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).
Sunday, June 19, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)