Recent Blog Posts in August 2010

The divorce of Frank and Jamie McCourt has been closely followed by sports fans and divorce attorneys in Pasadena alike. In what's being called the nastiest billionaire breakup in Southern California history, the McCourts are battling over ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers. On Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the couple's attorneys argued over the validity of a document, said to have been signed in 2004, which gives Frank sole ownership of the Dodgers. Yet two versions of the marital property agreement have surfaced in court, and the difference between the two could spell victory for Jamie.

One version of the marital agreement, signed by Jamie in Massachusetts, states that the Dodgers clearly is Frank's property. The other, signed by Frank in California, however, states that ownership of the Dodgers could be debated. Lawyers for Frank are claiming the California version is a mistake, while Jamie's team alleges the two versions of the document were meant to purposely mislead her. Jamie has contended from the beginning that Frank "fraudulently altered" the marital property agreement and the discrepancies between the two may go a long way in supporting her claims. Judge Scott Gordon sided with Jamie's lawyers on Monday by ruling all "extrinsic" evidence relating to any agreement should be excluded in the trial. This could be a blow for Frank, who has ardently claimed his ex-wife willingly signed away her rights to the Dodgers. Frank's legal team will have its chance to discredit Jamie and her lack of knowledge later this week when she takes the stand.

While the McCourts owned several homes together and joint businesses, the Los Angeles Dodgers are certainly the crown jewel in the couple's assets. Said to be worth close to $2 billion dollars, the Dodgers, current season notwithstanding, are one of the most profitable teams in Major League Baseball. The trial is scheduled to last 7 days and judgment could be made as early as Friday.

__________________________________________________________

Here's an odd little story from the divorce headlines unlike most cases seen by family attorneys in Pasadena. A New York couple that filed for divorce in 2009 swears that they have reconciled but Judge Charles Markey of Queens County Supreme Court is refusing to toss out their divorce. So what gives?

Judge Markey vetoed the couple's request to void last November's divorce, claiming that the reunited lovebirds shouldn't have wasted the court's time and money. Furthermore, he suggested if the couple is truly serious, then they should take another trip down the aisle. In what some courtroom watchers consider a strange slap on the wrist, Markey went on to say in official documents that "the remedy for these former litigants is to make new vows and a fresh start by remarrying."

The judge also questioned the reconciliation since the couple is still living in separate residences. "It appears that their alleged reconciliation is really premature under these circumstances," he wrote. Markey did, however, wish the couple the best of luck when he wrote in official court documents, "The court... congratulates the plaintiff and the defendant on their professed reconciliation."

Some divorce attorneys applauded Markey's encouraging the couple to work matters out on their own and not in the courtroom, which costs taxpayers big bucks every year. Others, specifically the husband's lawyer Kevin Costello, question the judge's ruling. Costello said the couple, whose names were not released to the press, wanted to avoid any religious stigma associated with an official divorce.

Markey fired back, saying, "The court does not bow to alleged religious sentiments or convictions that may attach to the divorce."

The couple argues that a remarriage won't erase this "sad chapter" of their relationship and will make it difficult to move on.

The wife currently lives in Rhode Island while her husband lives in Queens. The couple does not have any children.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Actor Johnathon Schaech, whose film Takers just hit theaters, will be joining the ranks of those seeking divorce advice in Pasadena. For the second time in 3 years, the actor is getting divorced from another Hollywood actress. Schaech and his soon-to-be ex Jana Rae Kramer ofOne Tree Hill fame have called it quits after just two months of marriage. News of the now you see them-now you don't breakup came this week as Kramer filed for divorce in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 20.

The rise and fall of Schaech and Kramer has happened at a rapid fire pace that is head spinning-even for Hollywood marriages. The pair met on the set of the horror film remakeProm Nightin 2008 and annoucned their engagement in December 2009. Schaech and Kramer were married on July 4th in Michigan and announced their separation less than a month later. Legal documents show the couple was married a mere 12 days before splitting up. While the divorce is a first for Jana Rae Kramer, Johnathon Schaech is no stranger to high profile break-ups.

Known for his tattooos and bad boy reputation, Schaech was previously married to actress Christina Applegate, who co-stars in the Drew Barrymore comedy Going the Distancehitting theaters in September. Applegate and Schaech were hitched in 2001 and often appeared together on the red carpet during their relationship. Schaech even had a cameo in one of Applegate's films, The Sweetest Thing in 2002. Yet the good times were over when the childless couple filed for divorce in 2005 citing irreconcilable differences. The split was finalized in 2007.

Johnathon Schaech, who first hit big in 90's hits likeThat Thing You Do, will have work to keep him busy while he's divorcing. In addition toTakers, Schaech has a variety of projects in the works including Georgia which co-stars Rupert Friend and Andy Garcia. Kramer's due to be seen in next year's thriller Approaching Midnight while Applegate is engaged to bassist Martin LeNoble and expecting their first child.

________________________________________

Family lawyers in Pasadena are familiar with cases involving former spouses who feel entitled to current earnings brought in by their exes. But the recent money dispute between Oscar-winning actor and producer Michael Douglas and his ex-wife of more than a decade, Diandra Douglas, is certainly unique. Diandra Douglas filed papers in New York court earlier this week, claiming that she is entitled to half of his earnings fromWall Street: Money Never Sleeps, which opens on September 24^th.

Diandra is claiming that Michael, who won an Academy Award for his portrayal of the ruthless Gordon Gekko in the originalWall Street, owes part of the profits from the sequel to the hit film to her. Lawyers for both sides met in New York court on Tuesday to hammer out the details of a case that could cost the actor a bundle if the judge rules in Diandra's favor.

Her team of lawyers says the initial divorce agreement made after the pair split up in 2000 clearly notes that Diandra gets a share of the proceeds from sequels and other projects related to creative properties Michael Douglas participated in while they were married. Director Oliver Stone's newWall Street, her lawyers say, is a clear-cut example of that provision being violated.

Michael's attorney, on the other hand, claims that Diandra is confused about the terms of the initial agreement, which in no way applies to theWall Street sequel. The project wasn't on deck when the couple broke up and there was never a guarantee thatWall Street: Money Never Sleeps would even be made. State Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper ultimately will be the one who decides the fate of this mess; thus far, he has not issued a ruling or a time frame for one.

The couple was last seen together in April when they both attended the sentencing of their son, Cameron Douglas, who got five years in prison on drug charges. Michael currently is recovering from an operation to remove a tumor in his throat.

________________________________________________________________________

The bevy of blonde mistresses, the trips to sex rehab, the nanny wars and the billion dollar rumors soon will become faded footnotes as Tiger Woods and his now ex-wife, Elin Nordegren, finalized their divorce on Monday. Providing a non-stop buffet for news outlets and divorce lawyers in Pasadena, Tiger and Elin's long, dramatic journey has come to an end.

The superstar golfer whose personal and professional lives have taken a beating the last six months may be back on the road to being just another golfer. On Monday, Woods and Nordegren were present at a Bay County Circuit Court in Panama City, Fla., for the execution of their divorce agreement. Details of the settlement, which is said to include the standard division of assets and property, were kept from the press, but divorce watchers say that Nordegren could walk away with upwards of $500 million. The main issue for both Nordegren and Woods in the proceedings was the custody of their two children Sam Alexis, 3, and Charlie Axel, 18 months.

Both Woods and Nordegren have attended the state law-required four hour parenting class in order to finalize the divorce. Again, the exact provisions of the custody arrangement are mum, but shared parenting of the children, which has taken place since last November, is likely to continue under the new agreement.

"The parenting plan is in the best interest of the children," their divorce papers say. The documents also cite that Woods and Nordegren have singed a Marital Settlement Agreement which covers the custody arrangements and all financial settlements.

With well-chronicled affairs and a shocking car accident last Thanksgiving, the paperwork cites the reason for divorce only as "the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken." Nordegren did sign a prenuptial agreement but it was said to have been thrown out after news of Woods' affairs became public.

_____________________________________-

Much has been written about the dissolution of the marriage of actors Jude Law and Sadie Frost. Celebrity columnists and divorce lawyers in Pasadena long have wondered what really went down with the former power-couple. Now readers will get a firsthand account of what Frost says really happened when her autobiography, Crazy Days, hits bookstores next month.

Crazy Days has had a crazy journey into publication. The hotly-sought-after memoir was the subject of a brutal legal battle last month. Law objected to frost including pictures of the couple's children as well as certain written passages. Although Law's legal team tried to put the kibosh on the project in London's High Court, the pair eventually settled after Frost agreed to remove the passages and images that he objected to. In the book, Frost allegedly talks no-holds- barred about her mental collapse, her marriage to Law and her road to recovery.

Married for six years, Law and Frost met in 1994 while working on the film Shopping. She was married at the time and Law was a virtual nobody. In the book, she says that Law was penniless and often asked to borrow money from her. The pair married in 1997 and had three children together. Frost claims it was the post-partum depression following the birth of their youngest child, Rudy, that eventually tore the couple apart in 2003. Frost says Law tried to be understanding but as her condition worsened and she refused help, the actor ran out of options and filed for divorce. Frost was institutionalized and says that it was her experience in a California psychiatric hospital that finally led her to get treated for post-partum depression. Frost also writes in detail about the pressures of conforming to Hollywood and her ex-husband's insatiable ambition.

Further details about the contents of Crazy Days have thus far been kept secret from the press, although gossip hounds are expecting other bombshells about Law, who had a hit last winter with Sherlock Holmes. Law and his on-again/off-again girlfriend Sienna Miller recently moved in with one another despite the cheating scandal involving a nanny in 2005.

With millions of dollars and a profitable production company at stake, Frasier star Kelsey Grammer should have gotten divorce advice in Pasadena before he decide to skip the pre-nuptial agreement with now-estranged spouse Camille Donactacci. News of Grammer's new girlfriend Kayte Walsh's pregnancy hit over the weekend and could cost the Emmy winner a pretty penny in divorce proceedings.

Earlier this summer, Grammer took a proactive, "nothing to see here" sort of approach on his blog when he explained his divorce from Donactacci, whom he married in 1997. Grammer told reporters that news of infidelity on his part was nothing but a vicious rumor. Word from the actor's camp was that the split was amicable and mutual. The couple was said to have been focusing on the well-being of their two children, daughter Mason and son Jude. Yet Grammer changed his tune this week when he told TMZ that he and Walsh are expecting a child later this year.

An already complicated divorce could now be even more so since the cause does, in fact, appear to be infidelity. Without a prenuptial agreement in place, Donactacci's lawyers could be after a bigger sum then the standard no-contest California divorce could possibly yield. The assets of the couple are vast as Grammer is rumored to worth an estimated $85 million dollars. Tabloids are reporting that Donactacci is seeking a settlement of $30 million as well a chunk of the actor's production company that produced long-running hits likeGirlfriends and Medium. Also up for grabs are the three homes Grammer and Donactacci have in Malibu, New York and Colorado. Legal experts note that if Donactacci's team does pursue a large lump sum of the actor's fortune then Grammer's camp will, in turn, deny requests for monthly spousal support.

Although a new fall television season is days away from launching, two high profile celebrity couples' marriages have been cancelled. Family attorneys in Pasadena have been watching celebrity couples break up all summer long, and a pair of TV stars are the latest to engage in divorce, Hollywood style. Elisabeth Moss, who plays beleaguered copywriter Peggy Olson on AMC's hit drama Mad Men, and her husband Fred Armisen from Saturday Night Live announced their divorce last week, while Patricia Arquette of Medium fame and Thomas Jane, star of HBO'sHung, went forward with their divorce after reconciling earlier this year.

Armisen and Moss were married in October 2009 after rumors that the notoriously shy couple had been dating for months. The couple exchanged vows in front of family and friends at the Foundry on Long Island. In keeping with the pair's press-shy history, Life Style magazine reports that Moss and Armisen actually have been separated since May. Moss is finishing her fourth season on Mad Men in Los Angeles while Armisen splits his time between Portland, Ore., and New York while working on the new series Portlandia before returning to a another year of SNL.

Meanwhile, the near decade-long relationship of Jane and Arquette has ended -- again. Despite reuniting after a separation last year, the couple is going ahead with a divorce. (Arquette originally filed for divorce in January 2009.) The actors met through mutual friends in 2001, had a child, Harlow Olivia Calliope, in 2003 and married in May 2006. A rep for Jane told People magazine, "The split is completely amicable and their prime focus is their daughter." Arquette currently is attached to the latest Richard Linklater film while Jane has spent the summer promoting the second season of Hung.

Sports fans, journalists and divorce attorneys in Pasadena alike have seen their fair share of dramatic celebrity couple break-ups and make-ups this summer. The most recent reconciliation involves a highly-paid athlete and former teen star.

Longtime NBA superstar Earl Watson, who is the starting point guard for the Indiana Pacers, filed for divorce from wife Jennifer Freeman last week. Freeman, an actress who gained fame on the sitcom "My Wife and Kids," allegedly bit the basketball player on the chest and attacked him, prompting Watson to file for divorce in a Los Angeles County Court. But now it appears the pair has called the whole thing off. So what gives?

Divorce seemed eminent once the actress furiously sank her teeth into the athlete's chest after he questioned a text message on her phone on August 1^st. Freeman was enraged by Watson's allegations and slapped him twice before the bites, which broke the skin and drew blood. According to legal documents, Freeman also attempted to attack Watson with an iron that same evening but Watson successfully managed to remove the iron from his spouse's hands before leaving the scene. Watson quickly filed for divorce the following day, seeking full custody of the couple's 10-month-old daughter, Isabella.

Yet a few days later, Watson had announced on a celebrity website that he and Freeman had decided to work things out and he withdrew his petition for divorce.

"The couple has reconciled their differences and plans to make their marriage work," Watson's attorney, William Briggs, explained in a statement to TMZ.com.

Jennifer Freeman and Earl Watson were married May 17^th, 2009, and their daughter was born the following October. Freeman played Claire Kyle for 3 seasons on ABC's sitcom My Wife and Kids. In addition to television, Freeman has appeared on stage and in beauty campaigns for Neutrogena. Watson has had a long career in professional basketball.

________________________________________________________________________

Worried that your Mr. or Mrs. Right may turn out to be Mr. or Mrs. All Wrong? Then you may want to consider divorce insurance before you seek divorce advice in Pasadena. That's right. Now in addition to coverage for your car and your home you can now buy a policy to protect you in case of a divorce.

The policy, entitled WedLock and cooked up by North Carolina's SafeGuard Guaranty Corp., is intended to help customers cover the costs of divorce. The costs of moving, setting up a new home or apartment and legal proceedings are all covered by WedLock. The casualty insurance is sold in units of protection; each unit you buy for $15.99 per month provides $1,250 in coverage. For example, 10 units purchased would yield coverage of $12,500. As a bonus, the company adds $250 in coverage for each unit every year. So if divorce did unfortunately happen, policyholders would send WedLock proof of their divorce and then receive a lump sum of cash equal to the amount of coverage they had purchased.

Naturally, the folks at WedLock also have come up with ways to protect themselves from insurance fraud. The policies don't mature until 48 months after their effective date. Customers can, however, buy additional riders to shrink the maturity time to 36 months and to receive their premiums if they divorce before the policy matures. SafeGuard officials are confident in their risk assessment studies to combat couples buying up policies in large numbers.

Financial experts say that putting money away in a savings account would mature faster and with better interest than divorce insurance, while being significantly lower-risk. WedLock policies are underwritten by Prime Insurance Company and aren't protected by any state guaranty funds that would honor them if the company goes bankrupt. However, SafeGuard says that they are working to get the policies covered by state guaranty funds in the future.

____________________________________________________________

Ask any family attorney in Pasadena and they'll tell you that the stress of raising a child is enough to drive many couples to divorce. In fact, many studies have shown that the risk of divorce is the highest when children are young, though the risk lessens as the kids grow into the more self- sufficient teenage years. Now a new study finds that couples raising children who suffer from autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are twice more likely to divorce than parents of children without ASD.

Researchers who conducted the Adolescents and Adults with Autism study examined nearly 400 families with autistic children and compared them to families with children without the disorder. The study was prompted after decades of parents of children with ASD were told that the risk of divorce was as high as 80 percent. To find out if this is true, the researchers matched families based on the age, sex and birth order of the child with ASD. Facts like age, education and ethnicity of the birth mother also were used in the matching process.

While not the rumored 80 percent, the researchers did find that couples raising a child or children with ASD were extremely high: about 23.5 percent, nearly double the 14 percent found in the non-ASD homes. The risk got even higher for couples with one or more siblings in addition to the child with ASD. While the findings appear bleak, the researchers were quick to note that more than 75 percent of the marriages survive.

"It should be reassuring for parents to know that most marriages survive and thus their marriage is not destined for divorce as is often incorrectly presented in the media," the researchers said.

In addition, the researchers noted that couples with a child with ASD should seek the help of a counselor or therapist to create ways to make the diagnosis and treatment easier on the family.

_________________________________-

As family lawyers in Pasadena know, sometimes a third party is named as the reason a marriage is ending. An already complicated situation becomes all the more sticky when the other woman is a celebrity like American Idol season 3 winner Fantasia Barrino. The beleaguered singer/actress and reality star, who recently overdosed on aspirin and sleep aid medication, is currently embroiled in a controversy that alleges she was responsible for splitting up a married couple.

Last week, a divorce petition in North Carolina filed by Paula Cook cited Barrino's "covert adulterous affair" as the reason for her split from her estranged husband, Antwuan Cook. Paula Cook claims that Barrino told her, "He don't want you. Maybe next time that you get a husband you'll know how to keep him. That's why he is here with me." Antwuan and Paula Cook, who have two kids, ages 1 and 4, say that Barrino entered their lives after she met Antwuan in August 2009 at the cell phone store where he worked. According to court documents, the singer and the cell phone salesman took romantic vacations together in Miami, New York, L.A. and Barbados over the course of their alleged affair. Rumors of their pairing hit celebrity gossip sites like TMZ in November of last year but were met with adamant denials from Camp Barrino. And as usual in a case like this, there are allegations that a sex-tape exists featuring Barrino and Antwuan caught in the act.

If these allegations turn out to be true, Barrino could be in hot water: As adultery is still a crime in North Carolina, third parties can be sued in cases like these. Barrino, for her part, has released a statement through her manager stating that she has had nothing to do with the dissolution of the Cook's union. Days after news of the divorce and sex tape hit online, Barrino was rushed to the hospital for overdosing on over-the-counter medications. Police have ruled it an attempted suicide.

_____________________________________________-

Family lawyers in Pasadena are used to seeing couples file for divorce fairly quickly after they've separated. For normal folks, the average time between separation and divorce is about two-and-a-half years; high-powered types with the means to make it happen quickly can get the job done within a couple of months. Overall, we tend to think of separation as the layover before you arrive at Divorcetown. But recently, long-lasting and even never-ending separations have been making headlines.

The New York Times recently ran a piece about the surprising number of long-term separations and why couples choose them. One of the most amiable separations belonged to legendary Wall Street investor Warren Buffet, who separated from his wife, Susan, in 1977 but stayed married to her until her death in 2004. Buffet, Susan and his now-wife Astrid even sent out holiday cards happily signed by the threesome. Other famous long-term separators include artist Willem de Kooning, who separated from his wife for 34 years until she passed away in the late 1980s, and Rolling Stone editor and publisher Jann Wenner, who separated from his wife, Jane, in 1995 but continues to be married to her today.

Celebrities aside, the reason for the long separation might be described in one simple word: money. Divorce attorneys say that the big motivation to remain separated typically is financial in nature. Some couples may stay married the required 10 years to receive a portion of their spouse's Social Security, rightfully theirs under federal law. Costly medical insurance switchovers, shared real estate and couple-owned businesses also are cited as reasons for lengthy separations. But the biggest money-driven reason to stay together is perhaps the collapse of the financial institutions which, therapists say, may cause couples to slow down and consider new less-costly "let's go our separate ways" options.

Most surprisingly, many long-term separations are born out of mutual respect and admiration. Usually older couples that part amicably opt for a long separation because they see no need to dissect their marriage or attack their former partner. Long separations allow for bygones to be bygones, especially for couples intent on not remarrying.

Whether financial or emotional, lawyers and therapists agree that long separations tend to be the byproduct of former spouses who are looking for different solutions to the age-old problems of divorce.

Kyron Horman of Portland, Ore., vanished from his school June 4, causing national media attention. An intense investigation is underway into the boy's stepmother, Terri Horman, the last person reported to have seen the 7-year-old child. Kyron's parents have told media and the authorities that they believe Terri is somehow involved in their son's disappearance, even though no formal charges have been filed against her to date. Now Terri Horman's attorney, Peter Bunch, has filed a motion for abatement to delay his client's divorce proceedings from Kyron's father.

Bunch claims that due to the highly-publicized disappearance of Kyron and its subsequent scrutiny by law enforcement, a fair divorce hearing would be nearly impossible. If the judge OKs Bunch's motion, all child custody decisions as well as investigations into his client's finances would be put on hold. Divorce lawyers in Pasadena and around the world speculate that the possible delay offered by Bunch has ulterior motives. If Bunch's motion doesn't fly, Terri Horman could possibly be subjected to a Pandora's box of questions regarding the disappearance of Kyron. Moreover, if divorce proceedings do continue, Terri Horman will be placed in the difficult position of responding to her estranged husband's claims or using her Constitutional right to remain mum about the case.

Earlier this week, Kyron's father, Kaine Horman, alleged that Terri has spent an estimated $300,000 to retain Stephen Houze as a criminal defense attorney. Peter Bunch has publicly dismissed the claim, saying that Terri Horman is in financial need and does not have the money to spend on a criminal lawyer -- nor does she need one. Laura Rackner, attorney for Kaine Horman, fired back, requesting that the court force Terri to reveal the funds she has available for legal defense. As both sides await a decision from the judge regarding Terri Horman's finances, police and detectives have yet to make any arrests in connection to the disappearance of Kyron Horman.

There's a common pattern to all negotiations: a cycle of initial contact, planning (research, goals, strategies, and tactics), and one or more negotiating sessions that lead to a signed agreement, complete with provisions to ensure its implementation.

There are two basic components to any divorce negotiation: what is affordable and what is personally acceptable. The objective is to find a reasonable and legally acceptable balance between them.

Your first experience in negotiating starts with your own lawyer. The two of you must work together until you achieve a meeting of the minds so that what you want can be spelled out in the first draft of the separation agreement. When you're ready for the first negotiating session with your spouse and the other lawyer, how will you approach it?

Thinking logically

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do." -- The Mind in the Making, James Harvey Robinson when women use accepted business logic in preparing for a divorce, they may be perceived as ruthless, calculating, and manipulative. When men use accepted business logic in preparing for a divorce, they are usually perceived as being practical, logical, and direct. Regardless of clichés and biases, the reality is that organized and rational thinking is a must for both men and women if spouses are going to create a mutually satisfactory separation agreement in our family court system.

Be concrete in your ideas and remain open to reason. Ask questions until you're satisfied about your spouse's basis for reasoning. Be prepared to answer questions that clarify the integrity of your position. Be as tough as you want where a problem needs resolution, but be soft on the people involved.

If you haven't already done so, you need to analyze and formulate your objectives in order to actively participate in your own future. You must gather together the facts about what you have, what you want now, and what you wish to accomplish by the time you've changed the marriage vow "I do" to the divorce disclaimer "I don't anymore."

The sooner you learn to put yourself into your spouse's shoes and ask, "What would I do if I were you?" the sooner you'll be ready to arrive at a mutually acceptable separation agreement.

Entering negotiations

Bargaining for the future welfare of yourself and your family is no picnic. Here's a collection of tips offered by some divorcing couples that will walk you through the process. They refer to both the personal and the practical sides of negotiating.

• Request that negotiations be held where the atmosphere is quiet and professional.

• e prompt in attendance.

• Dress the way that will make you feel the most comfortable for the setting of the meeting.

• Make sure you have a written agenda from your lawyer.

• Be prepared to take notes and check off each item as it is completed.

• Be sure to have copies of whatever documents you have been asked to bring.

• Sit tall and use direct eye contact as much as you can. Body language "speaks loudly."

• Speak in your normal tone of voice. (You're not on stage, even though you may feel like it.)

• Listen quietly and patiently to what is being said.

• Make sure that you have equal opportunity to voice your opinions or disagreement.

• Try to stay in the first person when you speak. (Don't be afraid of the word "I." In fact, present all of your feelings, facts, and observations in the "I" mode, for example, "I think we ought to...," and "I defend this issue on the basis that...")

• ry not to be defensive about your ideas and be open to advice -- even constructive criticism.

• Refuse to discuss business and personal matters in the same conversation.

• Don't succumb to pressure for an immediate response. (Request a minute to think, or a "time-out" to discuss the matter with your lawyer.)

• Never be forced into a decision -- even if it's one that your lawyer approves. (If you aren't sure, table the issue so that you have time to review your material and to think.)

• When you need to release the tension/frustration/irritation that builds up during negotiating sessions, take a couple of deep breaths from the diaphragm and let them out slowly.

• Don't use alcohol or drugs to calm your nerves during these times.

The bargaining table

Everything is negotiable and anything can be used as a tool for negotiations. Go to the bargaining table prepared for promises to be exchanged and deals to be closed.

It's not a matter of simply putting a value on everything when you are working out what you want or what you're willing to give in a separation agreement. The bargaining process requires setting three different basic values:

• The least you would be willing to give or give up.

• The most you would be willing to give or give up.

• The bottom line you would be willing to agree upon.

Divorcing couples tend to think in terms of things they want (assets) and frequently forget about what they don't want (liabilities). Remember: ownership of items such as debts, a bad piece of property, and lawyer's fees must also be negotiated.

When you reach a stalemate, the lawyers should be able to provide information about how a similar situation has been previously handled within the judicial community where your case is being processed.

The bargaining table is only used to resolve previously undecided issues. As you reach agreement on each issue, consider that topic closed. Agreements never come together if you keep rehashing what was supposedly already settled (in fact, they're more likely to fall apart). Every agreement must adapt to new circumstances or information, but too many new issues late in the game cast doubt on the good faith of what was previously settled.

Avoiding a free-for-all

Divorce negotiations can be traumatic. In addition to the business at hand, it's very easy to get trapped into old emotional patterns when your spouse begins to act in predictable ways. Either one of you can become overly defensive or hostile.

How do you respond to threats or defuse anger? What happens if the meeting starts to get ugly?

When you and your lawyer discussed your divorce files, especially the profiles and information on extenuating circumstances, you anticipated the danger points and prepared suitable ways of coping. However, when both spouses are wound up, something totally innocuous can trigger an outrageous response. How can it be dealt with right then and there?

First of all, there should be a time-out to cool down the emotions before returning to the facts. Then allow your lawyers to summarize the situation. If new issues come to light through an emotional outburst, they will require discussion and verification. Then a decision can be made about how this new information will affect the developing agreement.

When to be reasonable

Not all divorces are adversarial. Not all agreements are structured from long and bitter disagreements over who gets what. Just because you're getting a divorce doesn't mean you can't continue to work together.

Be open to brainstorming. If you're at an impasse or seem to be totally deadlocked, you can always flip a coin. Seriously, the very idea that you have only a 50-50 chance of "winning" usually revives the interest in negotiating. If the other side won't negotiate, don't attack his or her position -- look behind it to try to determine the motivation for the refusal to negotiate.

Helpful phrases and questions

Here are some useful model statements to use if the proceedings stall or if you encounter other difficulties:

• "Please correct me if I'm wrong..."

• "I appreciate what we've done thus far..."

• "My basic concern is fairness."

• "I'd like to settle this on a basis of principle, not power."

• "Could we go over this once more to make sure that I understand clearly?" "What is the principle behind your request?"

• "Let me show you where I'm having trouble with that."

• "A more equitable solution might be..."

Six deadly obstacles to negotiation

The deadly sins can never be seen or imagined more clearly than in the process of divorce. When any of the negative patterns of a marriage are brought to the negotiating table, the battle will be long and difficult.

1. Greed will make any reasonable financial negotiation impossible.
2. Anger will waste time and energy.
3. Lust will fire up old memories that might get in the way.
4. Jealousy will get you nowhere -- it's not your relationship anymore.
5. Pride causes stalemates.
6. Fear is perhaps the greatest sin of all.

Fear can be the worst enemy of good negotiation: fear of rejection and loss of position, property, or place in the community. There are also the fears of loneliness and of having to start all over again; of personal and financial hardship; and of not being able to handle all that is ahead. The more dependent you have been upon your spouse -- financially, personally, or emotionally -- the deeper the roots of fear. The fear of negotiating with a spouse who is more powerful, more prestigious, or more "important" than you creates problems, particularly if the spouse is well-connected or has a prominent family.

Under these circumstances, sitting down at a bargaining table seems like risky business. When there are significant emotional or practical inequities, you must do whatever you can to change the expected patterns of your position. Use all available resources: books, counseling, and so forth. If you can avoid succumbing to predictable old ways and if you have a lawyer who isn't easily impressed or intimidated, you'll be able to balance the pressures against you by using strategies that are different from those expected from you.

Whatever the obstacles, the basic rule in negotiating is to understand what options exist for both of you. Insist upon realistic objectives. Focus on the problems, not the person. Try to find a different approach to the same problem; reframing a seemingly insoluble problem may solve it.

It's not necessarily all the things you know that will help you during negotiations; it's what you can think of at the right moment to back your issues and arguments. This is where your files of prepared information can be invaluable.

Recognizing coercive tactics

What's fair and what's unfair in the arena of divorce? What does it mean to step over the bounds of common decency? Just what kind of tactics are allowable? What one spouse considers good strategy might be seen as deceptive to the other, depending upon the motives of negotiation.

An early step in predicting what your negotiations will be like is to try to recognize the tactics being used. If your divorce is adversarial, you're likely to face tactics designed to wear you down such as:

• Deliberate deceptions

• Misrepresentation of facts

• Less than full disclosure

• Building in complicated compliance features

• Psychological warfare

• Stressful situations

• Personal attacks

• Silent treatment

• Withholding money or children

• Playing on spouse's sense of guilt

• Body language

• Black-hat/white-hat designations

• Threats

• Dependency and helplessness

• Positional pressures

• Refusal to negotiate

• Unreasonable demands

• Escalating demands

• Hard-heartedness

• Calculating delays

• Hiring a "barracuda" lawyer

• Control versus dependency

"Spouse blindness"

A spouse who wants to remain in a difficult marriage even after the relationship has become untenable is usually suffering from what we call "spouse blindness": a condition whereby that spouse is unable to see the marriage as being anything other than perfectly acceptable. This delusion can continue up to the very day of -- or even long after -- being served with divorce papers.

Getting over spouse blindness requires time to see the issues clearly and to heal some of the hurt. Only then will it be possible to develop a balanced separation agreement. Unfortunately, having finally made the decision to divorce, the departing spouse is usually in a hurry to get it over with. The "blind" spouse will often try to drag the divorce out interminably in the hope of a change of heart. The departing spouse and lawyer must be prepared to set compassionate limits for a reasonable transition period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article has been edited and excerpted from The Divorce Decisions Workbook: A Planning and Action Guide by Marjorie L. Engel and Diana D. Gould. Designed to help individuals prepare in advance for every phase of the divorce process.