Custody-Prompted Double-Murder

Man charged in execution-style murders of ex-wife and her father

Orange County prosecutors allege that he waited to shoot them at his Costa Mesa home just hours after losing custody of the couple's 7-year-old daughter, who was sent out for ice cream with his current wife.

By Lauren Williams and Robert J. Lopez, Los Angeles Times

May 6, 2011

A Costa Mesa man has been charged with the execution-style murders of his ex-wife and her father after allegedly waiting to kill them at his home just hours after she was awarded sole custody of their 7-year-old daughter.

The slayings shocked neighbors in the quiet residential neighborhood not far from South Coast Plaza, where prosecutors allege the gunman chased his victims into the street Tuesday evening as he reloaded his weapon and continued to fire as they lay bleeding on the ground.

Robert Lehmann, 36, was charged Wednesday with two counts of special circumstances murder with sentencing enhancements for using a weapon, lying in wait and committing multiple murders, according to the Orange County district attorney's office. He is scheduled to be arraigned June 24.

His ex-wife, Emily Ford, 32, who worked as a preschool aide at a nearby school, had arrived at Lehmann's home on Santa Clara Circle to pick up the child with her father, Russell Ford, 62. The mother had left her 3-month-old son, who is not Lehmann's child, in a car seat inside her vehicle.

Earlier in the day, Emily Ford had been awarded sole custody and sole decision-making powers regarding the education of her daughter after Lehmann failed to appear at a custody trial, according to records filed in Orange County Superior Court.

Lehmann was angry about the custody order and, before his ex-wife arrived, sent the daughter and his current wife out to buy an ice cream, prosecutors said. As he opened the door, he allegedly began shooting at Emily Ford and her father. They ran into the street, with Lehmann following them.

"Lehmann is accused of pursuing them outside and continuing to shoot," Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said in a statement. "As Emily Ford and Russell Ford lay bleeding on the ground, Lehman is accused of reloading his firearm and executing the victims by shooting them repeatedly in the back and back of the head."

Shots streaked past the vehicle containing Emily Ford's baby and struck cars across the street, where parents had parked to pick up their children at a day-care center. No other injuries were reported.

Afterward, police cordoned off parts of Lehmann's modest, single-story house with yellow crime scene tape. A thin trail of blood had dried and was crusted on the path that led to the well-manicured lawn.

A brown truck parked in the driveway had the license plate "Dady ♥ AJ."

Marco Antonio Arroyo, who lives two homes away, said the family always seemed very happy.

Lehmann's daughter often played outside the home, Arroyo said, adding that her father was always very affectionate with her.

"I would have never imagined," Arroyo said. "Never! I never saw anything contrary. They always seemed happy."

The girl is a special-needs student who attends Sonora Elementary School in Costa Mesa, officials said.

Emily Ford was a special-education preschool instructional aide who worked with autistic children at Paularino Elementary School in Costa Mesa. She also waited tables part-time at Morton's steakhouse in Santa Ana, court records show.

Colleagues at the school described Ford as engaging and well liked by the staff.

"She was a wonderful, nice lady who always had a smile on her face," said Principal Stacy Lynne de Boom-Howard. "She was very happy with where her life was. She was in a very happy relationship."

Russell Ford was an educator with the Santa Ana Unified School District from 1978 to 2010.

Court records show that the custody battle began amicably when the couple separated in 2004 after 10 months of marriage. But tensions surfaced when Emily Ford wanted a divorce and was set to remarry in 2009, according to court documents filed by her attorney.

Lehmann worked for Hewlett-Packard Co. as a "solution architect," according to court papers, and grossed more than $13,000 a month.

In 2009, Ford alleged in the court filings, Lehmann threatened to stall the divorce unless she reached an agreement with him outside of court on custody and support issues.

The records show that Lehmann questioned Ford's parenting skills, saying that their daughter had gotten scratches while on the school playground,

In the end, the court sided with Ford and ordered her to pick up the daughter from Lehmann's house at 6 p.m. Tuesday — the same time she was killed.

lauren.williams@latimes.com

robert.lopez@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Postcards from Children of Divorce

Have you heard of PostcardsFromSplitsville?

Straight from their website -- OUR MISSION: A website where children can share their divorce-related feelings anonymously and parents can get a new perspective on how this life-changing experience impacts their children’s lives.

Most of these children are between the ages of 10-12.

Why Buy the Cow When You Can Get the Milk For Free? Answer: Cuz It Ain't Free!

Live-in lovers break up... then pay up: Court hearings boom for unmarried couples
By Tamara Cohen




Couples who break up following a live-in relationship are paying tens of thousands of pounds in settlements to their former partners.


A new phenomenon of ‘break-up payments’ is increasingly common because more and more couples are living together for several years without marrying.


When a marriage collapses, a spouse is usually entitled to half the couple’s assets, but for cohabitees the legalities can be a minefield.

Law firm Pannone has reported a 40 per cent rise in these payments in the past five years, claiming people are taking advantage of the uncertain legal status of unmarried couples to issue ‘nuisance’ demands.

Some people were willing to pay up to £100,000 to former partners to avoid lengthy legal action which can last up to 18 months, it said.

Recent actions have involved custody of children, jointly owned property, bank accounts and even pets.

There are 2.3million cohabiting couples and the number is expected to double in the next 25 years. One in four children is born to cohabitees.

Vicki McLynn, a senior associate at Pannone, suggested the problem was partly due to such disputes being dealt with using property rather than family law, as no legislation had yet been passed making clear the rights of unmarried partners when they split up.

She said: ‘It can ultimately be a case of “he said, she said” – one partner’s ability to be more convincing than the other in court can be crucial in determining how cases are settled.

‘Given that element of risk and the assets at stake, many family and litigation lawyers in our firm and elsewhere are seeing clients wanting to pay up to end the matter.’

Unmarried couple Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy split after five years together. They are not thought to have sought settlements from each other

In 2007, the Law Commission published a series of recommendations for the government following a review of the rights of unmarried couples. It concluded that the ‘unclear’ current law made for ‘unfair’ outcomes.

The commission urged a series of reforms including legislation enabling unmarried men or women who had lived together for at least two years to make a claim against their ex-partner. The recommendations have so far not been acted upon.

Miss McLynn suggested that while some disputes involved individuals who had genuinely made contributions to building up joint assets, others featured demands which could best be described as ‘nuisance’.

She said: ‘We have seen instances in which people have issued demands to complicate their exes’ new relationships.’

Earlier this year, family law firms reported a 15 per cent rise in the number of cohabiting clients seeking advice on relationship breakdown as a result of the recession.

Father and son fight over £5.1m divorce settlement

By Stephen Howard, PA

A father is fighting his son in court over a £5.1 million divorce settlement he made with his former wife two months before she died.


Fraser Richardson inherited his mother Harriet's estate and is resisting his father Eric's application to cut the settlement.


The father ran a hotel chain and flats business with his wife and faces a massive damages claim after a child was injured falling from one of the apartments.


His insurers have warned him they may not indemnify him and he wants the divorce settlement figure varied so that any damages award is shared with the estate of his late wife.


Sally Harrison QC, representing the son, told three judges at the Court of Appeal: "The relationship between Fraser Richardson and his father has broken down entirely and they could not work together in any way in the future."


The son says that when the divorce settlement was agreed, his father retained 52.5% of the couple's joint assets, close to £11 million, and in return agreed to take on all the risks of the business from which his mother had retired.


Nigel Dyer QC, representing the 71-year-old father, said any damages award should be a joint liability because the accident happened when his former wife was his business partner.


He said it was not foreseeable during the divorce proceedings that the insurers might repudiate liability under the insurance policy and refuse to indemnify the business.


"In these circumstances it is not fair or reasonable that the husband alone should be liable for the damages award; any damages award should still be a liability to be met by the husband and wife's estate."


He said the husband had been advised by solicitors that if the claim succeeded on liability, the damages could be in the region of £3 million with costs of £300,000.


"If the husband has to pay £3.3 million he will lose nearly 60% of the assets he retained under the order."


Mr Dyer said it would not affect the wife's estate by staying the settlement order until after the accident damages hearing.


"The wife is dead so she does not need the money," he said.


At the time of the divorce settlement hearing, both husband and wife were 70 and had been married for more than 40 years.


During their marriage they carried on a business as hoteliers, property investors and landlords.


Their assets comprised two hotels in the North West, five in Devon and Cornwall and nine blocks of flats in Manchester, worth a total of £40 million.


After deducting investment loans mainly taken out by Mr Richardson, the net assets were £10,906,734.


The accident in 2004 involved a two-year-old girl who fell from a window in one of the couple's blocks of flats.


Mr Dyer said that three and a half years after the accident, a personal injury claim was issued against Mr Richardson and the Richardson Group which he ran with his wife.


He said: "If the husband has to meet the damages claim with no contribution from the wife's estate, then Fraser will end up with a much greater share of his parents' wealth than his father will retain."


He said the settlement order should be set aside and a new lump sum order made to reflect the true value of the assets after any damages award had been taken into account.


Ms Harrison said Mr Richardson failed to act promptly in appealing against the order.


When the settlement was made, the judge had balanced the fact that the husband was retaining assets with far greater potential for growth against a lump sum paid to Mrs Richardson with the husband's acceptance of all the risk laden assets and any losses, she said.


Judgment was reserved in the case.

The World's Most Powerful Women

The World's Most Powerful Women









When it comes to power, cultural impact means as much as money and political influence.
Forbes' power lists are synonymous with moguls and movie stars, heads of state and captains of business. One look at the 2010 World's 100 Most Powerful Women list and it is clear that we've come up with a new ranking of the female power elite that reflects the New Order of now.

When we set out to identify this year's list, we decided it was time to look up and out into the broader culture. Our assessment is based less on traditional titles and roles and more on creative influence and entrepreneurship. These power women have built distinctive companies and brands and championed weighty causes, sometimes through unconventional means; in other cases they have broken through gender barriers.

In Pictures: The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women

Click here to see the full list of The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women

We divided our power women candidates into four groups: politics, business, media and lifestyle (that is, entertainment, sports and fashion). We ranked the women in each group, and then group against group. Not easy, but that's today's reality: an unpredictable, diverse mash-up of hard power (currencies and constitutions) and dynamic power (audience and audacity).
Why else would Lady Gaga (No. 7) and Ellen DeGeneres (No. 10) share top 10 billing with Michelle Obama (No. 1), Irene Rosenfeld, CEO of Kraft Foods ( KFT - news - people ) (No. 2), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (No. 5) and Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo ( PEP - news - people ) (No. 6)? If anything, it's inspiring.

We included many heads of state and hopeful candidates, but we also have queenmakers who don't hold office, first ladies of various sorts, Surpreme Court justices and cultural icons, bankers and bestselling authors. We rely on these women for, yes, managing our money, creating paychecks and governing at home and on the international stage, but also what we eat, download, talk about around the dinner table and the causes we support. What we think and how we act.

At the top of our list, First Lady Michelle Obama is a true change-maker since taking lodge in the White House in 2008. The first African-American in the post, she's changed the face of the office (literally), and with consistently high approval ratings, she's given a new generation of girls and women around the world a role model. A former private attorney and public servant in Chicago, her interest in working with young people and advocating for healthy eating, among other issues, is evidenced by her Let's Move! campaign, which aims to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation.

Power women are connected, each one leveraging the power of the next. As a result of Let's Move!, for example, major food and drink manufacturers (including Rosenfeld's Kraft Foods and Nooyi's PepsiCo) have pledged to cut 1.5 trillion calories from their products by 2015 through new products, recipes and reduced portion sizes. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) last month, Secretary of State Clinton led a plenary session on empowering women and girls, a new CGI action area, and attended by Katie Couric (No. 22), Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan (No. 76) and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (No. 86).

Back to how Nooyi and talk show host DeGeneres landed together among the top 10 most powerful women in the world? While Nooyi helms PepsiCo, which has revenues of $43 billion annually and a portfolio of brands that include Tropicana, Frito Lay and Gatorade, DeGeneres directly connects with 3 million viewers daily weekdays through her talk show. And that's just one hour of her day.

Off-camera, the out-and-proud DeGeneres spreads her message to more than 5 million Twitter followers, notably bringing national attention to a gay teen's fight for same-sex prom dates last spring. Her high-profile, high-energy personality--as a television host, CoverGirl model and former judge of American Idol--has made LGBT issues more than mainstream. She's instilled a sense of glee and attractiveness to it all.

Traditionally, women's lists are heavily salted with the language of "firsts." First woman CEO. First woman on the Supreme Court. First female president. To be sure, there are firsts on this list: Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House, while race car driver Danica Patrick is the first (and only) woman to have won an IndyCar series. With the impending launch of OWN, Oprah Winfrey is the first woman to own her own cable network and Julia Gillard and Johnson Sirleaf are currently the first female prime minister of Australia and Africa's first female president, respectively.

First females make for good copy, but the real headline is that packs have emerged. Three women sit on the Supreme Court, marking an unprecedented tipping point for change. This year Diane Sawyer joined Couric as a female nightly solo news anchor, with Rachel Maddow and Christiane Amanpour as compats. Gillard is among 10 female heads of state on this year's rankings. From Singapore to Silicon Valley, 25 women on the list hold CEO titles.
Ripening for political leaders, generally, comes at the 50s and 60s, while business leaders peak in their 40s and 50s. Media and lifestyle power women seem to come of age in their 20s and 30s. But there are notable exceptions and crossover. Madonna and Arianna Huffington have exceptional staying power, while Sarah Palin and Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg are early bloomers.

Redefining the idea of power as influence is a challenging feat, particularly hard in that we looked at the world in all of its complexities to find the women who wield their importance in four distilled spheres to create change. Add the pace of the year 2010--the speed at which we consume and communicate--and the task becomes even greater.
What we've found is that power, hard or dynamic, can be fleeting. One million or so Twitter followers today can be kissed goodbye as quickly as a company can go bankrupt or a government overthrown. And so we consider this list a frozen moment in time.

We invite you to visit forbes.com/woman where the list will live, breathe and be shaped and reshaped in months to come.

The Most Powerful Women In The World—click on each woman to view profile
1. Michelle Obama, First Lady, U.S.
2. Irene Rosenfeld, Chief Executive, Kraft Foods
3. Oprah Winfrey, Talk show host and media mogul
4. Angela Merkel, Chancellor, Germany
5. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S.
6. Indra Nooya, Chief Executive, Pepsico
7. Lady Gaga, Singer and performance artist
8. Gail Kelly, Chief Executive, Westpac
9. Beyoncé Knowles, Singer and fashion designer
10. Ellen DeGeneres, Talk show host
11. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, U.S.
12. Angela Braly, Chief Executive, Wellpoint
13. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Homeland Security, U.S.
14. Cynthia Carroll, Chief Executive, Anglo American
15. Sheila Bair, Chair, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
16. Sarah Palin, Political maverick and commentator
17. Mary Schapiro, Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission
18. Ellen Kullman, Chief Executive, DuPont
19. Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice, U.S.
20. Ursula Burns, Chief Executive, Xerox
21. Angelina Jolie, Actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador
22. Katie Couric, News anchor
23. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Health & Human Services
24. Anne Lauvergeon, Chief Executive, Areva
25. Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice, U.S.

Click Here To See The Next Most Powerful Woman In The World

Canada: 40% of First Marriages End in Divorce

4 in 10 1st marriages end in divorce: report

CBC News






Forty per cent of Canadian marriages end in divorce, says a new study from the Vanier Institute of the Family.

The traditional definition of family is changing in Canada, with 4 in 10 first marriages ending in divorce, according to a new study.

For the first time in Canadian history, there are more unmarried people than legally married people age 15 and over in this country, says the study from the Vanier Institute of the Family released Monday in Ottawa.

It was based on data from the 2006 census, and some of the information has been reported in the years since.

"Marriage is still a vitally important part of the experience of families in the fabric of our country and most young people do aspire to marriage," said Clarence Lochhead, executive director of the Vanier Institute, adding that even people who have divorced or separated will end up partnering up again.

"We just have to come to grips with the diversity that actually is within our experience. Then we need to find ways to address and take on the challenges that face families, but do it in an inclusive way that makes sense for the reality and not some ideal notion of what a family is or ought to be."

According to Statistics Canada, about 38 per cent of all marriages taking place in 2004 will have ended in divorce by 2035. The total divorce rate was down slightly from its peak of about 41 per cent in the mid 1980s, but slightly higher than the rate of about 37 per cent recorded in the mid 1990s.

Newfoundland and Labrador had the lowest rate of divorce at 21.6 per cent — while Quebec had the highest at 48.4 per cent.

Top 8 reasons people marry
1. Feeling that marriage signifies commitment
2. Moral values
3. Belief that children should have married parents
4. It is the natural thing to do
5. Financial security
6. Religious beliefs
7. Pressure from family
8. Pressure from friends

Top 5 reasons couples separate or divorce
1. Different values and interests
2. Abuse — physical and emotional
3. Alcohol and drugs
4. Infidelity
5. Career-related conflict
Source: Vanier Institute of the Family

The highest proportion of married people was in Newfoundland and Labrador where 54.3 per cent were married, while Quebec had the lowest proportion of married couples with only 37.5 per cent of adults falling in this category.

Newfoundland and Labrador also had the lowest rate of divorce, while Quebec had the highest.

Also for the first time in Canada, there were more couples without children than with children, and this was true throughout the country, with families with children representing a minority of families in all provinces and territories.

For married families with children, 18.6 per cent of children live with only one parent. Common-law families are growing faster than any other type of family with one in 10 Canadians living in such relationships and 14.6 per cent of children living with common-law parents.

The 2006 census was the first to report on same-sex marriages and 16.5 per cent of same-sex couples now marry.

The recent economic downturn has proven to be a stressor for families. The higher cost of living means most families now require two income earners to achieve an average standard of living.

More families are also struggling with debt and poverty. Men are also working longer hours and spending less time with their families.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/04/vanier-study004.html#ixzz11RwJBynn

CONVICTION: Movie Review

I normally wouldn't take the time out to "blog" about a movie, but after an amazing preview screening last night, I had to quickly write my review to help promote this movie about the American legal system.

FYI - "Conviction" hits general theaters on October 15, 2010.


I have free passes for all interested to a screening next Thursday, 10/7/2010, 7:30 pm, at the Grove. Please email me if you are interested.

Conviction Movie Review

by Attorney Kelly Chang Rickert

It starts with his, and ends with hers.

"Conviction" is an aptly-named movie about an innocent man, Kenneth Waters (Sam Rockwell), who endured and lost a criminal trial for murder, and subsequent appeals. With no money (so no lawyer), his baby sister Betty Anne Waters (Hilary Swank), takes on the job - finishes high school, college, law school and passes the bar, to become his attorney. With newly-established DNA law and evidence, she is able to release him.

It only took 18 years, but Betty Anne was able to successfully set aside the wrongul conviction.

The legal system isn't all too easy on folks with modest means (my favorite line in the movie is by Abra Rice, played by the beautiful Minnie Driver - "The legal system is so f'cking inconvenient!!")

Inconvenient, yes. Not for the weak, yes.

But justice IS served at the end - and that is my favorite part of the movie.

I have practiced law for over a decade (and will likely practice for 2 more), and this is by far one of my favorite law movies of all time. It presents a naked version of the legal system - hoop-hopping, paper-pushing, and sometimes corrupt.

The many obstacles faced by Kenneth and Betty Anne can really put a damper on the legal system. But the movie ends the way it should - with justice, and teaches us that fierce determination and a strive for justice will defeat any travesty.

The movie speaks loudly to me as an attorney. I distinctly recall June 5, 2000 - the day I was sworn to practice law for the good. I took an oath to fight for justice. Without movies such as "Conviction", it is very simple to see how that message gets eroded over years of paperwork, deadlines, and procedural BS. It reminds me to look past all that - and DO GOOD.

The movie also speaks to me as a tax-paying citizen, a wife, and a mother. I loved the inspirational message of hard work overcoming any difficult circumstances. (Law school was hard for ME, and I was 21 years old, unmarried, no children AND receiving subsidies from my parents!) I am very fond of the message that ANYONE, even a poor single mom of 2 can become an attorney, and FIGHT for justice.

Finally, I loved the very real portrayal the American legal system. It can be big and scary, but you can work your butt off, and it JUST may pay off.

The title was very clever - a true double-entendre, and the movie came full circle - beginning with his conviction, ending with hers.

I've always loved my job, but damn, after seeing this movie, I gotta stand up and say, "I AM PROUD TO BE A LAWYER".

Mediation for the McCourts

Mediation scheduled in McCourt divorce case

By GREG RISLING (AP) – 4 days ago

LOS ANGELES — Divorce lawyers for Frank and Jamie McCourt are planning to go into mediation as soon as Friday over who owns the Los Angeles Dodgers, The Associated Press has learned.

A person familiar with the case who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about settlement discussions told the AP late Tuesday that the two sides would meet in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom on Friday.

The mediation talks were first reported by Yahoo! Sports.

Jamie McCourt contends that she deserves a part of the team, while Frank McCourt argues that he is the team's sole owner. Earlier this week, she testified that she didn't read a postnuptial marital agreement which gave her estranged husband sole possession of the Dodgers.

An attorney who represented the couple and drafted the agreement said he replaced an addendum that excluded the Dodgers from Frank McCourt's separate property with wording that included the team and didn't notify Jamie McCourt about the switch.

Larry Silverstein, who is expected to resume his testimony Wednesday, said he made a "drafting error" when he prepared the agreement that didn't include the Dodgers, the stadium and the surrounding land, worth hundreds of millions of dollars from Frank McCourt's side of the ledger.

When Silverstein gave the documents to the McCourts to sign in March 2004, three had the team as Frank McCourt's separate property, and three others didn't. Jamie McCourt ended up signing all six; Frank McCourt signed three at the couple's Massachusetts home and the remaining three a couple of weeks later while he was in California.

The agreement is at the center of the dispute between the McCourts and could decide who owns the Dodgers. Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon must decide whether the pact is valid. He also could order the sale of the team.

Silverstein said the original plan was to have three copies of the agreement, one each for Frank and Jamie McCourt and one for himself. However, he decided at the last minute before the couple signed them to produce three other copies out of an abundance of caution.

"I was simply trying to have a set of protective documents," he said.

Silverstein said he doesn't recall switching the versions Frank McCourt signed in California that excluded the Dodgers with wording that did include the team, but believes he did so shortly thereafter after he looked at company records.

It wasn't until a few months ago, after forensic analysts were hired by both sides to examine the six copies, that it was determined Silverstein made the changes.

Jamie McCourt's attorney David Boies asked Silverstein if he thought it was OK to switch a legal document after it had been signed and notarized.

"In certain circumstances, yes," Silverstein replied.

Boies asked his fellow litigator, who has practiced law for more than 30 years, if he ever recalled a situation where an attorney had removed part of a legal document and replaced it with something else without the written permission of both parties.

"Express permission or implicit permission, no," Silverstein added.

Silverstein said he didn't tell Jamie McCourt about replacing the addendum that gave her husband the Dodgers. On Monday, she testified she never read the agreement, nor did anyone tell her, namely Silverstein, that she would be giving up her purported ownership stake in the team.

However, another attorney who worked at the same firm as Silverstein said he was directed by Jamie McCourt to come up with the marital agreement during a meeting at Dodger Stadium shortly after the team was bought in February 2004 for about $430 million.

Reynolds Cafferata said in conversations he had with Jamie McCourt, she asked him questions about California's community property provision and told him it was a family practice to keep assets separate.

"She said 'We do things differently. I own the houses, Frank owns the businesses,'" said Cafferata, who added Jamie McCourt wanted a draft agreement created quickly. "She was interested in having this done immediately."

Gordon on Tuesday excused several witnesses from testifying at the trial, including Major League Baseball general counsel Thomas Ostertag. The trial could end early next week. Gordon then has 90 days to make a ruling.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

TEXAS: NO gay marriage; NO gay divorce

DALLAS — Gay couples legally married in other states cannot get a divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriage is banned, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled that a Dallas district court judge didn't have the authority to hear a divorce case involving two Dallas men who married in Massachusetts in 2006. Republican state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office had appealed after Judge Tena Callahan, a Democrat, said she did have jurisdiction and dismissed the state's attempt to intervene.

"Today's court of appeals decision overruled the district court's improper ruling, confirmed the constitutionality of Texas' traditional definition of marriage and correctly found that Texas courts lack the legal authority to grant divorces to same-sex couples," said Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland.

Callahan also had ruled Texas couldn't limit marriage to a man and a woman, but the appeals court said the state's same-sex marriage ban was constitutional.

"A person does not and cannot seek a divorce without simultaneously asserting the existence and validity of a lawful marriage," Justice Kerry P. Fitzgerald wrote on behalf of three Republican appeals court justices. "Texas law, as embodied in our constitution and statutes, requires that a valid marriage must be a union of one man and one woman, and only when a union comprises one man and one woman can there be a divorce under Texas law."

The appeals court ordered the case be sent back to Callahan, who must vacate her order.

The men, known only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings, separated amicably two years after getting married.

J.B.'s attorney, Peter Schulte, has said the two men had no children and weren't arguing over how to divide their property, but wanted an official divorce. Schulte said Tuesday they had not yet decided whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

"We obviously disagree with the justices' ruling, but we respect the process and respect the court," Schulte said.

Abbott's office had argued before the three-judge appeals court in April that the couple was not eligible for a divorce in Texas because the state didn't recognize their marriage. Jody Scheske, another lawyer for J.B., argued his client was entitled to a divorce because he had a valid marriage.

The appeals court agreed with Abbott that such unions could be dissolved by having the marriage declared void.

Among the reasons J.B. argued for a divorce rather than a voidance was that spousal support and community property laws only apply in divorce cases. The appeals court said those issues are policy arguments that must be addressed by the Legislature.

"It's deeply disappointing to see courts deny same-sex couples equal treatment under the law," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, which promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Texas voters passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by a 3-to-1 margin in 2005 even though state law already prohibited it. Kelly Shackelford, president of the conservative Plano-based Liberty Institute, said the Tuesday ruling "strikes down an activist judge's attempt to take the law into her own hands."

Abbott's office also appealed a gay divorce case in Austin after a judge there granted a divorce earlier this year to two women who married in Massachusetts in 2004. The Austin appeals court has not yet heard arguments in that case.

One of the women, Angelique Naylor, told The Associated Press in April, "We didn't ask for a marriage; we simply asked for the courtesy of divorce."

She referred requests for comment about Tuesday's ruling to Scheske, who also is her attorney.

E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com