Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Sham Marriage Scheme Busted in Vermont
Many sham marriages - fraudulent marriages which often lead to residency and ultimately citizenship benefits for immigrants - go undetected each year by the United States government. But sometimes sham marriage immigration schemes are uncovered, as in this recent example from Vermont, as reported in the Boston Globe, A Marriage of a Dream and a Scheme, in which case illegal immigrants (mostly,
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The 7-year itch is now the 3-year glitch
3 Year Glitch?
LONDON (Reuters) – The "three-year glitch" has replaced the "seven-year itch" as the tipping point where couples start to take each other for granted, according to a new survey.
Weight gain, stinginess, toe-nail clippings on the bathroom floor and snoring are a few of the passion-killers that have led to a swifter decline in relationships in the fast-paced 21st century, said the study commissioned by Warner Brothers to promote the release of comedy film "Hall Pass" in UK cinemas.
The survey of 2,000 British adults in steady relationships pinpointed the 36-month mark as the time when relationship stress levels peak and points to a new trend of "pink passes" and "solo" holidays away from partners and spouses that many Britons resort to in order to keep romance alive.
"Longer working hours combined with money worries are clearly taking their toll on modern relationships and we are seeing an increasing trend for solo holidays and weekends away from marriages and relationships in order to revive the romantic spark," said pollster Judi James who oversaw the survey.
The poll compared feedback from those in short-term relationships (defined as less than three years) and people who were married or in longer-term partnerships.
The findings showed that 67 percent of all of those surveyed said that small irritations which are seemingly harmless and often endearing during the first flushes of love often expand into major irritations around 36 months.
More than half of the Brits surveyed (52 percent) who were in younger relationships said they enjoyed sexual relations at least three times a week, compared to just 16 percent of those in relationships older than three years.
This suggests that as we get older together, romance gives way to day to day practicalities, supported by the fact that 55 percent of busy people in longer-term relationships admit that they now have to "schedule" their romantic time.
The report also said that those in the first flush of love can look forward to an average of three compliments a week from their partners - a figure which falls to an average of a single weekly compliment at the three-year high tide mark.
The prognosis gets worse the longer we stay in relationships, three in 10 of those surveyed that have been in a relationship for five years or more said that they never receive any compliments from their partners.
The findings also showed that more than three quarters (76 percent) of all people surveyed responded that "individual space was important" within a relationship and pointed to a rise of individual activities.
A third (34%) of those who have been seeing their partners for longer than three years have at least two evenings a month defined as a "pass" or a "ticket" where it is accepted that they can pursue their own interests and 58 percent of the same sample group enjoy regular holidays without their partners.
The top 10 everyday niggles and passion-killers:
1. Weight gain/lack of exercise, 13 percent;
2. Money & Spend thriftiness, 11 percent;
3. Anti-social working hours, 10 percent;
4. Hygiene issues (personal cleanliness), 9 percent;
5. In-Laws/extended family - too much/too little, 9 percent;
6. Lack of romance (sex, treats etc.), 8 percent;
7. Alcohol - drinking too much, 7 percent;
8. Snoring & anti social bedtime habits, 6 percent;
9. Lapsed fashion-Same old underwear/clothes, 4 percent;
10. Bathroom habits - Stray nail cuttings etc., 4 percent.
==
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Marriage Advice for William and Kate
LONDON (AP) — Prince William and fiancee Kate Middleton have another chore on their must-do pre-wedding list: Sit down with priests to think about the vows they will make.The couple are expected to meet Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Bishop of London Richard Chartres before they marry April 29, palace officials said Wednesday. Both clergy will be involved in the wedding ceremony at London's Westminster Abbey.
"It's customary for a priest to meet with the couple before their wedding," said Maria Papworth, Williams' spokeswoman.
These marriage preparation sessions include discussions on how to handle marital disagreements and how to prepare for the changes brought on by parenthood. Meetings often take place in groups, but talks for the soon-to-be royal couple will be private and strictly confidential.
The marriage of William's parents, Prince Charles and Princess Diana, ended in divorce. St. James Palace would not comment on whether they also received similar attention, but it is normal practice for a Church of England wedding.
For more marriage advice (from a divorce lawyer), see here.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Sign Here
Move over, heirs and heiresses: Baby boomers are flocking to sign prenuptial agreements, too..
New Yorkers Laura Jackson and Gary Zaremba met on a dating website in 2005. Two years later, Mr. Zaremba, a 52-year-old real-estate developer, popped the question. Ms. Jackson accepted.
Then he popped another: "Will you sign a prenuptial agreement?"
He had been through a divorce, had a college-age son and several real-estate investments. She, a publicist and also 52, had never married.
"When he first mentioned it," Ms. Jackson, now Ms. Jackson-Zaremba, says, "I thought, 'Oh, my God.' It definitely took a little bit of the romance out."
Baby boomers looking to protect their assets are increasingly turning to prenuptial agreements—legal contracts drawn up before a marriage that dictate what happens to assets in the event a couple should part ways, either by divorce or death.
"They used to be for the rich and famous," says Marlene Eskind Moses, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and a lawyer in Nashville, Tenn. "It's become more commonplace in the market as an estate-planning opportunity for boomers."
Even before the financial crisis hit, prenuptial agreements were on the rise: Some 80% of matrimonial lawyers said they had seen an increase in couples signing them in recent years, according to a 2006 survey sponsored by the matrimonial lawyers group.
The financial crisis—which hit boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, especially hard—accelerated the trend. Many of them, just on the cusp of retirement, saw their investment portfolios pounded, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 53% from Oct. 9, 2007, to March 6, 2009. Home values, which represented significant chunks of boomer net worth, were down almost 31% as of March 31 from their peak in mid-2006, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller national index.
As a result, boomers have become more anxious to hold on to whatever they have left, says Gabriel Cheong, a divorce attorney with Infinity Law Group LLC in Quincy, Mass. Today, the majority of inquiries come from boomers "concerned about protecting their assets," he says. "Not just with the markets, but with protecting their spouses and children." And they often enter a marriage with substantial assets—and children from an earlier union.
Baby boomers are more likely to get married multiple times than younger or older couples because they also are more likely to have gotten divorced. Almost 40% of boomers who have been married have gone through at least one divorce, according to 2004 Census data, the most recent available, while only about 30% of all people who have been married have been divorced. By their 50th birthday, 27% of boomers have moved on to their second or third marriage.
None of this, of course, makes discussing a prenup with one's betrothed any easier. Ms. Jackson-Zaremba and Mr. Zaremba "put the elephant on the table," he says, and disclosed everything to each other before their lawyers drafted the agreement. Though his net worth was significantly higher than hers, she had retirement savings and an annual salary she wanted to keep separate. He owned a string of properties in several states and several lighthouses he was in the process of restoring that he, too, wanted to keep separate.
Under the terms of the prenup, one investment property on Long Island's North Fork that the couple purchased would be owned 75% by Mr. Zaremba and 25% by Ms. Jackson-Zaremba. A second property on Long Island would have the same split, but after five years ownership would change to 50-50. Assets filed on a joint tax return wouldn't be considered joint assets, the agreement states, and Mr. Zaremba's name would be added to the lease on Ms. Jackson-Zaremba's New York apartment. Neither party would take on each other's debts. Ms. Jackson-Zaremba also would receive a life-insurance policy, a provision added in the drafting.
Lawyers usually recommend that couples with substantial assets—or those who expect to inherit such assets later on—consider a prenup. Without one, they are at the mercy of a smorgasbord of state laws in the event of a divorce or death. In "community property" states, such as California, marital assets are typically split 50-50. In "equitable distribution" states, judges generally look at what is "fair," so all marital property is considered before it is divided.
Such uncertainty has helped prenups gain favor as estate-planning tools. Yet they are anything but simple to execute, and prospective couples need to make sure they avoid some common traps.
Bulletproofing a Prenup
Then he popped another: "Will you sign a prenuptial agreement?"
He had been through a divorce, had a college-age son and several real-estate investments. She, a publicist and also 52, had never married.
"When he first mentioned it," Ms. Jackson, now Ms. Jackson-Zaremba, says, "I thought, 'Oh, my God.' It definitely took a little bit of the romance out."
Baby boomers looking to protect their assets are increasingly turning to prenuptial agreements—legal contracts drawn up before a marriage that dictate what happens to assets in the event a couple should part ways, either by divorce or death.
"They used to be for the rich and famous," says Marlene Eskind Moses, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and a lawyer in Nashville, Tenn. "It's become more commonplace in the market as an estate-planning opportunity for boomers."
Even before the financial crisis hit, prenuptial agreements were on the rise: Some 80% of matrimonial lawyers said they had seen an increase in couples signing them in recent years, according to a 2006 survey sponsored by the matrimonial lawyers group.
The financial crisis—which hit boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, especially hard—accelerated the trend. Many of them, just on the cusp of retirement, saw their investment portfolios pounded, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 53% from Oct. 9, 2007, to March 6, 2009. Home values, which represented significant chunks of boomer net worth, were down almost 31% as of March 31 from their peak in mid-2006, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller national index.
As a result, boomers have become more anxious to hold on to whatever they have left, says Gabriel Cheong, a divorce attorney with Infinity Law Group LLC in Quincy, Mass. Today, the majority of inquiries come from boomers "concerned about protecting their assets," he says. "Not just with the markets, but with protecting their spouses and children." And they often enter a marriage with substantial assets—and children from an earlier union.
Baby boomers are more likely to get married multiple times than younger or older couples because they also are more likely to have gotten divorced. Almost 40% of boomers who have been married have gone through at least one divorce, according to 2004 Census data, the most recent available, while only about 30% of all people who have been married have been divorced. By their 50th birthday, 27% of boomers have moved on to their second or third marriage.
None of this, of course, makes discussing a prenup with one's betrothed any easier. Ms. Jackson-Zaremba and Mr. Zaremba "put the elephant on the table," he says, and disclosed everything to each other before their lawyers drafted the agreement. Though his net worth was significantly higher than hers, she had retirement savings and an annual salary she wanted to keep separate. He owned a string of properties in several states and several lighthouses he was in the process of restoring that he, too, wanted to keep separate.
Under the terms of the prenup, one investment property on Long Island's North Fork that the couple purchased would be owned 75% by Mr. Zaremba and 25% by Ms. Jackson-Zaremba. A second property on Long Island would have the same split, but after five years ownership would change to 50-50. Assets filed on a joint tax return wouldn't be considered joint assets, the agreement states, and Mr. Zaremba's name would be added to the lease on Ms. Jackson-Zaremba's New York apartment. Neither party would take on each other's debts. Ms. Jackson-Zaremba also would receive a life-insurance policy, a provision added in the drafting.
Lawyers usually recommend that couples with substantial assets—or those who expect to inherit such assets later on—consider a prenup. Without one, they are at the mercy of a smorgasbord of state laws in the event of a divorce or death. In "community property" states, such as California, marital assets are typically split 50-50. In "equitable distribution" states, judges generally look at what is "fair," so all marital property is considered before it is divided.
Such uncertainty has helped prenups gain favor as estate-planning tools. Yet they are anything but simple to execute, and prospective couples need to make sure they avoid some common traps.
Bulletproofing a Prenup
The drafting of a prenuptial agreement, and the discussion surrounding it, should begin several months before the wedding date. If the signing terms of a prenup are later deemed rushed or ill-informed, a court can choose not to enforce the contract. Prenups are contracts, after all, and lawyers rely on decades of case law for guidance in drafting them. That has made the documents more complicated.
There still isn't any guarantee that the agreement would be bulletproof from future challenges by a former spouse, says Gary Skoloff, a family lawyer with Skoloff & Wolfe in Livingston, N.J. "A lawyer can no more guarantee that a prenup is enforced than a doctor can guarantee the result of a surgery," he says. Having each party represented by a lawyer generally decreases the likelihood that a judge might deem a prenup unfit, experts say.
Still, there are some general rules that experts say will help the document hold up in court. When drafting a prenup, lawyers generally divide goods into two major pools: assets created before the marriage and assets created during the marriage. In addition to assets, responsibility for paying off debts incurred both before and during the marriage can be divided in a prenup.
Some older prenups cited fixed-dollar amounts. That made it easier to contest them, as inflation eroded the value of many assets or, conversely, as some assets, such as real estate, saw their value sharply increase. Lawyers now prefer to disclose the ownership stake—and, when possible, the value—of all assets for transparency, but also to address how appreciation of assets or new contributions will be divided.
One of the biggest mistakes you can make is trying to hide assets. "The worst thing you can do is play games," Mr. Skoloff says, "because then you've lost credibility with your spouse. And a judge."
Another rule of thumb: A prenup can't contain anything that violates a state's laws or public policy. In Florida, for example, any kind of debt incurred before a marriage—regardless of what a prenup says—is considered a nonmarital debt, so it wouldn't transfer over to a spouse, says Mitchell Karpf, a marital and family lawyer with Young, Berman, Karpf & Gonzalez in North Miami Beach, Fla. Some couples do choose to insert sunset provisions, so that the prenup expires after a certain number of years of marriage.
Doctors, lawyers, members of a family business or others who have a shared practice may suggest their peers draft prenups to ensure a spouse can't take income from the business. Conversely, a spouse who contributes to a business might want to ensure that their work is compensated.
The Next Generation
There still isn't any guarantee that the agreement would be bulletproof from future challenges by a former spouse, says Gary Skoloff, a family lawyer with Skoloff & Wolfe in Livingston, N.J. "A lawyer can no more guarantee that a prenup is enforced than a doctor can guarantee the result of a surgery," he says. Having each party represented by a lawyer generally decreases the likelihood that a judge might deem a prenup unfit, experts say.
Still, there are some general rules that experts say will help the document hold up in court. When drafting a prenup, lawyers generally divide goods into two major pools: assets created before the marriage and assets created during the marriage. In addition to assets, responsibility for paying off debts incurred both before and during the marriage can be divided in a prenup.
Some older prenups cited fixed-dollar amounts. That made it easier to contest them, as inflation eroded the value of many assets or, conversely, as some assets, such as real estate, saw their value sharply increase. Lawyers now prefer to disclose the ownership stake—and, when possible, the value—of all assets for transparency, but also to address how appreciation of assets or new contributions will be divided.
One of the biggest mistakes you can make is trying to hide assets. "The worst thing you can do is play games," Mr. Skoloff says, "because then you've lost credibility with your spouse. And a judge."
Another rule of thumb: A prenup can't contain anything that violates a state's laws or public policy. In Florida, for example, any kind of debt incurred before a marriage—regardless of what a prenup says—is considered a nonmarital debt, so it wouldn't transfer over to a spouse, says Mitchell Karpf, a marital and family lawyer with Young, Berman, Karpf & Gonzalez in North Miami Beach, Fla. Some couples do choose to insert sunset provisions, so that the prenup expires after a certain number of years of marriage.
Doctors, lawyers, members of a family business or others who have a shared practice may suggest their peers draft prenups to ensure a spouse can't take income from the business. Conversely, a spouse who contributes to a business might want to ensure that their work is compensated.
The Next Generation
Tanya Porter, 60, and her husband, Darrell, 72, signed a prenup when they were married 27 years ago for one overriding purpose: to ensure their assets would go to their children from previous marriages in the event of a divorce or death. Today, many things in the agreement are moot, with stocks sold, cars long since traded in and kids all grown up. "It's funny now to reread it," says Ms. Porter, now a full-time wedding planner in Englewood, Colo.
In recent years, as more couples have drafted prenups, the documents have expanded to spell out terms of the marriage itself, addressing issues such as adultery, intimacy or weight gain, Ms. Moses says. Some prenups also determine things like what religion children will be raised as, or where they will attend school. However, child-support and custody agreements typically aren't included in prenups because those are to be determined separately by the courts.
Because prenups are general legal contracts, same-sex couples may be able to draft financial agreements, even if their state doesn't legally recognize the union, she says. "People are free to contract," Ms. Moses says.
Some baby boomers, anxious about how their assets will be passed on, are even requiring their children to consider prenups, says Daniel E. Clement, a divorce lawyer in New York. Typically, younger couples just starting out with equal assets wouldn't need one. But if a spouse has wealth such as a trust or inheritance they either intend to give or receive, a prenup might make sense.
"When they hand that money down, they want to make sure it's not lost on an heir's spouse when they want to give it to the heir," Mr. Clement says. "I think people are more cognizant that money can be there today, gone tomorrow in a flash."
Another concern for many couples: how inheritances are spent. A spouse's inheritance may belong only to that spouse, but if it is spent toward a home that both live in, it could be considered joint property. Couples can use a prenup to clearly spell out ownership stakes.
Melissa Brides and her husband Aaron Ockman of Santa Monica, Calif., decided that a prenup wasn't in order, even after his parents suggested one. Although taken aback, Ms. Brides—herself a child of divorce—says she "understood why they were asking." The two 34-year-olds have roughly the same net worth, but Mr. Ockman co-owns an apartment building with his parents.
Even though the couple finally decided against getting a prenup, having the discussion was beneficial. Mr. Ockman's parents drafted a separate agreement among the three family members stipulating what share of the property Mr. Ockman owns in the event the building is sold.
As for the Jackson-Zarembas, their prenuptial agreement was written to sunset after 15 years. It was signed on July 11, 2008. The couple was wed the next day and have been happily married ever since.
"Sometimes," Mr. Zaremba says, "the best contracts are the ones you don't have to use."
I Do's and I Dont's
Some pointers on what and what not to do when considering a prenuptial agreement:
Do
- Have each party represented by a lawyer
- Start talking about and drafting the agreement several months before the wedding
- Consider enlisting the help of a marriage counselor, financial planner or accountant.
- Research whether an additional waiver is needed for a workplace retirement plan.
In recent years, as more couples have drafted prenups, the documents have expanded to spell out terms of the marriage itself, addressing issues such as adultery, intimacy or weight gain, Ms. Moses says. Some prenups also determine things like what religion children will be raised as, or where they will attend school. However, child-support and custody agreements typically aren't included in prenups because those are to be determined separately by the courts.
Because prenups are general legal contracts, same-sex couples may be able to draft financial agreements, even if their state doesn't legally recognize the union, she says. "People are free to contract," Ms. Moses says.
Some baby boomers, anxious about how their assets will be passed on, are even requiring their children to consider prenups, says Daniel E. Clement, a divorce lawyer in New York. Typically, younger couples just starting out with equal assets wouldn't need one. But if a spouse has wealth such as a trust or inheritance they either intend to give or receive, a prenup might make sense.
"When they hand that money down, they want to make sure it's not lost on an heir's spouse when they want to give it to the heir," Mr. Clement says. "I think people are more cognizant that money can be there today, gone tomorrow in a flash."
Another concern for many couples: how inheritances are spent. A spouse's inheritance may belong only to that spouse, but if it is spent toward a home that both live in, it could be considered joint property. Couples can use a prenup to clearly spell out ownership stakes.
Melissa Brides and her husband Aaron Ockman of Santa Monica, Calif., decided that a prenup wasn't in order, even after his parents suggested one. Although taken aback, Ms. Brides—herself a child of divorce—says she "understood why they were asking." The two 34-year-olds have roughly the same net worth, but Mr. Ockman co-owns an apartment building with his parents.
Even though the couple finally decided against getting a prenup, having the discussion was beneficial. Mr. Ockman's parents drafted a separate agreement among the three family members stipulating what share of the property Mr. Ockman owns in the event the building is sold.
As for the Jackson-Zarembas, their prenuptial agreement was written to sunset after 15 years. It was signed on July 11, 2008. The couple was wed the next day and have been happily married ever since.
"Sometimes," Mr. Zaremba says, "the best contracts are the ones you don't have to use."
I Do's and I Dont's
Some pointers on what and what not to do when considering a prenuptial agreement:
Do
- Have each party represented by a lawyer
- Start talking about and drafting the agreement several months before the wedding
- Consider enlisting the help of a marriage counselor, financial planner or accountant.
- Research whether an additional waiver is needed for a workplace retirement plan.
Don't
- Hide any assets from a future spouse.
- Forget to assign responsibility for joint and separate debts, if applicable.
- Include things that could violate state laws, such as child-support payments.
- Use a prenup as a substitute for a will or estate plan.
- Hide any assets from a future spouse.
- Forget to assign responsibility for joint and separate debts, if applicable.
- Include things that could violate state laws, such as child-support payments.
- Use a prenup as a substitute for a will or estate plan.
"The prenup changed me," she says. "I became more assertive." Most of all, she finds it much easier, both professionally and personally, to discuss money.
Write to Mary Pilon at mary.pilon@wsj.com
Write to Mary Pilon at mary.pilon@wsj.com
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Divorce: Why the big breakup in China?
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Divorce in China was once frowned upon
- In today's China, some 4,500 couples split up every day
- Psychiatrist: Divorce on the rise because of social, economic changes
- Another reason for increase in divorce: Changes to regulations make it easier to split
"Jaime's China" is a weekly column about Chinese society and politics. Jaime FlorCruz has lived and worked in China since 1971. He studied Chinese history at Peking University (1977-81) and served as TIME Magazine's Beijing correspondent and bureau chief (1982-2000).
Beijing, China (CNN) -- There was hardly any confusion about marriage and family life in old China. Traditional Chinese culture frowned on divorce. An ancient proverb admonishes newlyweds: "You are married until your hair turns white."
In practice, of course, men played a more dominant role in Chinese families and got away with most things, including marital dalliances. It was shameful for women to marry more than once while it was easy for men to take one or more concubines.
But the times are changing in modern China. The economic miracle that followed the country's opening to the outside world after 1979 has dramatically changed social mores --- and getting divorced no longer carries the social stigma it once did.
In today's China, some 4,500 couples split up every day. More than 2.46 million couples divorced in the country last year -- nearly twice the number in 2001.
See more of CNN's special coverage of China
"The rise in divorce rate is expected because China over the years has been going through drastic social and economic changes," said Xu Haoyuan, a U.S.-trained psychiatrist who offers marital counseling on a Beijing radio hotline. "Views on sex and marriage have swung from one extreme to another -- from the extremely puritanical to the free-wheeling."
So, why are couples in China splitting up? Experts have many explanations, but a key reason was the revision in 2003 of the marriage registration regulation, making it easier to divorce.
Before the change, couples seeking a divorce were required to get letters from their work units or neighborhood committees that explained and endorsed their reasons for breaking up.
Those who did not want to be subjected to lectures, gossips and shame opted to stay miserably married. Under the new rules, if couples are not fighting over property rights or child custody, they can get their divorce in minutes.
Other reasons for the spike in divorce: increased social mobility, especially the relaxation of the "hukou," or household registration system, that has accelerated internal migration; the one-child policy, some negative effects of rapid economic growth on peoples' values, and the dramatic change in the status of women.
Ideologues blame it on fickleness that comes from social-climbing, gold-digging, unsatisfied sexual or romantic desire. Still others attribute it to indiscriminate adoption of Western values and "bourgeois ideas" of materialism and egotism.
Not surprisingly, marriage counselors find that a common cause of Chinese divorces is marital infidelity, euphemistically referred to as "di san zhe," or "a third party."
"Extra marital relations are quite common nowadays," said the psychiatrist Xu. "Almost every couple who call in say they have extramarital relations. People are confused about what is right and what is wrong."
For four years, one of my friends had carried on a long-distance marriage with his wife. He worked in Beijing as a producer of movies and TV programs, while his wife chose to stay in her native Shanghai, where she worked as a white-collar employee in a trading company.
Not long ago, my friend found a girlfriend -- a young Beijing native. When his wife learned about it, she demanded a divorce. They parted ways amicably.
In some regions in China, the reasons for divorce have nothing to do with the romantic relationship: some people, wanting to take advantage of government programs, have entered into fake divorces.
For example, many property-hungry couples in Shanghai were found forging divorce documents in early October in order to circumvent a new government regulation. To curb speculation and cool the red-hot Shanghai property market, the local government recently issued new rules limiting families to buying one additional home per family. By faking divorce, couples hoped to buy as many as four homes instead of two, according to the Chongqing Business Newspaper.
In the past, marriage in China was mainly an economic arrangement where women were dependent on husbands and relegated to the role of breeder and nurturer.
Chinese women are now achieving higher economic and social status. These changes transform marriage into a mutually satisfying partnership.
Many Chinese now put a premium on love, mutual affection, compatibility and sexual equality.
All things considered, I see rising divorce rates in China in a positive light.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Should You Say "I Do" To Divorce Insurance?
SHOULD YOU SAY "I DO" TO DIVORCE INSURANCE?
BY STACY JOHNSON
First there was wedding insurance: we’ve explained it several times in the past, most recently a couple of months ago. That’s insurance that’s supposed to protect your wedding day – money you’d receive to reimburse you for lost deposits and other expenses in the event your wedding is canceled due to a death in the family, dangerous weather, military service or other unforeseen circumstances.
Now, apparently for the first time, there’s divorce insurance.
A North Carolina insurance startup called SafeGuard Guaranty Corporation has begun selling policies under the name WedLock (shouldn’t that be wed-unlock?). It charges $16 a month for a single “unit” of coverage, which equals $1,250. You can buy additional units for $16 a month – and keep going right up to 200 units, or $250,000 of coverage. The company adds $250 of coverage every year per unit.
What do you get for that? A cash benefit that will ease the financial burden of your divorce. According to divorce360, attorney’s fees alone can run as high as $45,000 for contentious divorces in urban areas like Los Angeles. With the divorce rate between 40 and 50 percent, SafeGuard might feel like a safe bet.
Cashing in your policy is as simple as mailing your divorce documents to SafeGuard. But lest you think you can quickly take out a policy as your marriage is hitting the rocks, note this huge caveat: Policies don’t mature until 48 months after their effective date. (If you want to include a rider for what they call an accelerated maturity, you can reduce that time period to 36 months – but that will hike your monthly premium from $16 to $30 per unit)
The policies aren’t backed by any state insurance or other government fund – only by the company that’s actually doing the underwriting the policies for Safeguard, Prime Insurance. If Prime goes down the tubes, your premiums go with them.
Wedding insurance vs. divorce insurance
While wedding insurance may be overkill in terms of cost vs. benefit, depending on the parties involved, it could be justified. It only costs a couple of hundred bucks and protects what could add up to thousands in lost deposits. And it only applies to one special day.
I’m less sanguine regarding divorce insurance. This type of insurance seems fundamentally flawed both financially and emotionally.
Financially, you’re paying $192 every year for $1,250 of benefit – and you have to pay four year’s worth, or $768, before you’re even eligible to collect. Would investing that money be more rewarding? Let’s do a comparison.
According to this financial calculator, if you invest $192 every year for five years and earn 10 percent compounded monthly, you’ll end up with – surprise! – about $1,250. That’s the same amount WedLock promises as your starting benefit. Granted, earning 10 percent is no simple feat. But it’s certainly possible. Witness our online stock portfolio.
Now let’s consider a Wedlock policy. If you pay WedLock the same $192 every year for five years, upon divorce you’ll get $2,250 ($1,250 plus 4 years of the extra $250). That’s a lot more than the $1,250 you’d get saving on your own. But you have to get divorced to get it.
If you’re saving on your own, you can stop whenever you want. If you’re paying for a WedLock policy, best you keep the premiums up, or your policy will lapse and you’ll end up with nothing.
Speaking of ending up with nothing, what if you get divorced in, say, two years? According to company CEO John Logan, you can purchase a “return of premium rider” for an extra $2 per unit that will refund any premiums you’ve paid in – less the state tax paid by the underwriter – if you get divorced in less than four years.
If you’re saving on your own, you can stop whenever you want. If you’re paying for a WedLock policy, best you keep the premiums up, or your policy will lapse and you’ll end up with nothing.
Speaking of ending up with nothing, what if you get divorced in, say, two years? According to company CEO John Logan, you can purchase a “return of premium rider” for an extra $2 per unit that will refund any premiums you’ve paid in – less the state tax paid by the underwriter – if you get divorced in less than four years.
Now let’s consider the emotional angle of this type of insurance. When I talked to John Logan, here’s what he said about his new invention:
“We know we can’t build a dam and stop divorce from happening. But we’d at least like to put our finger in the dike to stop the crack in the foundation of marriage from getting bigger.”
Mixed metaphors aside, this seems exceedingly odd language coming from a company selling a product whose only value springs from divorce. Imagine you buy 10 units, pay premiums of $1,920/year, year after year, creating a larger and larger potential benefit. But the only way to access it is get divorced.
Mixed metaphors aside, this seems exceedingly odd language coming from a company selling a product whose only value springs from divorce. Imagine you buy 10 units, pay premiums of $1,920/year, year after year, creating a larger and larger potential benefit. But the only way to access it is get divorced.
You may not be willing to kill your spouse for a $100,000 life insurance benefit, but how much of a benefit would it take for you to divorce your spouse? $50,000? $100,000? $200,000? Every couple would have their price. After all, you could always collect the dough and get remarried.
So if everyone gets divorce insurance, then ultimately wouldn’t everyone – except perhaps the super-rich – get divorced just to get their money?
So if everyone gets divorce insurance, then ultimately wouldn’t everyone – except perhaps the super-rich – get divorced just to get their money?
Of course, most people probably won’t get that close. Could you approach your spouse with, “Say, sweetheart, take a look at this website, doesn’t this look like a good idea?” Nobody suggesting divorce insurance to their spouse is going to be married for four more years. Nor is anyone who keeps that kind of financial secret from their spouse.
I asked John if he’s ever been divorced. He has – once. He added, however, that he’s currently engaged and looking forward to his second time out. Is he buying divorce insurance? Nope. As it happens, in North Carolina, where both John and WedLock reside, state insurance regulations make his product prohibitively expensive.
Like this article? Subscribe to our free email updates and we’ll send you a downloadable copy of Stacy Johnson’s ’205 Ways to Save Money’ as our gift. Click here to subscribe now!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Un-Divorced
The Un-Divorced
By PAMELA PAUL
Published: July 30, 2010
Published: July 30, 2010
JOHN FROST and his wife had been unhappily married for much of their 25 years together when his company relocated him in 2000. So when he moved from Virginia to Knoxville, Tenn., he left her behind.
At first, it wasn’t clear what would happen next. Would she follow him? Or would they end up divorced?
The answer: neither. “After a few months,” Mr. Frost said, “we both realized we liked it this way.”
Technically, the two are married. They file joint tax returns; she’s covered by his insurance. But they see each other just several times a year. “Since separating we get along better than we ever have,” he said. “It’s kind of nice.”
And at 58, he sees no reason to divorce. Their children have grown and left home. He asked himself: Why bring in a bunch of lawyers? Why create rancor when there’s nowhere to go but down?
“To tie a bow around it would only make it uglier,” Mr. Frost said. “When people ask about my relationship status, I usually just say: ‘It’s complicated. I like my wife, I just can’t live with her.’ ”
The term “trial separation” conjures a swift purgatory, something ducked into regretfully and escaped from with due speed, even if into that most conclusive of relationships, divorce. We understand the expeditious voyage from separation to divorce, the desire for a clear-cut ending that makes way for a clear-cut beginning. We hardly look askance at the miserably married or the exes who hurl epithets in divorce court.
But couples who stubbornly remain separated, sometimes for years? That leaves us dumbfounded. “I see it all the time,” said Lynne Gold-Bikin, a divorce lawyer in Norristown, Pa., who is the chairman of the family law department at Weber Gallagher. She can cite a docket of cases of endless separation.
With one couple separated since 1989, the wife’s perspective was, “We still get invited as Mr. and Mrs., we go to functions together, he still sends me cards,” Ms. Gold-Bikin said. As for the husband, “He cared for her, he just didn’t want to live with her.”
But at his girlfriend’s urging, he finally initiated divorce proceedings. Then he became ill and she began taking over his finances — a bit too wifelike for him. “He said, enough of this, there’s no reason to get divorced,” Ms. Gold-Bikin recalled.
Among those who seem to have reached a similar conclusion is Warren Buffett, the wealthy chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Mr. Buffett separated from his wife, Susan, in 1977 but remained married to her until her death in 2004. All the while, he lived with Astrid Menks; they married in 2006. The threesome remained close, even sending out holiday cards signed, “Warren, Susan and Astrid.”
Also in the ranks of the un-divorced: the artist Willem de Kooning had been separated from his wife for 34 years when she died in 1989. Jann and Jane Wenner separated in 1995 after 28 years but are still married, despite Mr. Wenner’s romantic relationship with a man.
Society is full of whispered scenarios in which spouses live apart, in different homes or in the same mega-apartment in order to silence gossip, avoid ugly divorce battles and maintain the status quo, however uneasy. In certain cases, the world assumes a couple is divorced and never learns otherwise until an obituary puts the record straight.
Separations are usually de facto, rarely pounded out in a contract, and family law is different state to state. But even long-estranged couples are irrefutably bound by contractual links on issues like taxes, pensions, Social Security and health care.
Divorce lawyers and marriage therapists say that for most couples, the motivation to remain married is financial. According to federal law, an ex qualifies for a share of a spouse’s Social Security payment if the marriage lasts a decade. In the case of more amicable divorces, financial advisers and lawyers may urge a couple who have been married eight years to wait until the dependent spouse qualifies.
For others, a separation agreement may be negotiated so that a spouse keeps the other’s insurance until he or she is old enough for Medicare. If one person has an existing condition, obtaining affordable health care coverage is often difficult or impossible. The recession, with its real estate lows and health care expense highs, adds incentives to separate indefinitely.
Four years ago, Peggy Sanchez, 50, a Midwest resident, parted amicably from her husband, who has fibromyalgia.
“He would not get medical treatment if he weren’t on my insurance,” she said, and giving him that is less expensive than paying alimony. “Besides, I care about him and want to make sure he gets the medical help he needs,” she said.
There are still sticky issues: Ms. Sanchez’s boyfriend is unaware that she’s still married. Her daughter from a previous marriage views her husband as a father figure. And he got custody of the family dog. But Ms. Sanchez plans to stay separated.
“I don’t have much desire to remarry so there’s no benefit to me from divorce,” she said. “I guess that sounds pretty jaded, but it’s just not as important as it used to be.”
Sharon O’Neill, a marriage therapist in Mount Kisco, N.Y., has seen four cases in the last two years in which couples separated but stayed in the same home. In a depressed market, couples may not want to sell a house they purchased at the market’s height, or one party can’t maintain the mortgage or the other can’t afford a new home.
“The financial collapse has made people say, ‘Let’s not rush into a divorce, let’s see if we can make something else work,’ ” Ms. O’Neill said.
The added value of marriage is also hard to kick.
“Many people I’ve worked with over time enjoy the benefits of being married: the financial perks, the tax breaks, the health care coverage,” said Toni Coleman, a couples therapist in McLean, Va. “They maintain a friendship, they co-parent their kids, they may do things socially together. Sometimes they’re part of a political couple in Washington or have prominent corporate positions. But they just feel they can’t live together.”
What Ms. Coleman finds surprising is that the primary consideration is practical and financial, not familial. The effect of endless separations on the children rarely seems a priority.
“People split up and have these God-awful joint custody arrangements, so you would think that they stay separated for the kids’ sake, but I’m not seeing that,” she said. “It usually comes down to money.”
Others believe separation is easier on the children than is divorce. A 48-year-old social worker from Brooklyn, separated eight years, traded places with her husband in the same home, so that their children would not have to shuttle from one home to the other. The couple had an apartment where each would live when not at the family home.
“In hindsight, it was probably more confusing for the kids,” she said. “But we did it with their best interests in mind.”
But long-term separation can create big problems. If a couple isn’t divorced, their lives are still legally and financially intertwined. If your estranged husband goes on a spending spree, you’re responsible for the ensuing credit card debt. If you win the lottery, that’s community property. Finances can swing wildly, creating an alimony boon or a bombshell should one partner eventually want a divorce.
“I just had a situation where after 15 years of separation, the wife wanted to remarry,” said Elizabeth Lindsey, an Atlanta divorce lawyer. “But over the years, his assets had completely dissipated.” The wife would have profited from divorcing earlier.
A separation can also go on longer than anyone anticipated, even until death, leaving a mess for survivors. In New York State, for example, a spouse, even if separated, is entitled to a third of the partner’s estate.
There’s also the risk that you could lose track of your erstwhile partner altogether. “We see cases, usually with foreign nationals, where the husband goes back to the Philippines, and the wife wants to marry James but she’s still married to Ted,” said Steve Mindel, a managing partner at the Los Angeles law firm Feinberg Mindel Brandt & Klein. Judges now often require that a professional be hired to locate the spouse, to facilitate the divorce.
BUT more often than not, a delayed divorce simply reflects inertia. Celeste Liversidge, a divorce lawyer in Los Angeles, most frequently sees people who are avoiding an unpleasant task.
“It’s often so ugly,” she said. “People get to a point where they can’t live with each other but going through the divorce process is too painful.” A six-month separation turns into years.
One woman, a 39-year-old mother of two from Brooklyn, who like many interviewed for this article wished to remain anonymous, has stayed separated for nearly two years at the suggestion of five lawyers.
“There’s no advantage to getting divorced,” she said. Both she and her husband are in new relationships. Most people assume they’ve officially split. But given the health insurance issue and the prospect of legal fees, she said, “I feel like we could just drift on like this for years.”
Not being divorced is also an excuse not to remarry.
“In my day, we’d refer to a man as a bon vivant, a gadabout who doesn’t want to worry about marrying anyone else because he’s already married,” said Sheila Riesel, a New York divorce lawyer for more than three decades.
In the end, some people just don’t want to divorce. Perhaps one spouse desires it and the other drags his or her feet. Sometimes, people are just confused; separation can be a wake-up call.
In other cases, initiating divorce ultimately serves that purpose. Last year, a 67-year-old professor in New York filed for divorce from the man she married in 1969 and separated from in 1988 after she had an affair with a woman.
“I had images of Vita Sackville-West, but it was very messy and the children suffered a lot,” she recalled. “My husband had been more attached to me than I thought.”
And she considered him a pal; they even took vacations together. “I think I liked that we were still married in some way,” she admitted. “But last year I met someone who minds that I’m still married to someone else.”
And thus, time to divorce. Call it an old-fashioned romance.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 1, 2010, on page ST1 of the New York edition.
At first, it wasn’t clear what would happen next. Would she follow him? Or would they end up divorced?
The answer: neither. “After a few months,” Mr. Frost said, “we both realized we liked it this way.”
Technically, the two are married. They file joint tax returns; she’s covered by his insurance. But they see each other just several times a year. “Since separating we get along better than we ever have,” he said. “It’s kind of nice.”
And at 58, he sees no reason to divorce. Their children have grown and left home. He asked himself: Why bring in a bunch of lawyers? Why create rancor when there’s nowhere to go but down?
“To tie a bow around it would only make it uglier,” Mr. Frost said. “When people ask about my relationship status, I usually just say: ‘It’s complicated. I like my wife, I just can’t live with her.’ ”
The term “trial separation” conjures a swift purgatory, something ducked into regretfully and escaped from with due speed, even if into that most conclusive of relationships, divorce. We understand the expeditious voyage from separation to divorce, the desire for a clear-cut ending that makes way for a clear-cut beginning. We hardly look askance at the miserably married or the exes who hurl epithets in divorce court.
But couples who stubbornly remain separated, sometimes for years? That leaves us dumbfounded. “I see it all the time,” said Lynne Gold-Bikin, a divorce lawyer in Norristown, Pa., who is the chairman of the family law department at Weber Gallagher. She can cite a docket of cases of endless separation.
With one couple separated since 1989, the wife’s perspective was, “We still get invited as Mr. and Mrs., we go to functions together, he still sends me cards,” Ms. Gold-Bikin said. As for the husband, “He cared for her, he just didn’t want to live with her.”
But at his girlfriend’s urging, he finally initiated divorce proceedings. Then he became ill and she began taking over his finances — a bit too wifelike for him. “He said, enough of this, there’s no reason to get divorced,” Ms. Gold-Bikin recalled.
Among those who seem to have reached a similar conclusion is Warren Buffett, the wealthy chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Mr. Buffett separated from his wife, Susan, in 1977 but remained married to her until her death in 2004. All the while, he lived with Astrid Menks; they married in 2006. The threesome remained close, even sending out holiday cards signed, “Warren, Susan and Astrid.”
Also in the ranks of the un-divorced: the artist Willem de Kooning had been separated from his wife for 34 years when she died in 1989. Jann and Jane Wenner separated in 1995 after 28 years but are still married, despite Mr. Wenner’s romantic relationship with a man.
Society is full of whispered scenarios in which spouses live apart, in different homes or in the same mega-apartment in order to silence gossip, avoid ugly divorce battles and maintain the status quo, however uneasy. In certain cases, the world assumes a couple is divorced and never learns otherwise until an obituary puts the record straight.
Separations are usually de facto, rarely pounded out in a contract, and family law is different state to state. But even long-estranged couples are irrefutably bound by contractual links on issues like taxes, pensions, Social Security and health care.
Divorce lawyers and marriage therapists say that for most couples, the motivation to remain married is financial. According to federal law, an ex qualifies for a share of a spouse’s Social Security payment if the marriage lasts a decade. In the case of more amicable divorces, financial advisers and lawyers may urge a couple who have been married eight years to wait until the dependent spouse qualifies.
For others, a separation agreement may be negotiated so that a spouse keeps the other’s insurance until he or she is old enough for Medicare. If one person has an existing condition, obtaining affordable health care coverage is often difficult or impossible. The recession, with its real estate lows and health care expense highs, adds incentives to separate indefinitely.
Four years ago, Peggy Sanchez, 50, a Midwest resident, parted amicably from her husband, who has fibromyalgia.
“He would not get medical treatment if he weren’t on my insurance,” she said, and giving him that is less expensive than paying alimony. “Besides, I care about him and want to make sure he gets the medical help he needs,” she said.
There are still sticky issues: Ms. Sanchez’s boyfriend is unaware that she’s still married. Her daughter from a previous marriage views her husband as a father figure. And he got custody of the family dog. But Ms. Sanchez plans to stay separated.
“I don’t have much desire to remarry so there’s no benefit to me from divorce,” she said. “I guess that sounds pretty jaded, but it’s just not as important as it used to be.”
Sharon O’Neill, a marriage therapist in Mount Kisco, N.Y., has seen four cases in the last two years in which couples separated but stayed in the same home. In a depressed market, couples may not want to sell a house they purchased at the market’s height, or one party can’t maintain the mortgage or the other can’t afford a new home.
“The financial collapse has made people say, ‘Let’s not rush into a divorce, let’s see if we can make something else work,’ ” Ms. O’Neill said.
The added value of marriage is also hard to kick.
“Many people I’ve worked with over time enjoy the benefits of being married: the financial perks, the tax breaks, the health care coverage,” said Toni Coleman, a couples therapist in McLean, Va. “They maintain a friendship, they co-parent their kids, they may do things socially together. Sometimes they’re part of a political couple in Washington or have prominent corporate positions. But they just feel they can’t live together.”
What Ms. Coleman finds surprising is that the primary consideration is practical and financial, not familial. The effect of endless separations on the children rarely seems a priority.
“People split up and have these God-awful joint custody arrangements, so you would think that they stay separated for the kids’ sake, but I’m not seeing that,” she said. “It usually comes down to money.”
Others believe separation is easier on the children than is divorce. A 48-year-old social worker from Brooklyn, separated eight years, traded places with her husband in the same home, so that their children would not have to shuttle from one home to the other. The couple had an apartment where each would live when not at the family home.
“In hindsight, it was probably more confusing for the kids,” she said. “But we did it with their best interests in mind.”
But long-term separation can create big problems. If a couple isn’t divorced, their lives are still legally and financially intertwined. If your estranged husband goes on a spending spree, you’re responsible for the ensuing credit card debt. If you win the lottery, that’s community property. Finances can swing wildly, creating an alimony boon or a bombshell should one partner eventually want a divorce.
“I just had a situation where after 15 years of separation, the wife wanted to remarry,” said Elizabeth Lindsey, an Atlanta divorce lawyer. “But over the years, his assets had completely dissipated.” The wife would have profited from divorcing earlier.
A separation can also go on longer than anyone anticipated, even until death, leaving a mess for survivors. In New York State, for example, a spouse, even if separated, is entitled to a third of the partner’s estate.
There’s also the risk that you could lose track of your erstwhile partner altogether. “We see cases, usually with foreign nationals, where the husband goes back to the Philippines, and the wife wants to marry James but she’s still married to Ted,” said Steve Mindel, a managing partner at the Los Angeles law firm Feinberg Mindel Brandt & Klein. Judges now often require that a professional be hired to locate the spouse, to facilitate the divorce.
BUT more often than not, a delayed divorce simply reflects inertia. Celeste Liversidge, a divorce lawyer in Los Angeles, most frequently sees people who are avoiding an unpleasant task.
“It’s often so ugly,” she said. “People get to a point where they can’t live with each other but going through the divorce process is too painful.” A six-month separation turns into years.
One woman, a 39-year-old mother of two from Brooklyn, who like many interviewed for this article wished to remain anonymous, has stayed separated for nearly two years at the suggestion of five lawyers.
“There’s no advantage to getting divorced,” she said. Both she and her husband are in new relationships. Most people assume they’ve officially split. But given the health insurance issue and the prospect of legal fees, she said, “I feel like we could just drift on like this for years.”
Not being divorced is also an excuse not to remarry.
“In my day, we’d refer to a man as a bon vivant, a gadabout who doesn’t want to worry about marrying anyone else because he’s already married,” said Sheila Riesel, a New York divorce lawyer for more than three decades.
In the end, some people just don’t want to divorce. Perhaps one spouse desires it and the other drags his or her feet. Sometimes, people are just confused; separation can be a wake-up call.
In other cases, initiating divorce ultimately serves that purpose. Last year, a 67-year-old professor in New York filed for divorce from the man she married in 1969 and separated from in 1988 after she had an affair with a woman.
“I had images of Vita Sackville-West, but it was very messy and the children suffered a lot,” she recalled. “My husband had been more attached to me than I thought.”
And she considered him a pal; they even took vacations together. “I think I liked that we were still married in some way,” she admitted. “But last year I met someone who minds that I’m still married to someone else.”
And thus, time to divorce. Call it an old-fashioned romance.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 1, 2010, on page ST1 of the New York edition.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Douglas is being sued by his ex-wife, Diandra Douglas, who is claiming that she is entitled to 50 percent of his earnings from the upcoming 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' as part of her divorce settlement from the actor, according to the New York Post. Michael and Diandra divorced in 2000, and he is currently married to actress Catherine Zeta-Jones, with whom he has two children, Dylan, 9, and Carys, 7.
If it seems strange that Diandra would be seeking her share of her ex-husband's salary for a movie he made a decade after their divorce was finalized ... well, it is. The suit appears to hinge on a clause in Michael and Diandra's divorce settlement that entitles her to 50 percent of any earnings Michael receives from any movies he did -- including residuals, merchandising and ancillary rights -- during their 23-year marriage. According to Diandra's lawyers, that provision includes any "spinoffs" of Douglas' movies.
The 1987 smash 'Wall Street' -- for which Michael won the Best Actor Oscar for his classic turn as Gordon Gekko -- was released during their marriage, and with the sequel set to hit theaters in September, Diandra is ramping up her case. "It's the same character, the same title, just years later," her lawyer, Nancy Chemtob, told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper at a hearing last Wednesday.Marilyn Chinitz, Michael's lawyer, however, simply thinks this is a case of life imitating art, with Diandra taking the famed Gordon Gekko line "greed is good" to heart.
"He doesn't want her to be an albatross around his neck forever," Chinitz said.
Michael and Diandra's divorce remains one of the costliest in Hollywood history. The pair's split was bitter, to say the least, with Diandra accusing Michael of sex and alcohol addiction and multiple infidelities. In 2007, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the 10 most expensive celebrity divorces and listed the Douglases' at number eight. Diandra walked away with an estimated $45 million and the couple's homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca.
Michael's legal team is seeking to have the case dismissed, arguing that the suit should never have been filed in New York in the first place, as the couple's divorce was finalized in California, and that the case has no merit because 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' is a sequel, not a "spinoff." "They're not the same thing," Chinitz said in court.
Diandra's lawyer told the judge she filed the suit in New York because both she and Michael currently reside in the city, and noted that there's no legal reason the case can be heard only in California. Justice Cooper has delayed ruling while he considers whether he should keep the case or send it back to a California court; however, he revealed that he believes there is indeed a difference between a spinoff and a sequel.Michael and Diandra recently came together to support their son, Cameron, who was sentenced to five years in prison for his role in dealing methamphetamine and cocaine in New York City. During Cameron's April sentencing, Michael, who along with Diandra, Zeta-Jones and Kirk Douglas asked the judge for leniency, took a swipe at his ex-wife in a letter to the judge, describing Diandra as "a young mother without any parenting skills handed down from her own parents."
Moral of the story: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ARE BINDING! Make sure you clarify property settlements.
Divorce Lawyers LOVE Facebook
Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.
Oversharing on social networks has led to an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years.
"Oh, I've had some fun ones," said Linda Lea Viken, president-elect of the 1,600-member group. "It's very, very common in my new cases."
Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama, Viken said. Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed cited Facebook foibles as the source of online evidence, she said. MySpace followed with 15 percent, followed by Twitter at 5 percent.
About one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, according to a 2008 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. But it's not just kissy pix with the manstress or mistress that show up as evidence. Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.
"This sort of evidence has gone from nothing to a large percentage of my cases coming in, and it's pretty darn easy," Viken said. "It's like, `Are you kidding me?'"
Neither Viken, in Rapid City, S.D., nor other divorce attorneys would besmirch the attorney-client privilege by revealing the identities of clients, but they spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:
_ Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.
_ Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."
_ Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.
_ Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
The disconnect between real life and online is hardly unique to partners de-coupling in the United States. A DIY divorce site in the United Kingdom, Divorce-Online, reported the word "Facebook" appeared late last year in about one in five of the petitions it was handling. (The company's caseload now amounts to about 7,000.)
Divorce attorneys Ken and Leslie Matthews, a husband and wife team in Denver, Colo., don't see quite as many online gems. They estimated 1 in 10 of their cases involves such evidence, compared to a rare case or no cases at all in each of the last three years. Regardless, it's powerful evidence to plunk down before a judge, they said.
"You're finding information that you just never get in the normal discovery process — ever," Leslie Matthews said. "People are just blabbing things all over Facebook. People don't yet quite connect what they're saying in their divorce cases is completely different from what they're saying on Facebook. It doesn't even occur to them that they'd be found out."
Social networks are also ripe for divorce-related hate and smear campaigns among battling spousal camps, sometimes spawning legal cases of their own.
"It's all pretty good evidence," Viken said. "You can't really fake a page off of Facebook. The judges don't really have any problems letting it in."
The attorneys offer these tips for making sure your out-loud personal life online doesn't wind up in divorce court:
WHAT YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU
If you plan on lying under oath, don't load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
"We tell our clients when they come in, `I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear,'" Viken said.
BEWARE YOUR FRENEMIES
Going through a divorce is about as emotional as it gets for many couples. The desire to talk trash is great, but so is the pull for friends to take sides.
"They think these people can help get them through it," said Marlene Eskind Moses, a family law expert in Nashville, Tenn., and current president of the elite academy of divorce attorneys. "It's the worst possible time to share your feelings online."
A PICTURE MAY BE WORTH ... BIG BUCKS
Grown-ups on a good day should know better than to post boozy, carousing or sexually explicit photos of themselves online, but in the middle of a contentious divorce? Ken Matthews recalls photos of a client's partially naked estranged wife alongside pictures of their kids on Facebook.
"He was hearing bizarre stories from his kids. Guys around the house all the time. Men running in and out. And there were these pictures," Matthews said.
PRIVACY, PRIVACY, PRIVACY
They're called privacy settings for a reason. Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.
Viken tells a familiar story: A client accused her spouse of adultery and he denied it in court. "The guy testified he didn't have a relationship with this woman. They were just friends. The girlfriend hadn't put security on her page and there they were. `Gee judge, who lied to you?'"
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Oversharing on social networks has led to an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years.
"Oh, I've had some fun ones," said Linda Lea Viken, president-elect of the 1,600-member group. "It's very, very common in my new cases."
Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama, Viken said. Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed cited Facebook foibles as the source of online evidence, she said. MySpace followed with 15 percent, followed by Twitter at 5 percent.
About one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, according to a 2008 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. But it's not just kissy pix with the manstress or mistress that show up as evidence. Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.
"This sort of evidence has gone from nothing to a large percentage of my cases coming in, and it's pretty darn easy," Viken said. "It's like, `Are you kidding me?'"
Neither Viken, in Rapid City, S.D., nor other divorce attorneys would besmirch the attorney-client privilege by revealing the identities of clients, but they spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:
_ Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.
_ Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."
_ Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.
_ Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
The disconnect between real life and online is hardly unique to partners de-coupling in the United States. A DIY divorce site in the United Kingdom, Divorce-Online, reported the word "Facebook" appeared late last year in about one in five of the petitions it was handling. (The company's caseload now amounts to about 7,000.)
Divorce attorneys Ken and Leslie Matthews, a husband and wife team in Denver, Colo., don't see quite as many online gems. They estimated 1 in 10 of their cases involves such evidence, compared to a rare case or no cases at all in each of the last three years. Regardless, it's powerful evidence to plunk down before a judge, they said.
"You're finding information that you just never get in the normal discovery process — ever," Leslie Matthews said. "People are just blabbing things all over Facebook. People don't yet quite connect what they're saying in their divorce cases is completely different from what they're saying on Facebook. It doesn't even occur to them that they'd be found out."
Social networks are also ripe for divorce-related hate and smear campaigns among battling spousal camps, sometimes spawning legal cases of their own.
"It's all pretty good evidence," Viken said. "You can't really fake a page off of Facebook. The judges don't really have any problems letting it in."
The attorneys offer these tips for making sure your out-loud personal life online doesn't wind up in divorce court:
WHAT YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU
If you plan on lying under oath, don't load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
"We tell our clients when they come in, `I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear,'" Viken said.
BEWARE YOUR FRENEMIES
Going through a divorce is about as emotional as it gets for many couples. The desire to talk trash is great, but so is the pull for friends to take sides.
"They think these people can help get them through it," said Marlene Eskind Moses, a family law expert in Nashville, Tenn., and current president of the elite academy of divorce attorneys. "It's the worst possible time to share your feelings online."
A PICTURE MAY BE WORTH ... BIG BUCKS
Grown-ups on a good day should know better than to post boozy, carousing or sexually explicit photos of themselves online, but in the middle of a contentious divorce? Ken Matthews recalls photos of a client's partially naked estranged wife alongside pictures of their kids on Facebook.
"He was hearing bizarre stories from his kids. Guys around the house all the time. Men running in and out. And there were these pictures," Matthews said.
PRIVACY, PRIVACY, PRIVACY
They're called privacy settings for a reason. Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.
Viken tells a familiar story: A client accused her spouse of adultery and he denied it in court. "The guy testified he didn't have a relationship with this woman. They were just friends. The girlfriend hadn't put security on her page and there they were. `Gee judge, who lied to you?'"
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sandra's Divorce is Final
SANDRA BULLOCK OFFICIALLY DIVORCED
Sources tell TMZ both Sandra and Jesse signed the final documents last week. Sealed documents have been filed with the clerk's office in Travis County, Texas -- sources tell us they are the papers making the divorce final. Sandra filed for divorce back on April 23, saying the marriage "has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities."And sources say the divorce clears the way for Sandra to complete a single parent adoption.
How did it happen so fast?
The divorce is filed in Texas, which has a 60-day waiting period for divorce. Compare this to California's 6-month waiting period. Florida has a 20-day waiting period. New York does not have a waiting period.
Note that this "waiting period" in California is a cooling-off period, mandated by the Legislature. No divorce filed in California can be finalized (Judgment obtained) prior to six months from the date the other party was served.
Also note that the waiting period is a "minimum" period. Should the divorce be litigated (and many divorces are!), the issues can take many YEARS to resolve.
So here is another logical question - why doesn't everyone just file for divorce in a state that doesn't have a cooling off period?
Answer: You can only file in your chosen state if you fulfill residency requirements. In California, you may file here if you have resided in the state for 6 months, and the county in which you wish to file for 3 months. In Texas, same - 6 months. In Florida, same - 6 months. In New York, you can file if: 1) The parties were married in the state and either party is a resident thereof when the action is commenced and has been a resident for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding; 2) The parties have resided in this state as husband and wife and either party is a resident thereof when the action is commenced and has been a resident for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding; 3) The cause occurred in the state and either party has been a resident thereof for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the action; or 4) The cause occurred in the state and both parties are residents thereof at the time of the commencement of the action; or 5) Either party as been a resident of the state for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action.
Moral of the story: You can get married anywhere. Divorce is a bit trickier.
Get a prenup.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Marriage and Business Don't Mix
Why Spouses Make Lousy Business Partners
By Stephen J. Dunn, Forbes.comToday
By Stephen J. Dunn, Forbes.comToday
Last month I wrote a column for Forbes about the tax reasons that spouses make lousy business partners. First, business-related tax problems could threaten both spouses' assets and credit if they're partners. Second, if the marriage sours, one spouse might call in the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the other.
Now, from my own practice comes a case that makes my point. Ron, a longtime client, has given me permission to tell his story, provided he's not identified, as a warning to others. Ron called a few months ago. He said that he had found some correspondence indicating that his wife was having an affair. In the correspondence Ron's wife said that she was going to leave Ron in June of this year. In June they would have been married five years, and she would have, at that point, been entitled to a share of Ron's property under their prenuptial agreement. (She is Ron's second wife.)
At about the same time Ron began noting that key financial documentation of his business was missing. A flash drive containing sales and cash receipts data was missing. Ron's wife worked as the bookkeeper of his business. I asked Ron whether he had been reporting all of his business income on his tax returns. Ron said that he had not reported some income that he had been paid in cash.
I told Ron that it was a scenario I had seen all too many times in the past. She was going to divorce him and use his tax exposure to leverage a better financial settlement for herself in the divorce, and possibly report Ron to the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.
I advised Ron to see a divorce attorney. Ron was reluctant. He wondered if the facts really meant what they so clearly did mean (to all the world except Ron). He talked about reconciling with his wife.
I also advised Ron to do a voluntary disclosure with the IRS. This was an agonizing decision for Ron, as it would cost him dearly in additional tax and interest, and possibly penalties, as well as legal and accounting fees. But it would prevent Ron from being prosecuted for having failed to report some of his income.
Ron followed my advice. His divorce is nearly final. The IRS notified Ron two weeks ago that his voluntary disclosure had been accepted, meaning he isn't at risk of being prosecuted.
Last week a divorce attorney representing Ron's wife called Ron's divorce attorney and, not surprisingly, mentioned the income that had been omitted from Ron's tax returns.
Yesterday Ron received a text message from his soon-to-be ex-wife. In the message she acknowledged that she would not receive any of Ron's property because he "had all of his ducks lined up." She specifically mentioned Ron's voluntary disclosure to the IRS. Neither Ron, his divorce attorney nor I had mentioned the voluntary disclosure to Ron's wife or to her attorney. How do you suppose she learned of it? Is it possible she herself had gone to the IRS in search of an informant's reward? (For more on IRS and informants, click here.)
Stephen J. Dunn is a tax attorney in Birmingham, Mich., adjunct lecturer in the University of Michigan-Dearborn College of Business and author. Write to him at steve@demolaw.com.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Japanese couples say "I do" -- in divorce ceremonies
By Laurel Moorhead Laurel Moorhead
TOKYO (Reuters) – With divorce on the rise in Japan, some couples are choosing to celebrate the end of an unhappy marriage by saying "I do" for a final time at a divorce ceremony before friends and family.
Divorce ceremonies were pioneered about a year ago by a former salesman, Hiroki Terai, who set up a "divorce mansion" in a small undercover space in Tokyo.
Since then about 25 couples have each paid 55,000 yen ($606) to hold a ceremony with all the pomp and grandeur of a wedding that publicly ends their relationship before they officially file for divorce. Terai said he had received more than 900 inquiries.
The latest couple, who called themselves Mr. and Mrs. Fujii, met near Sensoji Temple in Tokyo's traditional Asakusa area on Sunday and rode in separate rickshaws to the "divorce mansion."
"By putting an end to our marriage, we wanted to give ourselves fresh starts and give our lives a sense of renewal," Mr. Fujii, a 33-year-old businessman, told Reuters Television.
He said he felt responsible for the failure of his marriage as he spent too much time away from home and too much money on his various interests including cars - despite numerous warnings from his wife.
Friends and family of the Fujii couple followed closely behind the rickshaws on foot, arriving at the "divorce mansion" for a ceremony where they smashed their wedding ring with a gavel, a gesture signifying the end of their partnership.
The gavel has a frog's head as frogs symbolize change in Japanese culture.
"When we smashed the ring together, I felt like "oh, this is the end of it, really" and my heart and soul felt renewed. Now I feel I can have a new life and start all over again," said Mr. Fujii.
His wife of eight years also expressed her relief.
"The moment I saw the smashed ring, I said to myself, "Yes! That feels so good,"" Mrs. Fujii said.
Terai, who is believed to be Japan's first "divorce ceremony planner," came up with the idea of divorce ceremonies to help couples celebrate their decision to separate after one of his friends was going through a bitter divorce.
Divorce is on the rise in Japan where it was once taboo with about 251,000 divorces taking place in 2008, partly blamed on the poor economy taking its toll on romance.
Next month Terai heads off on his first business venture abroad to Korea to officially divorce a couple in Seoul.
"I started this ceremony in April last year thinking that there should be a positive way to end a marriage and move on by making a vow to restart their lives in front of loved ones," Terai said.
(Editing by Belinda Goldsmith)
(Editing by Belinda Goldsmith)
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
There's Life (and Divorce) after 40 Years of Marriage
Divorce, Women, and Age: Tipper Gore is Not Alone in Her Decision
By Kristen Houghton
At the end of my "couples" seminar the woman who had organized the workshops approached me. After telling me how much she had enjoyed all the workshops presented that day, she said:
"There's something that is never included in these workshops, though. No one ever discusses the divorce rate of couples over a certain age. Many women in long-standing marriages are getting divorced. I think you might have a good topic here for a future seminar Kristen. Think about it."
"There's something that is never included in these workshops, though. No one ever discusses the divorce rate of couples over a certain age. Many women in long-standing marriages are getting divorced. I think you might have a good topic here for a future seminar Kristen. Think about it."
She went on to tell me that she was sixty-two and had recently filed for divorce herself. The marriage had lasted forty years. When I showed surprise at the fact that after that amount of time, she felt divorce was necessary she laughed and said, "It's happening more and more. Forty years goes by like nothing. People still have a lot of life to live and if the partnership isn't good for either of you, you owe it to yourself to do what's best for your life. People change and you shouldn't remain stagnant."
Her words piqued my curiosity. After doing some research I was astounded by what I found. In 2009 the divorce rate among Americans over fifty was triple what it had been in the early 1990's. Longevity of marriage was no longer a factor in staying together, nor was age. With both men and women working longer years, changing careers in mid-stream, and pursuing more personal goals, remaining in a marriage that wasn't working ceased to be an option. The odds for staying together dropped significantly especially after children from the marriage had left the family home.
In the 21st century, women are the ones most likely to file for divorce after long marriages of 30 to 40 plus years. Unlike their mothers and grandmothers before them who may well have been in financially dependent positions, they have forged strong careers, have financial success, and are unwilling to remain in unhappy or unfulfilling marriages. With a good 25 to 30 years of healthy active life ahead of them, they are taking a long, hard look at the person with whom they will be spending it. They refuse to spend quality time in a miserable or unfulfilling marriage.
Reaching a "certain age" doesn't mean what it did in the past for women. They are active, working, and vibrant, completely capable of taking care of themselves financially. Remaining in a "marriage of convenience" for security purposes is no longer the case.
Reasons for ending a marriage varied but, unlike younger couples, infidelity had almost nothing to do with the divorce rate among those married 30-plus years. The need for self-fulfillment and lack of connection to their spouses led to the decision to divorce. Friends and associates of Al and Tipper Gore say that their lives had gotten more and more separated and that is a key factor.
Separate lives, separate interests, more time spent apart than together.
But why wait 30 or 40 years before you decide that you no longer want to be married? I asked the woman who had first broached the topic of older divorce to me. She answered my question this way:
"We were involved in raising our children, creating careers, and basically, we functioned quite well because we were always busy. Later on we grew apart. He had no interest in my plans for the future and that was no longer tolerable to me. I've become a different person and want to explore new ventures; he doesn't. I want to enjoy the rest of my life and I will not be able to do so with him. It was time to leave. I want a happy life."
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Celebrity Marriage and Divorce: Art Linkletter
Did you hear the sad news? News reports indicate that long-time t.v. host Art Linkletter died today at the age of 97. According to Wikipedia and numerous other sources, Linkletter, who enjoyed excellent health throughout most of his life, was the host of several programs, including the popular t.v. variety show, "Art Linkletter's House Party," which aired from 1952-1969. The affable Linkletter was noted for his humorous interactions with kids who, as Linkletter would put it, "say the darndest things!"
So, you might ask, what in the world does Mr. Linkletter's death have to do with a blog about divorce and divorce lawyers? The answer is that Mr. Linkletter is another example of the point that Hollywood does not destroy all celebrity marriages. Mr. Linkletter and his wife, who got married in 1935, were married nearly 75 years before his death today. This is an amazing fact about an amazing man who will be missed by many.
And this again proves that at least some celebrity marriages don't end in divorce!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
15 Ways to Predict Divorce
15 Ways to Predict Divorce
by Anneli Rufus
by Anneli Rufus
Please review the divorce calculator mentioned at the end of this article, which contains a relevant cite from attorney Kelly Chang Rickert.
How long will your marriage last? Depends on if you smoke, which church you go to, and which state you live in. Anneli Rufus on the shocking statistics.
You can't guarantee the longevity of a marriage, but what you can do is play the odds.
Researchers have studied marriage success rates from nearly every conceivable angle, and what they've found is that everything from smoking habits to what state you live in can predict how likely it is that your union will survive. Here are 15 ways to gauge whether your marriage is for the long haul—or on the fast track to Splitsville.
1. If you're a married American, your marriage is between 40 and 50 percent likely to end in divorce.
After peaking at 50 percent in the 1980s, the national divorce rate has dropped steadily, but in the public's mind, that outdated "half of all marriages" figure still sticks—and scares. "Inflated divorce statistics create an ambivalence about marriage," says Tara Parker-Pope, author of For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage. "The bottom line is that modern marriages are getting more and more resilient. With each generation, we're getting a little better about picking mates. A different kind of marriage is emerging in this century." (Source: David Popenoe, "The Future of Marriage in America," University of Virginia/National Marriage Project/The State of Our Unions, 2007)
2. If you live in a red state, you're 27 percent more likely to get divorced than if you live in a blue state.
Maybe that's because red-state couples traditionally marry younger—and the younger the partners, the riskier the marriage. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the states with the lowest median age at marriage are Utah, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. (Source: National Vital Statistics Report, 2003; cited in The Compassionate Community: Ten Values to Unite America, by Jonathan Miller and Al Gore)
3. If you argue with your spouse about finances once a week, your marriage is 30 percent more likely to end in divorce than if you argue with your spouse about finances less frequently.
Money woes kill marriages. The same study also found that couples with no assets at the beginning of a three-year period are 70 percent more likely to divorce by the end of that period than couples with $10,000 in assets. Most divorce risk factors—such as age and education level—correlate with poverty, says Statistics in Plain English author Timothy Urdan. "Whenever you see an explanation for anything, try to figure out what the explanations are for those explanations." (Source: Jeffrey Dew, "Bank on It: Thrifty Couples Are the Happiest," University of Virginia/National Marriage Project/The State of Our Unions, 2009)
4. If your parents were divorced, you're at least 40 percent more likely to get divorced than if they weren't. If your parents married others after divorcing, you're 91 percent more likely to get divorced.
This could be because witnessing our parents' divorces reinforces our ambivalence about commitment in a "disposable society," says Divorce Magazine publisher Dan Couvrette. "In most people's minds, it's easier to get a new car than fix the one you've got." (Source: Nicholas Wolfinger, Understanding the Divorce Cycle, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
5. If only one partner in your marriage is a smoker, you're 75 percent to 91 percent more likely to divorce than smokers who are married to fellow smokers.
"The more similar people are in their values, backgrounds, and life goals, the more likely they are to have a successful marriage," notes Tara Parker-Pope. From age to ethnicity to unhealthy habits, dissimilarities between spouses increase divorce risks. (Source: Rebecca Kippen, Bruce Chapman and Peng Yu, "What's Love Got to Do With It? Homogamy and Dyadic Approaches to Understanding Marital Instability," Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2009)
6. If you have a daughter, you're nearly 5 percent more likely to divorce than if you have a son.
This figure multiplies with the numbers of daughters or sons. "We think it happens because fathers get more invested in family life when they have boys," says Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History and director of research for the Council on Contemporary Families.
(Source: Gordon Dahl and Enrico Moretti, "The Demand for Sons," published in the Review of Economic Studies, 2005)
7. If you're an evangelical Christian adult who has been married, there's a 26 percent likelihood that you've been divorced—compared to a 28 percent chance for Catholics and a 38 percent chance for non-Christians.
That's according to the evangelically affiliated Barna Research Group, whose long-term clients include the Disney Channel. The same study cited a 30 percent divorce rate for atheists.
(Source: The Barna Group, "Divorce Among Adults Who Have Been Married," 2008)http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released
8. If you live in Wayne County, Indiana, and are over 15 years old, there's a 19.2 percent chance that you've been divorced.
This mostly rural county hugging the Ohio border, renowned in the 1920s as a KKK stronghold, leads the nation in percentage of divorced residents. Florida's Monroe County, which includes the Keys, holds second place at 18 percent. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 estimates)
9. If both you and your partner have had previous marriages, you're 90 percent more likely to get divorced than if this had been the first marriage for both of you.
"A lot of data shows that second marriages should be more successful than first marriages," says Tara Parker-Pope. But this statistic is skewed by serial marriers, "and no one has yet found a way to take the Larry Kings and Elizabeth Taylors out of the equation." (Source: Rebecca Kippen, Bruce Chapman and Peng Yu, "What's Love Got to Do With It? Homogamy and Dyadic Approaches to Understanding Marital Instability," Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2009)
10. If you're a woman two or more years older than your husband, your marriage is 53 percent more likely to end in divorce than if he was one year younger to three years older.
Wide age gaps between spouses can create sexual discord and other disagreements. "Our culture is so focused on personal satisfaction and happiness that some people feel this is a contributing factor in divorce," says lawyer Emily Doskow, author of Nolo's Essential Guide to Divorce. "Each partner keeps saying, 'I know I could be happier.'" (Source: Rebecca Kippen, Bruce Chapman and Peng Yu, "What's Love Got to Do With It? Homogamy and Dyadic Approaches to Understanding Marital Instability," Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2009)
11. If you're of "below average" intelligence, you're 50 percent more likely to be divorced than those of "above average" intelligence.
Presented by University of Delaware education professor Linda Gottfredson, codirector of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, this figure joins assertions in Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's controversial 1994 bestseller The Bell Curve that those with IQs of 100 face a 28 percent probability of divorce in the first five years of marriage, compared to just a 9 percent probability for those with IQs of 130. (Source: Linda S. Gottfredson, "The General Intelligence Factor," Scientific American, Winter 1998, and Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles A. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, Simon & Schuster, 1994, page 176)
12. If you've been diagnosed with cervical cancer, your likelihood of getting divorced is 40 percent higher than standard rates; it's 20 percent higher if you've been diagnosed with testicular cancer.
Norwegian Cancer Registry researcher Astri Syse suspects that this is because these two cancers affect sexual activity and afflict mainly young people. Syse also found that breast-cancer survivors, an older group, are 8 percent less likely to divorce than their counterparts who have not had breast cancer. (Source: Astri Syse, "Couples More Likely to Divorce if Spouse Develops Cervical or Testicular Cancer," study presented at the European Cancer Conference, 2007)
13. If you have twins or triplets, your marriage is 17 percent more likely to end in divorce than if your children are not multiple births.
Multiple births bring money woes, which bring stress. "I always think of marriage as a bridge that connects two hills," says Brette Sember, author of The Divorce Organizer & Planner. "The bridge might be solid and well-made, but if an earthquake causes one or both hills to shake, the bridge is weakened." (Source: Stephen McKay, "The Effects of Twins and Multiple Births on Families and Their Living Standards," Twins and Multiple Births Association, 2010)
Multiple births bring money woes, which bring stress. "I always think of marriage as a bridge that connects two hills," says Brette Sember, author of The Divorce Organizer & Planner. "The bridge might be solid and well-made, but if an earthquake causes one or both hills to shake, the bridge is weakened." (Source: Stephen McKay, "The Effects of Twins and Multiple Births on Families and Their Living Standards," Twins and Multiple Births Association, 2010)
14. If you're a female serial cohabiter—a woman who has lived with more than one partner before your first marriage—then you're 40 percent more likely to get divorced than women who have never done so.
Although "playing house" seems like good practice for married life, it can also make living together seem less permanent. "People feel like, 'If it doesn't work out, we can just step out of this,'" says lawyer Emily Doskow. Statistics show that marriages preceded by cohabitation have better chances of success when couples became officially engaged before moving in together.
(Source: Daniel T. Lichter, Zhenchao Qian, "Serial Cohabitation: Implications for Marriage, Divorce, and Public Policy," Brown University Population and Training Center, 2007)
Although "playing house" seems like good practice for married life, it can also make living together seem less permanent. "People feel like, 'If it doesn't work out, we can just step out of this,'" says lawyer Emily Doskow. Statistics show that marriages preceded by cohabitation have better chances of success when couples became officially engaged before moving in together.
(Source: Daniel T. Lichter, Zhenchao Qian, "Serial Cohabitation: Implications for Marriage, Divorce, and Public Policy," Brown University Population and Training Center, 2007)
15. If you're in a male same-sex marriage, it's 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than a heterosexual marriage.
If you're in a female same-sex marriage, this figure soars to 167 percent.
A research team led by Stockholm University demography professor Gunnar Anderson based their calculations on legal partnerships in Norway and Sweden, where five out of every 1,000 new couples are same-sex. (Source: Gunnar Andersson, "Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden," Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, 2004)
Want to assess your own marriage's chances of failure based on your personal demographics? Economist Betsey Stevenson created this "divorce calculator" for the Divorce360 website:
http://www.divorce360.com/content/divorcecalculator.aspx
A research team led by Stockholm University demography professor Gunnar Anderson based their calculations on legal partnerships in Norway and Sweden, where five out of every 1,000 new couples are same-sex. (Source: Gunnar Andersson, "Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden," Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, 2004)
Want to assess your own marriage's chances of failure based on your personal demographics? Economist Betsey Stevenson created this "divorce calculator" for the Divorce360 website:
http://www.divorce360.com/content/divorcecalculator.aspx
Anneli Rufus is the author of many books, including Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto and the Nautilus Award-winning Stuck: Why We Don't (or Won't) Move On, and the coauthor of still more, including Weird Europe and The Scavengers' Manifesto. Her books have been translated into numerous languages, including Chinese and Latvian. In 2006, she won a Society of Professional Journalists award for criticism.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Science of a Happy Marriage
Why do some men and women cheat on their partners while others resist the temptation?
To find the answer, a growing body of research is focusing on the science of commitment. Scientists are studying everything from the biological factors that seem to influence marital stability to a person’s psychological response after flirting with a stranger.
To find the answer, a growing body of research is focusing on the science of commitment. Scientists are studying everything from the biological factors that seem to influence marital stability to a person’s psychological response after flirting with a stranger.
Their findings suggest that while some people may be naturally more resistant to temptation, men and women can also train themselves to protect their relationships and raise their feelings of commitment.
Recent studies have raised questions about whether genetic factors may influence commitment and marital stability. Hasse Walum, a biologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, studied 552 sets of twins to learn more about a gene related to the body’s regulation of the brain chemical vasopressin, a bonding hormone.
Over all, men who carried a variation in the gene were less likely to be married, and those who had wed were more likely to have had serious marital problems and unhappy wives.
Among men who carried two copies of the gene variant, about a third had experienced a serious relationship crisis in the past year, double the number seen in the men who did not carry the variant.
Although the trait is often called the “fidelity gene,” Mr. Walum called that a misnomer: his research focused on marital stability, not faithfulness. “It’s difficult to use this information to predict any future behavior in men,” he told me. Now he and his colleagues are working to replicate the findings and conducting similar research in women.
While there may be genetic differences that influence commitment, other studies suggest that the brain can be trained to resist temptation.
A series of unusual studies led by John Lydon, a psychologist at McGill University in Montreal, have looked at how people in a committed relationship react in the face of temptation. In one study, highly committed married men and women were asked to rate the attractiveness of people of the opposite sex in a series of photos. Not surprisingly, they gave the highest ratings to people who would typically be viewed as attractive.
Later, they were shown similar pictures and told that the person was interested in meeting them. In that situation, participants consistently gave those pictures lower scores than they had the first time around.
When they were attracted to someone who might threaten the relationship, they seemed to instinctively tell themselves, “He’s not so great.” “The more committed you are,” Dr. Lydon said, “the less attractive you find other people who threaten your relationship.”
But some of the McGill research has shown gender differences in how we respond to a cheating threat. In a study of 300 heterosexual men and women, half the participants were primed for cheating by imagining a flirtatious conversation with someone they found attractive. The other half just imagined a routine encounter.
Afterward, the study subjects were asked to complete fill-in-the-blank puzzles like LO_AL and THR__T.
Unbeknownst to the participants, the word fragments were a psychological test to reveal subconscious feelings about commitment. (Similar word puzzles are used to study subconscious feelings about prejudice and stereotyping.)
No pattern emerged among the study participants who imagined a routine encounter. But there were differences among men and women who had entertained the flirtatious fantasy. In that group, the men were more likely to complete the puzzles with the neutral words LOCAL and THROAT. But the women who had imagined flirting were far more likely to choose LOYAL and THREAT, suggesting that the exercise had touched off subconscious concerns about commitment.
Of course, this does not necessarily predict behavior in the real world. But the pronounced difference in responses led the researchers to think women might have developed a kind of early warning system to alert them to relationship threats.
Other McGill studies confirmed differences in how men and women react to such threats. In one, attractive actors or actresses were brought in to flirt with study participants in a waiting room. Later, the participants were asked questions about their relationships, particularly how they would respond to a partner’s bad behavior, like being late and forgetting to call.
Men who had just been flirting were less forgiving of the hypothetical bad behavior, suggesting that the attractive actress had momentarily chipped away at their commitment. But women who had been flirting were more likely to be forgiving and to make excuses for the man, suggesting that their earlier flirting had triggered a protective response when discussing their relationship.
“We think the men in these studies may have had commitment, but the women had the contingency plan — the attractive alternative sets off the alarm bell,” Dr. Lydon said. “Women implicitly code that as a threat. Men don’t.”
The question is whether a person can be trained to resist temptation. In another study, the team prompted male students who were in committed dating relationships to imagine running into an attractive woman on a weekend when their girlfriends were away. Some of the men were then asked to develop a contingency plan by filling in the sentence “When she approaches me, I will __________ to protect my relationship.”
Because the researchers could not bring in a real woman to act as a temptation, they created a virtual-reality game in which two out of four rooms included subliminal images of an attractive woman. The men who had practiced resisting temptation gravitated toward those rooms 25 percent of the time; for the others, the figure was 62 percent.
But it may not be feelings of love or loyalty that keep couples together. Instead, scientists speculate that your level of commitment may depend on how much a partner enhances your life and broadens your horizons — a concept that Arthur Aron, a psychologist and relationship researcher at Stony Brook University, calls “self-expansion.”
To measure this quality, couples are asked a series of questions: How much does your partner provide a source of exciting experiences? How much has knowing your partner made you a better person? How much do you see your partner as a way to expand your own capabilities?
The Stony Brook researchers conducted experiments using activities that stimulated self-expansion. Some couples were given mundane tasks, while others took part in a silly exercise in which they were tied together and asked to crawl on mats, pushing a foam cylinder with their heads. The study was rigged so the couples failed the time limit on the first two tries, but just barely made it on the third, resulting in much celebration.
Couples were given relationship tests before and after the experiment. Those who had taken part in the challenging activity posted greater increases in love and relationship satisfaction than those who had not experienced victory together.
Now the researchers are embarking on a series of studies to measure how self-expansion influences a relationship. They theorize that couples who explore new places and try new things will tap into feelings of self-expansion, lifting their level of commitment.
“We enter relationships because the other person becomes part of ourselves, and that expands us,” Dr. Aron said. “That’s why people who fall in love stay up all night talking and it feels really exciting. We think couples can get some of that back by doing challenging and exciting things together.”
Tara Parker-Pope’s new book is “For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage.”
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Money Fights Predict Div
orce Rates
orce RatesYou know it in your gut, and you’ve seen it in the splintered marriages around you. Finance-related tensions — however you define them — raise the risk of divorce.
A new study, by Jeffrey Dew at Utah State University, attempts to quantify that risk. His finding: Couples who reported disagreeing about finance once a week were over 30 percent more likely to get divorced than couples who reported disagreeing about finances a few times a month.
Jeffrey Dew. Data analysis based on the National Survey of Families and Households.
Professor Dew looked at responses from about 2,800 couples surveyed in 1987 by the National Survey of Families and Households. In this survey, both husbands and wives were asked, separately, about how often they disagreed with their spouse over chores, in-laws, spending time together, sex and money. These same respondents were then contacted again several years later, in 1992, and asked if they were still married.
Of all these common things couples fight about, money disputes were the best harbingers of divorce. For wives, disagreements over finances and sex were good predictors of divorce, but finance disputes were much stronger predictors. For husbands, financial disagreements were the only type of common disagreement that predicted whether they would get a divorce.
These findings were presented last month at the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations, and appear in “The State of Our Unions,” a report on marriage and money released today by the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project and the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values.
For some suggested money-related discussions couples should have before getting hitched, go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)