relationship with Gayle. Gayle had previously stated there was only a business relationship. Under oath, the real truth came out -- as it so often does. Gayle and the other woman, Marni Yang, had a sexual relationship. From the testimony it appears it was a friends with benefit situation. Well, that is how Gayle saw it. Yang apparently wanted a bit more.
Hence, the title. Guys, if your girlfriend is pregnant, do not be getting it someplace else. In fact, if you are in a relationship such that pregnancy is not unexpected, don't be getting it someplace. Do not be spraying it around like a fire hose. However, as I said, it's not always the guy's fault. Ladies, if his girlfriend is pregnant, do not sleep with him. He is not going to leave him for you. If he is willing to bail on his pregnant girlfriend for you, do you really want him? No, you do not. Have some dignity.
In my practice, I have seen this happen several times. He has kids of the same age, only a few months apart. For the guys, this means you are paying child support for kids of the same age. You are trying to balance visitation with kids of the same age. For the women, this means you have to explain to your child why their half-sibling is the same age. Also, sometimes the dad prefers one child over the other (usually based on how easy the mother makes things for dad -- as he perceives easy). Do either of you want to explain the situation to a judge?
It is just a mess all around. Think before you have sex. Keep it zipped up. Use birth control -- both parties. Do something to avoid this situation. It is not good for anyone, even if it does not end like the Gayle case in one person being dead.
What did happen?
Former Bear Shaun Gayle testifed on Tuesday in the murder trial of his pregnant girlfriend. Allegedly, his pregnant girlfriend was shot by another woman who had a relationship with Gayle. Gayle had previously stated there was only a business relationship. Under oath, the real truth came out -- as it so often does. Gayle and the other woman, Marni Yang, had a sexual relationship. From the testimony it appears it was a friends with benefit situation. Well, that is how Gayle saw it. Yang apparently wanted a bit more.
Hence, the title. Guys, if your girlfriend is pregnant, do not be getting it someplace else. In fact, if you are in a relationship such that pregnancy is not unexpected, don't be getting it someplace. Do not be spraying it around like a fire hose. However, as I said, it's not always the guy's fault. Ladies, if his girlfriend is pregnant, do not sleep with him. He is not going to leave him for you. If he is willing to bail on his pregnant girlfriend for you, do you really want him? No, you do not. Have some dignity.
In my practice, I have seen this happen several times. He has kids of the same age, only a few months apart. For the guys, this means you are paying child support for kids of the same age. You are trying to balance visitation with kids of the same age. For the women, this means you have to explain to your child why their half-sibling is the same age. Also, sometimes the dad prefers one child over the other (usually based on how easy the mother makes things for dad -- as he perceives easy). Do either of you want to explain the situation to a judge?
It is just a mess all around. Think before you have sex. Keep it zipped up. Use birth control -- both parties. Do something to avoid this situation. It is not good for anyone, even if it does not end like the Gayle case in one person being dead.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
LT Fights Child Support Increase
Lawrence Taylor, the Pro Football Hall of Fame linebacker for the Giants, back in court on Friday. The hearing was about whether the media would be allowed in the courtroom for the final hearing. The case revolves around child support. LT has a 12 year old child, he has never seen. He is currently paying $456 per week in child support or $1824 a month. The mother wants to increase the support as the child has apparently been diagnosed with Crohn's disease. LT wants to decrease child support. LT is not behind in his support payments, so there is no issue there.
The judge ruled that the media would be allowed. It is standard practice, according to the article, that New Jersey family law hearings are open to the public except in cases of abuse and neglect. Obviously, any court is concerned with protecting the privacy of a minor child. Usually, the child is not present in the courtroom. Believe me, judges hate it when parents bring their child to hearings, whether the media is there or not. The last thing a child needs to hear is mommy and daddy fighting over who gets the child or how much the child is going to cost. As the child will not be present, and the media seems to be careful about disclosing information, I see no problem with the media being present. If LT does not want the media following him, he can behave in a less newsworthy manner.
Which brings me to why the case is going to a hearing at all. It never looks good when a parent wants to reduce child support payments. Absent a really good reason, like being completely out of work for a really long period of time, you find a way to make those payments. You work too jobs, you sacrifice luxuries (like hookers) for yourself to make those payments. I don't know why LT is looking to reduce payments. But the fact remains, that is what he is asking.
Based on what he is paying, under the revised Maryland Child Support Guidelines (finally updated after far too long), the combined parental income is at least $14K a month. Most of us are looking at that going, he makes $14K a month and thinks $1824 is too much for his child. Let's go deeper into the caculations here.
In Maryland, you take both parents income, minus any pre-existing child support being paid. LT has at least three other children. However, at least one of those children is an adult, so no child support there. It is possible he is paying child support to the mother of his other kids from whom he is divorced. That amount, if any, would reduce his monthly income. Once you have established both parents income, you add them together for the combined income. Then from the combined income, you figure the percentage of each parent's share of that total amount based on their income (for instance, a combined income of $900 per month, where one parent makes $600 and one parent makes $300 would yield a figure of 66% for the first parent and 33% for the other parent). Then you check the statutory guidelines for the base child support figured given the combined income and the number of children. In LT's case we have an estimated combined income (it is unknown how much the mother makes) of $14K per month. That number for one child yields a base child support of $1824 per month.
That is the base figure. From there, you add in other things such as healthcare, daycare expenses if necessary, and extraordinary medical expenses. Extraordinary medical expenses are those expenses that are not regular doctor visits, checkups, the like. Treatment for Crohn's disease would fall under extraordinary medical expenses. You add those expenses, whatever they are to the base child support figure that you found in the statute. You have to add these in because all these costs vary so much so you have to take into account their actual expense. Also, it is fairly clear that the base child support amount does not reflect what it truly costs to raise a child.
Once you have the base figure and all the extras figured in, you then divide that total by each parent's percentage of income. That final number is each parent's child support obligation. The parent the child is living with is already paying that amount, so does not need to pay the other parent. It is the parent the child is not living with who has to pay the parent who has the child, the obligated amount.
These numbers tend to be very straightforward. Although arguments can be made to go up or down from them, it is tough to do. You run up against the excellent public policy of parents should sacrifice to provide for their children.
I would love to see LT's arguments for why he thinks his sick child should receive even less money per month. This case cannot help his public image where he already plead guilty to sexual misconduct and patronizing a prostitute this year. Perhaps, it would be best if Mr. Taylor is so concerned about the media portraying him in a negative light to just pay up. This is a 12 year old girl we are talking about. She already has never met her father. Now, he is trying to support her financially even less? He made be a Pro Football Hall of Famer, but Father of the Year he is not.
The judge ruled that the media would be allowed. It is standard practice, according to the article, that New Jersey family law hearings are open to the public except in cases of abuse and neglect. Obviously, any court is concerned with protecting the privacy of a minor child. Usually, the child is not present in the courtroom. Believe me, judges hate it when parents bring their child to hearings, whether the media is there or not. The last thing a child needs to hear is mommy and daddy fighting over who gets the child or how much the child is going to cost. As the child will not be present, and the media seems to be careful about disclosing information, I see no problem with the media being present. If LT does not want the media following him, he can behave in a less newsworthy manner.
Which brings me to why the case is going to a hearing at all. It never looks good when a parent wants to reduce child support payments. Absent a really good reason, like being completely out of work for a really long period of time, you find a way to make those payments. You work too jobs, you sacrifice luxuries (like hookers) for yourself to make those payments. I don't know why LT is looking to reduce payments. But the fact remains, that is what he is asking.
Based on what he is paying, under the revised Maryland Child Support Guidelines (finally updated after far too long), the combined parental income is at least $14K a month. Most of us are looking at that going, he makes $14K a month and thinks $1824 is too much for his child. Let's go deeper into the caculations here.
In Maryland, you take both parents income, minus any pre-existing child support being paid. LT has at least three other children. However, at least one of those children is an adult, so no child support there. It is possible he is paying child support to the mother of his other kids from whom he is divorced. That amount, if any, would reduce his monthly income. Once you have established both parents income, you add them together for the combined income. Then from the combined income, you figure the percentage of each parent's share of that total amount based on their income (for instance, a combined income of $900 per month, where one parent makes $600 and one parent makes $300 would yield a figure of 66% for the first parent and 33% for the other parent). Then you check the statutory guidelines for the base child support figured given the combined income and the number of children. In LT's case we have an estimated combined income (it is unknown how much the mother makes) of $14K per month. That number for one child yields a base child support of $1824 per month.
That is the base figure. From there, you add in other things such as healthcare, daycare expenses if necessary, and extraordinary medical expenses. Extraordinary medical expenses are those expenses that are not regular doctor visits, checkups, the like. Treatment for Crohn's disease would fall under extraordinary medical expenses. You add those expenses, whatever they are to the base child support figure that you found in the statute. You have to add these in because all these costs vary so much so you have to take into account their actual expense. Also, it is fairly clear that the base child support amount does not reflect what it truly costs to raise a child.
Once you have the base figure and all the extras figured in, you then divide that total by each parent's percentage of income. That final number is each parent's child support obligation. The parent the child is living with is already paying that amount, so does not need to pay the other parent. It is the parent the child is not living with who has to pay the parent who has the child, the obligated amount.
These numbers tend to be very straightforward. Although arguments can be made to go up or down from them, it is tough to do. You run up against the excellent public policy of parents should sacrifice to provide for their children.
I would love to see LT's arguments for why he thinks his sick child should receive even less money per month. This case cannot help his public image where he already plead guilty to sexual misconduct and patronizing a prostitute this year. Perhaps, it would be best if Mr. Taylor is so concerned about the media portraying him in a negative light to just pay up. This is a 12 year old girl we are talking about. She already has never met her father. Now, he is trying to support her financially even less? He made be a Pro Football Hall of Famer, but Father of the Year he is not.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Offseason
Given their respective schedules, there is no one time that all 4 major sports are off. However, right now, the NFL is off, baseball really hasn't started and the NHL is beginning to wind down (do the NBA and NHL have incredibly long post season play or what?). The offseaon would be a good time for divorces, custody matters, whatever issue to move forward. You don't have to worry about games and practices.
Non sports folks don't get an offseason when things can be scheduled. Nor do they get to ask the court for special consideration. The court sets the hearing dates. The parties just have to tell their employer they need the time off for court. Then there is meeting with the attorney for discovery, trial strategy, etc. Depositions need to be scheduled. Attorneys like their weekends too, so we tend not to schedule around our client's schedules. All in all, a court matter means a lot of time missed from work.
What is the solution? Don't get a divorce? Don't fight for custody of your kids? Hardly. If you must take your family law matter to court, do it. Accept the timing and do your best. It is all one can ever do.
Non sports folks don't get an offseason when things can be scheduled. Nor do they get to ask the court for special consideration. The court sets the hearing dates. The parties just have to tell their employer they need the time off for court. Then there is meeting with the attorney for discovery, trial strategy, etc. Depositions need to be scheduled. Attorneys like their weekends too, so we tend not to schedule around our client's schedules. All in all, a court matter means a lot of time missed from work.
What is the solution? Don't get a divorce? Don't fight for custody of your kids? Hardly. If you must take your family law matter to court, do it. Accept the timing and do your best. It is all one can ever do.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Obama Administration Shifts Stance on DOMA
Although this is not sports related, it is still huge news in the family law field. DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act passed by a Republican Congress during the Bush Administration. Basically, it defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. Naturally there were court challenges to this under States Rights' and Equal Protection Provisions. The cases started under the Bush administration. However since sometimes justice is a long slow process, they are still making through way through various appellate courts.
The Obama Administration, as the branch of government charged with enforcing laws continued the Bush Administration policy of defending the law against all challenges in court. The new stance announced today means the defense in court will end.* Without any opposition, the challenges in court will win by default. This effectively means, by my interpretation that DOMA is dead. The courts may require a response, but then the Administration can just provide a response that says "we cannot offer a non-frivolous argument." Since the court really frowns on making frivolous arguments, they will love an attorney who refuses to make one. Of course, this is speculation on my part as to how this will play out.
In the sport world, whether or not DOMA survives will not make a darn bit of difference. As far as I know there are no openly gay athletes in the 4 major sports I focus this blog on: NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL. If there are openly gay athletes in other sports, I would love to hear about it. But, until athletes feel comfortable and safe being out, whether or not gays can marry will not affect their family law issues.
*Until formally repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts, the Executive Branch agencies will continue to enforce the law. Yes, that's confusing I know. The Administration is saying it will enforce a law it feels is unconstitutional. Has a bit of a feel of trying to have it both ways to it.
The Obama Administration, as the branch of government charged with enforcing laws continued the Bush Administration policy of defending the law against all challenges in court. The new stance announced today means the defense in court will end.* Without any opposition, the challenges in court will win by default. This effectively means, by my interpretation that DOMA is dead. The courts may require a response, but then the Administration can just provide a response that says "we cannot offer a non-frivolous argument." Since the court really frowns on making frivolous arguments, they will love an attorney who refuses to make one. Of course, this is speculation on my part as to how this will play out.
In the sport world, whether or not DOMA survives will not make a darn bit of difference. As far as I know there are no openly gay athletes in the 4 major sports I focus this blog on: NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL. If there are openly gay athletes in other sports, I would love to hear about it. But, until athletes feel comfortable and safe being out, whether or not gays can marry will not affect their family law issues.
*Until formally repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts, the Executive Branch agencies will continue to enforce the law. Yes, that's confusing I know. The Administration is saying it will enforce a law it feels is unconstitutional. Has a bit of a feel of trying to have it both ways to it.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Divorce and the Pro Athlete
One of the cool things about writing this blog is that reading sports websites now constitutes research. Yep, reading SI, PFT, ESPN, and all those other sites is now "work." As I am sitting here tonight with a gin and tonic in hand, doing research for future posts, I ran across a rather scary statistic.
The divorce rate for pro athletes ranges from 60 - 80%.
That is all major sports: NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB.
The divorce rate for the average population is 50%. This means if those numbers are accurate, athletes divorce at a significantly higher rate than the average public.
Even more frightening is that there is anecdotal evidence that most pro athletes divorce within a year or two of retiring (really retiring for good, no come backs). That means when the crowds and the adulation go away, so does the marriage.
There are many reasons for the demise of a marriage. I would like to think that athletes divorce for the same reasons the rest of the population does. Reasons like, incompatibility, domestic violence, money, affairs, just not wanting to be married anymore. But that number tells me more is at work here when it comes to a pro athlete's marriage ending.
Whatever the reason though, pro athlete or not, the goal of the divorce remains the same. Preparing two people to go forward into their new unmarried lives.
The divorce rate for pro athletes ranges from 60 - 80%.
That is all major sports: NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB.
The divorce rate for the average population is 50%. This means if those numbers are accurate, athletes divorce at a significantly higher rate than the average public.
Even more frightening is that there is anecdotal evidence that most pro athletes divorce within a year or two of retiring (really retiring for good, no come backs). That means when the crowds and the adulation go away, so does the marriage.
There are many reasons for the demise of a marriage. I would like to think that athletes divorce for the same reasons the rest of the population does. Reasons like, incompatibility, domestic violence, money, affairs, just not wanting to be married anymore. But that number tells me more is at work here when it comes to a pro athlete's marriage ending.
Whatever the reason though, pro athlete or not, the goal of the divorce remains the same. Preparing two people to go forward into their new unmarried lives.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Murder Is not an Option
I ran across this headline today "Rae Carruth Loses Appeal". Who, you may ask is Rae Carruth? He was the Carolina Panthers' first round pick in 1997. In 1999, his girlfriend who was eight months pregnant at the time was shot in her car while driving her car. The girlfriend, Cherica Adams, died of the gunshot wounds. Carruth was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, shooting into an occupied vehicle and using an instrument to destroy an unborn child in 2001. He was sentenced to 18 to 24 years in prison. He allegedly wanted Adams dead because he was afraid of losing his starting job with the Panthers (he was dealing with injuries at the time of the murder) and didn't want to be stuck with child support.
I'll let the criminal defense types deal with the appeal issues. Let's break this down from a family law perspective. Carruth was an idiot (that is a technical legal term).
First and foremost, there is no good reason to take the life of another human being, except in self-defense. So he was an idiot for thinking murder was a good solution to a temporary problem.
Because it was just a temporary problem. Child support is not forever. In Maryland, it only lasts until the child turns 18 or graduates high school whichever is later. Some states do allow for longer periods of child support, provided the child is enrolled full-time in a college or technical school.
Also, Carruth was concerned about having to pay child support based on his NFL salary. But, child support is generally modifiable based on actual income. I'll leave aside the issue of involuntary impoverishment for now. Presumably, if Carruth were cut by the Panthers, he would find other work. He could then request the court modify his child support obligation based on his actual income.
So, Carruth took the life of another human being in order to avoid 18 years of child support. He chose to kill someone and now has to serve 18 to 24 years in prison. I am thinking 18 years in prison is lot worse than 18 years of making child support payments.
Here's the real kicker: the unborn child survived. He has severe injuries. So, his alleged reason for participating in the murder backfired anyway. He will be expected to pay the back support when he is released from prison. Unlike the actual obligations, the obligation to repay the arrears (missed payments) continues until all the arrears are paid. I have no idea how the arrearages will be calculated, but I am betting it will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range. If I were Cherica Adams family who have guardianship of the child, I would ask that the support be calculated based on his salary at the time of the child's birth. Yep, that NFL salary he was afraid of losing. The arrearages will also include any extraordinary medical expenses for the child too.
In other words, Rae Carruth is doing 18 to 24 only to have to face making the child support payments anyway. Like I said, "Idiot!"
I'll let the criminal defense types deal with the appeal issues. Let's break this down from a family law perspective. Carruth was an idiot (that is a technical legal term).
First and foremost, there is no good reason to take the life of another human being, except in self-defense. So he was an idiot for thinking murder was a good solution to a temporary problem.
Because it was just a temporary problem. Child support is not forever. In Maryland, it only lasts until the child turns 18 or graduates high school whichever is later. Some states do allow for longer periods of child support, provided the child is enrolled full-time in a college or technical school.
Also, Carruth was concerned about having to pay child support based on his NFL salary. But, child support is generally modifiable based on actual income. I'll leave aside the issue of involuntary impoverishment for now. Presumably, if Carruth were cut by the Panthers, he would find other work. He could then request the court modify his child support obligation based on his actual income.
So, Carruth took the life of another human being in order to avoid 18 years of child support. He chose to kill someone and now has to serve 18 to 24 years in prison. I am thinking 18 years in prison is lot worse than 18 years of making child support payments.
Here's the real kicker: the unborn child survived. He has severe injuries. So, his alleged reason for participating in the murder backfired anyway. He will be expected to pay the back support when he is released from prison. Unlike the actual obligations, the obligation to repay the arrears (missed payments) continues until all the arrears are paid. I have no idea how the arrearages will be calculated, but I am betting it will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range. If I were Cherica Adams family who have guardianship of the child, I would ask that the support be calculated based on his salary at the time of the child's birth. Yep, that NFL salary he was afraid of losing. The arrearages will also include any extraordinary medical expenses for the child too.
In other words, Rae Carruth is doing 18 to 24 only to have to face making the child support payments anyway. Like I said, "Idiot!"
Monday, February 14, 2011
Welcome
Welcome to Divorce Field. I had to use field because "Divorce Court" is the name of a tv show. This blog will use the family law trials and tribulations of athletes as a starting point for discussions on family law issues.
Why athletes? Simple. I LOVE football. I am addict. I watch NFL Network regularly. I even write about football over on Associated Content. This blog will cover other sports, but expect a lot of emphasis on football. Also, because I am human and interested in the world in general, expect some posts not related to sports or the law.
I do not represent any of these athletes. Any issues raised will be based on what is publicly available. No minor children will be identified EVER, even if the name(s) are available elsewhere.
Nothing in this blog is to be construed as legal advice. Anything stated here is the opinion of the author only, please consult a lawyer licensed in your state regarding your family law situation.
Disclaimers out of the way, have fun. I hope to have some lively discussions here.
Why athletes? Simple. I LOVE football. I am addict. I watch NFL Network regularly. I even write about football over on Associated Content. This blog will cover other sports, but expect a lot of emphasis on football. Also, because I am human and interested in the world in general, expect some posts not related to sports or the law.
I do not represent any of these athletes. Any issues raised will be based on what is publicly available. No minor children will be identified EVER, even if the name(s) are available elsewhere.
Nothing in this blog is to be construed as legal advice. Anything stated here is the opinion of the author only, please consult a lawyer licensed in your state regarding your family law situation.
Disclaimers out of the way, have fun. I hope to have some lively discussions here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)