Recent Blog Posts in January 2011

If you are thinking about marrying a divorcee, you may want to read the fine print on your fiancee's   divorce decree, as you never know how his or her past might impact your finances.

In Kircher v. Kircher, a recent case decided by a California Court of Appeal, it was held that a decedent's second wife was personally liable to his first wife for continuing spousal support payments up to Fair Market Value of real property (including joint tenancy property) he and the second wife held at time of his death.

In 1976 Mr. Kircher and his first wife executed a Mandatory Settlement Agreement as part of their Dissolution of Marriage.  In 1987, Mr. Kircher and his first wife filed a Stipulation and Order that modified the original agreement.  The language of the new Stipulation and Order provided that Mr. Kircher would pay his first wife $2,000 per month and continuing thereafter until her death or until she remarried or was found living with a member of the opposite sex for more than 30 consecutive months. The Stipulation did not provide for the termination of spousal support upon Mr. Kircher's death, which is a typical order that is made in divorce cases. In other words, the order implied that Mr. Kircher's estate would have to continue paying his first wife spousal support.

During Mr. Kircher's marriage to his second wife, he transferred title in three properties to himself and his second wife as "joint tenants."  Mr. Kircher died in 2005, at which time his first wife filed suit against his second wife personally and in her capacity as Executor of the Mr. Kircher's Will, asserting that she had breached the terms of the 1987 Stipulation.

At trial, the Court held that Mr. Kircher's second wife was obligated to continue to follow the terms of the 1987 Stipulation up to the fair market value of the property she received through Husband's will that was passed to her without formal administration - i.e., probate. The second wife appealed the trial court's decision, but the Court of Appeal affirmed.

On appeal Mr. Kircher's second wife argued that since the property in question was held in joint tenancy it could not be reached under Section 11351 of the Probate Code.  The appellate court disagreed, however, holding that under Section 13550 of the Probate Code, a surviving spouse is personally liable for the debts of the deceased spouse chargeable against the property she receives up to the fair market value at the date of the decedent's death, less the amount of any liens and encumbrances, of the total of the following: a) the portion of the one-half of the community and quasi-community property belonging to the surviving spouse, b) the portion of the one-half of the community and quasi-community property belonging to the decedent that passes to the surviving spouse without administration.

We've all heard stories of the leprechaun at the end of the rainbow who protects the fabled pot of gold. For $190 million dollar Mega Million lottery winner Holly Lahti, that leprechaun could be her own soon-to-be ex-husband. In a wild battle for assets unlike anything family attorneys in Pasadena have heard in quite some time, Holly and Joshua Lahti are a troubled, divorcing couple whose large sum of cash and bizarre story have brought them national attention.

The 29-year-old mother of two and former bank employee from Idaho, Holly Lahti, hit the literal jackpot on January 4 when she won half of the $380 million Mega Million prize. But the rags-to-riches tale was quickly tainted with stories of abuse. Mugshot photos of Lahti with a black eye surfaced online as tabloids uncovered the turbulent past of Holly and her estranged husband Josh Lahti. The couple was arrested after a domestic dispute. While this was Holly's only arrest, Josh has been arrested 20 times for various crimes including driving under the influence and kidnapping. Mr. Lahti, who has not been living with Holly for some time, soon launched a campaign to get his share of the winnings.

According to Idaho state law, anything obtained during a marriage is community property, meaning Josh Lahti could walk away with half of his wife's new fortune. Legal experts, however, think he should hold off on celebrating.

"I couldn't imagine a court not entertaining at least a strong argument in favor of assigning the lottery winnings to her,” says University of Idaho law professor Elizabeth Brandt told the Daily News. “She wasn't living [with him], so there's no joint claim."

Further dampening the hopes of Josh Lahti is the fact that his wife has yet to collect her winnings. Holly Lahti and her two children have gone into hiding since the story gained worldwide press coverage. The would-be millionaire has allegedly been communicating with the outside world via Facebook, yet it has yet to be confirmed whether the page actually belongs to Lahti.

In a recent case entitled, "In re Marriage of Caldwell-Fasco and Fasco," the California First Appellate Court Division held that the seven day waiting period between first presentation of a pre-nuptial agreement and its signing, imposed by Family Code Section1615(c)(2), does not apply where a party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by counsel from outset of the transaction.  

In review of this appellate court decision, it is obvious that the Court does not believe the seven day rule exists for the purpose of providing parties an adequate time to reflect and consider proposed premarital agreements.  The Court of Appeal also squarely placed the burden on the shoulders of the attorney to make sure his client enters into prenuptial agreements knowingly and intelligently.

This common sense decision answers a question that many of us Family Law Attorneys have had while representing clients in negotiating and drafting premarital agreements.  It is very common for people to seek the assistance of a Family Law attorney to draft a premarital agreement a day or two before their wedding.  In the past, when a party wanted representation in such a situation, most Family Law attorneys would decline, knowing that the Family Code imposes a seven day waiting period.

I'm sure that many attorneys will begin taking such cases in light of this decision, but I would advise them proceed with extreme caution. The process of negotiating and drafting a prenuptial agreement can take weeks, if not months.  Obviously we need to make sure our clients understand what they are signing, and we need to ensure that they are not signing the agreement under duress.  Thus, it may not be possible to provide adequate representation of a person while drafting and negotiating a prenuptial agreement just day before the wedding.     

Pasadena, CA (PRWEB) January 27, 2011 - Maria Schweitzer and Patrick Baghdaserians were recently named as Ambassadors for the Pasadena Bar Association in the first year the association started the program.  Schweitzer and Baghdaserians are both currently employed at the Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer, a Pasadena-based family law firm.

As Ambassadors, the duo will be responsible in welcoming existing members, encouraging participation from new members, and promoting membership amongst prospective members.  Ms. Schweitzer and Mr. Baghdaserians were voted to this position by the board members within the Pasadena Bar Association, and will begin their position this month. 

On being voted in, Ms. Schweitzer said, "The friends I have made through the PBA, and the fun times we have are what keeps me coming back.  The PBA is such a dynamic and fresh organization.  I feel very privileged to be a part of this organization in the capacity I am in."

"The Pasadena Bar Association is important for lawyers and the community as a whole.  Having a strong bar association can elevate not only the quality of the legal profession but also the quality of work in the surrounding community," added Baghdaserians.

The Pasadena Bar Association assists its members to develop and improve their practice of law by providing information, services, networking, career development programs and other resources. The PBA has initiated numerous programs, services and opportunities for its members, the profession, the judiciary and the community.  

When asked about the appointments, Donald Schweitzer stated, "Maria and Patrick have been instrumental in making major changes to the Pasadena Bar Association, including our Family Law Section, which is why the association voted to appoint them to the Ambassador positions.  I am very proud of their accomplishments."

Membership categories include: Active member, Barristers, New Admittee (first year to State Bar of California), Judicial Officer, Retired/Inactive, Affiliate member (non-attorney) and Student member.  Visit http://www.pasadenabar.org/ for more information.

Family lawyers in Pasadena have heard tales of enraged exes over the years, but Mary Harvey has to be one of the best. Mary, the first wife of relationship guru and comedian Steve Harvey, has posted a series of videos on YouTube blasting her ex-husband for everything from financial problems to infidelity.

Mary doesn't need Barbara Walters or Oprah (more on Ms. O in a minute) to air out her dirty laundry. Armed with a webcam and tons of juicy allegations, she describes in detail the break-up to her comedian ex, sparing no details. In one video, Mary describes finding text messages and e-mails sent from Steve to (his then mistress and current wife) Marjorie.

Mary also says she was quickly disposed of once she informed the star that she intended to divorce him.

"Once he realized I was going to divorce him, he walked out the door... went right to New York, to our apartment that we had there, which I never got to see by the way, and then she joined him there," she claims.

Furthermore, Mary states that Steve, an author of best-selling relationship books who appears on talk shows like Winfrey's to give love advice, didn't even appear in court during the divorce proceedings. She goes on to say that her ex-husband financially ruined her and masterminded her eviction.

“[He] had me evicted from my house, thrown out,” explains Mary. “All the businesses, all the money, the cars, at a moment when I was down, I was down and devastated, he maneuvered everything, he manipulated the courts, everything against me.”

Also featured in the videos are claims that Harvey turned the couple's son against Mary. Yikes.

Mary and Steve have been broken up since 2005, so why is she coming forward now?

“In Steve's opinion, I was responsible when Oprah did not give him a TV show," she says. "I'm being sued for that. That is why I'm saying what I have to say."

Steve Harvey has yet to make a statement regarding the videos; we're pretty sure it'll be awhile before he says anything.

 Pasadena Family Law Attorney Donald P. Schweitzer (former police officer) speaks with HLN Prime News' Vinnie Politan about recent police officers shot across the country within 24 hours. Watch as Don gives his impressions of how these shootings are likely to affect police officers and our legal system.

If you are seeking divorce advice in Pasadena because you are leaving a spouse who has a drug or alcohol problem, you are not alone. A new study from Indiana University says alcoholism is a major factor in divorce and separation. Yet hard-earned experience tells us alcohol and drugs have been destroying relationships for years.

Mary Waldron, lead author of the study from the Indiana University School of Education, was prompted to conduct a new study since prior works didn't chronicle older participants.

"Previous research documented associations between adolescent substance use and early marriage or cohabitation, but much of this work did not follow participants past their 20s," says Waldron.

In the early 1980s, Waldron and her colleagues enlisted more than 5,000 Australian couples. The physical, psychological and physical manifestations of alcohol use were evaluated, as were the lengths of time the couples stayed together. Couples from the ages of 29 to 91 were used in the study. The study found that if drinking is a problem, it undoubtedly causes problems in relationships. Delayed marriage and early separation were linked to relationships where one or more of the partners suffered from alcohol dependence.

Waldron's study is just one of many that links addiction to divorce. But real-life couples who have battled these problems know the toll that drugs and alcohol take on families. Many attorneys estimate that approximately 30 percent of divorce cases are either directly or indirectly related to a spouse's problems with drugs or alcohol. Famous couples like Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen, Elvis and Priscilla Presley, Sean Penn and Madonna and Courtney Cox and David Arquette all split up partially because of problems with addiction.

Dr. Willard F. Harley, a relationship counselor and founder of marriagebuilders.com, says people married to alcoholics are in danger of destroying their own lives.

"Besides being physically and emotionally harmful to alcoholics themselves, addiction is also harmful to those whose lives touch them,” Harley says. “Addiction makes people insensitive to the feelings of those who care most for them, and they will stop at nothing to feed their addiction. I am witness to many people whose lives have been ruined because they married alcoholics."

Studies and expert advice aside, alcoholism and drug addiction are issues that affect the entire family. If you or someone you know is dealing with an addicted spouse, call one of our lawyers today for help.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena have seen their share of speedy re-bound engagements, but the recently-announced impending nuptials of Jesse James and Kat Von D are surely the fastest on recent rec ord. After all, it was just last summer when James finalized his divorce from actress Sandra Bullock. A short two months later he was linked to fellow reality star Kat Von D of LA Ink. And last Thursday James confirmed he andVon D are engaged to be married.

"It's true," James told the Associated Press after days of tabloid speculation.

The motorcycle businessman and reality star in his own right told People magazine, "2010 was actually the best year of my life because I fell in love with my best friend. An amazing woman who stood behind me when the world turned their backs."

James is, of course, referring to the tabloid explosion that detonated his marriage to Sandra Bullock. James was accused of having multiple affairs just days after Bullock won an Academy Award for her role in The Blind Side. So low was James in 2010 he told ABC's Nightline that we was the most hated man in America. He spent much of 2010 apologizing for that title, publicly addressing Sandra and his children by saying he was sorry for causing them "pain and embarrassment beyond comprehension."

Sympathetic or not toward a guy who was linked to a series of Neo-Nazi strippers, you have to admit James is on the upswing. But has he changed his ways? According to his ex-mistress Michelle "Bombshell" McGee, Von D shouldn't hope for miracles when it comes to James.

"Kat, what in the world are you thinking?" McGee recently told Radaronline.com. "I was with Jesse during his marriage — the guy's not faithful, he doesn't have a faithful bone in his body!"

The 2011 schedule for the Pasadena Bar Association's Family Law Section monthly meetings will start off with Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, who will speak tomorrow regarding changes to the Family Law.  Judge  Lewis sits in Family Court of the Los Angeles County Superior Courthouse and is a frequent guest speaker at seminars provided to Certified Family Law Specialists. The topic that Judge Lewis chose to discuss will be:  "The New World of Evidentiary Hearings Under Family Code 217 - Do's and Don'ts.   We expect Judge's Lewis' lecture to be particularly important to Pasadena Family Law attorneys who are interested in the changes to the Family Code pursuant to the recommendations of the Elkins Task Force.  The relevant changes will require Family Courts to allow more evidentiary hearings.

This Past Thursday, the Pasadena Bar Association hosted an evening event on behalf of Commissioner Nori Anne Walla, who presided in Department "K" (Family Court) of the Pasadena Courthouse since 2001.  In attendance at the event were approximately 75 people, including numerous Pasadena family law attorneys, court clerks, and judges.  The event was held at a new restaurant in Pasadena called "Pandora," which is owned by the same people who own the Rocco room and Santorini's restaurant.

Commissioner Walla was recognized by numerous guest speakers who spoke of her dedication and commitment to working in Family Court for nearly a decade.  The event's Emcee was Linda Dugan, who is the new Family Law Section Chairperson, of the Pasadena Bar Association.  Ms. Dugan took on the role of chairperson in January, when Donald Schweitzer stepped down in order to begin his new role as Program Chair and Vice President of the association.

The event started with Ms. Dugan reading a touching message from Commissioner Louise Halevey, who formerly sat in Department "L" of the Pasadena Courthouse, and presided over Family Law cases for approximately fifteen years.  Commissioner Halevey's message conveyed the good working and personal relationship she had with Commissioner Walla, and reminisced about how they helped each other out while sitting in adjoining Family Law Departments.

Commissioner Mary Lou Katz, who sits in Department "L" (also a Family Law Court) of the Pasadena Courthouse, was the next guest speaker, who entertained the audience with her memory of working in the court where Commissioner Walla will be assigned.  Commissioner Katz also confided that she relied heavily on the advice of Commissioner Walla when she took the bench in Department L, and was relatively unfamiliar with Family Law cases.

The next speaker was Judge Marjorie Steinberg, who is the presiding judge of all Family Law Courts in Los Angeles County.  Judge Steinberg's remarks surrounded the fact that she found Commissioner Walla to be highly dependable and would be missed.

The presiding judge of the Pasadena Courthouse - Judge Mary House spoke next at which time she awarded Commissioner Walla with a 25 year service award.  Judge House commented on the fact that Commissioner Walla was being transferred to the Glendale Courthouse, and was using her courtroom in Department "A," of the Pasadena Courthouse to finish up her Family Law trials.  It was obvious from Commissioner House's remarks that she enjoyed working with Commissioner Walla during the past decade in Pasadena.

Robert Holmes, a prominent Family Law Attorney who frequently handles Family Law cases in the Pasadena, Glendale, and Burbank courthouses gave a very entertaining speech the centered on his working relationship with Commissioner Walla.  Those in attendance were laughing and clapping as Robert Holmes recounted his experiences and memories of Commissioner Walla's tenure as a Family Law Commissioner.

Family attorneys in Pasadena have long been aware of the effects a divorce can have on children. Now a new study suggests that kids from divorced homes are more likely to seriously consider suicide as adults than adults who grew up with intact families.

A study from the University of Toronto surveyed 6,647 adults including 695 who were still minors when their parents divorced. Men and women, the study found, reacted to divorce differently. Men whose parents divorced when they were children were three times more likely to have seriously considered suicide than men whose parents never divorced. Women from divorced parents were 83 percent more likely to have suicidal thoughts than women whose parents stayed married. The link between suicidal thoughts or suicidal ideation and divorce was strong for men who grew up in homes with parental addiction, physical abuse, and parental unemployment. Women who grew up without such issues were found not to be at risk for suicidal ideation. Even without additional stressors, according to the study, adults who were children when their parents split up still had an increased risk of suicidal thoughts.

Findings by researchers suggests "the pathways linking parental divorce to suicidal ideation are different for men and women. The association between parental divorce and suicidal thoughts in men was unexpectedly strong, even when we adjusted for other childhood and adult stressors, socioeconomic status, depression and anxiety," said lead author Esme Fuller-Thomson, in a university press release. "Females whose parents had divorced were not particularly vulnerable to suicidal ideation if they were not also exposed to childhood physical abuse and/or parental addictions," she said.

The study,which was published on January 19 online in the journal Psychiatry Research, is "not meant to panic divorced parents", Fuller-Thomson noted in the release. "Our data in no way suggests that children of divorce are destined to become suicidal."

When it comes to the needs of children, family law attorneys in Pasadena take interest. No parent likes to have his or her child improperly tracked into lower-performing programs. In Pennsylvania, a district judge has set a trial date for a lawsuit alleging that special education and lower-level academic classes were being disproportionately filled with black students who had been subjected to improper tracking.

Initially, parents filed a class-action lawsuit, arguing on behalf of all black students in Lower Merion School District. However, in a 2009 ruling, Judge Harvey Bartle ruled that a class-action suit was not appropriate due to each case being too individualized.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which Congress reauthorized in 2004, requires districts to report on whether their special education placements show a disproportionate representation of minorities. Lower Merion's black student population is at about eight percent, whereas special education students in the district are represented at fourteen percent. Although Lower Merion's report to the state includes this fact, it found itself to be within racial disproportionality rules, noting that the disproportion of black students in special education was a result of inappropriate identification of disabilities. In other words, according to the district, it was not a matter of racial or ethnic tracking but misplacement of students in special education programs.

Both the district and lawyers representing the students continue to make their case. The district claims that the plaintiffs are not taking into account their attempts to close the minority achievement gap.

On behalf of the students, Sandra Kerr from the Disability Rights Project said, "We know that within the (school district), there are individuals who care and who want this situation solved. But the (school district) board needs to decisively act to solve this problem."

"The district has acknowledged, through its strategic plan, historical concerns surrounding minority achievement,” the district's statement said. “In response, the district has aggressively sought to take a leadership role in the effort to address minority achievement in the areas of educational programming, hiring, community engagement and staff development."

The court has set a date of Nov. 1 for the trial.

It is not often that divorce attorneys in Pasadena see a case that could affect a whole metropolitan city. In the case of Los Angeles, the city's beloved baseball team is hanging in the balance of just such a case. The future of the Los Angeles Dodgers is in the hands of a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge presiding over the divorce of the team's owner Frank McCourt and his ex-wife, Jamie. Frank McCourt is doing everything he can to get a divorce settlement that will allow him to retain ownership of the Major League team. Unfortunately for him, Jamie considers herself co-owner of the Dodgers and is seeking to retain ownership of the team in her own right.

The couple made a marriage agreement in 2004, and they have been fighting it out over that agreement in the courts. Frank McCourt is deeply in debt. Some sources say that he could be up to $1 billion in the hole. Meanwhile, he was hoping to retain his ownership of the Dodgers, arguing that he bought the team with a company he owned before he was married to Jamie McCourt.

Judge Scott Gordon of the Los Angeles Superior Court has made his final ruling on the issue, after both sides were allowed to make arguments. He has ruled that Jamie McCourt is allowed to seek half-ownership of the team. Frank fired Jamie as the team’s CEO in 2009.

So not only is Frank McCourt seriously strapped for cash, his role in running the Dodgers is uncertain. These points taken together make for very uncertain times for the team. Current decisions need to be made to ensure the team remains competitive and to uphold the Dodger brand, but without funding and without a final decision in divorce court, the team is restricted in what it can do.

In order to allow the team to maintain its operating expenses, the Fox television network has given Frank McCourt a cash advance. Usually, at this time of year, the team's operating expenses are relatively low because it is the off-season. The fact that the team needs a cash advance at this time is curious. Some are wondering if the franchise is in immediate financial trouble, due to the timing of the cash advance issued by Fox.

Divorce lawyers in Pasadena are familiar with the issues surrounding gay marriage in the United States. Now same-sex divorce is becoming an issue, as well. In the state of Texas, a same-sex couple cannot be legally married. But can a legally-married same-sex couple be granted a legal divorce? That question is not clearly answered at this stage.

Currently in the United States, different states have different laws regarding a same-sex couple's right to be legally married. A couple can be legally married in one state, and then move to another state where that marriage is not recognized.

The attorney general in Texas has been trying to block legally-married same-sex couples from divorcing in the state. In February 2010, an Austin court granted a divorce to a lesbian couple that wed in Massachusetts before returning home to Texas. That was when Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbot tried to intervene in order to block the divorce.

On Friday, the Texas Court of Appeals in Austin ruled against the attorney general, allowing the divorce to stand. However, the state has not resolved the debate over the legality of same-sex divorce, because a different appellate court has ruled against a different same-sex couple seeking a divorce in Texas.

An attorney in Austin, Jody Scheske, who is familiar with both of the cases, tried to clarify some of the confusion over the issue.

"It's complicated and to some extent remains unsettled and that's unfortunate," Scheske said. "If you have a legal marriage you should have the same equal right to divorce as all other married people have."

However, Lauren Bean, a spokesperson for Abbot, noted that “the Texas Constitution and statutes are clear: Only the union of a man and a woman can be treated as a marriage in Texas. The court's decision undermines unambiguous Texas law."

The attorney general has different options for pursuing the blocking of same-sex divorces in Texas, and this is an issue that could end up being decided in the Texas Supreme Court.

VTS 02 1 from Natalie Peoples on Vimeo.

Divorce lawyers in Pasadena sometimes see civil divorces affected by religious laws. Aharon Friedman, an Orthodox Jew, saw his religious decision to not grant his wife a divorce become scrutinized in the secular world. If you are wondering how a person can refuse to grant a divorce, in this case the answer to your query can only be found under religious rules of the Jewish Orthodoxy, and not under secular laws of the land.

In Jewish Orthodoxy, only the husband may grant what is called a "get", a Jewish decree of divorce. Friedman and his wife, Tamar Epstein, have already been civilly divorced and civil courts have granted shared custody of their daughter. However, under Jewish law the couple remains married, making Ms. Epstein an agunah, or chained woman. Neither she nor Mr. Friedman could remarry under Jewish law unless he grants Epstein a get. These disputes are frequently resolved with the help of the religious community, but when they aren't, it can lead to a mix of secular divorce laws spilling into the religious dispute.

Mr. Friedman is angry about the custody deal granted in civil court, and that appears to be his reason for not granting the get, tying the religious matter up with the secular outcome of his divorce. Ms. Epstein and her supporters have responded by taking the matter beyond the religious community and out into the secular community. In fact, a rally was organized outside Friedman's apartment, videos appeared on the Internet and a news article was printed, titled "Unchain This Woman".

Ms. Epstein's supporters do not feel that this is just a religious matter, but a matter for the public at large. The secular tactics did not end with the rally, the Internet, and the news article. Rabbi Shmuel Herzfield, a supporter of Ms. Epstein, wrote to the Ways and Means Committee, the powerful committee of the US House of Representatives, to see if they could help. However, Jon Traub, the Republican staff director of the committee informed the rabbi that the issue was not a matter for the Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. Epstein, like many people going through a divorce, just wants to move on with her religious as well as her secular life. For her, however, it is a matter not only for civil divorce proceedings. The religious aspect of her divorce is yet to be settled.

On Thursday, January 20, 2011, the Pasadena Bar Association is hosting an event related to law firm management.  Three employment law lawyers and an insurance broker will sit as a panel to evaluate various skits that will be played out in front of the audience.  The event will be held at a brand new restaurant - "Pandora," which is located on Green Street, in Pasadena. 

The event which will begin at noon was organized by the Pasadena Bar Association president and vice president - Steve Yee and Don Schweitzer.  The event is designed to not only educate lawyers about a variety of management issues that can arise in a law firm, but to also give practical tips. 

 It may appear that this seminar is tailored to  managing partners of  large law firms, but  this event should actually appeal to most lawyers, since lawyers tend to have managing roles and have input regarding the performance of staff members, including paralegals, receptionists, and filing clerks. 

In one of the skits Don Schweitzer will play the part of a managing partner of a Family Law Firm, who has problems with staff members concerning showing up on time and failing to perform due to maternity issues.  We hope this event will be informative and entertaining to the  numerous lawyers in attendance.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena have seen some interesting divorce settlements. In New York, Steven Simkin, whose divorce settlement already has been decided in court, is going to get a crack at getting some of his money back. Part of his settlement was based on millions of dollars that Simkin had invested with Bernard "Bernie" Madoff. He claims he got a raw deal while his ex-wife got a windfall.

After a lower court had thrown out the case, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court ruled to reinstate Simkin's lawsuit against his wife. The couple divorced after 33 years of marriage, and the divorce settlement included millions of dollars in assets to be paid by Simkin to his wife. For his part in the settlement, Simkin kept the Madoff investment accounts after the split. He is claiming that $2.7 million dollars represents half of the Madoff account which Simkin agreed to pay to his ex-wife; the Madoff investments went completely bust. Simkin's lawsuit claims that the deal was unfair, since the settlement awarded him the Madoff assets which were worthless.

The majority of the judges in the appellate court agreed that Simkin received a worthless asset in the divorce settlement. The majority wrote that "Steven never had an account, (because) on Madoff's own admission, there were no accounts within which trades were made."

Simkin's ex-wife and her lawyers, as well as two dissenting judges, beg to differ with the decision. They claim that the original deal was made in good faith and that the Madoff investments only became worthless after the divorce settlement was already agreed. They claim that it was Simkin who negotiated to maintain the investments for himself. In this reading of the issue, Simkin took a risk and lost — tough luck.

"The point here is that: When is a deal a deal? This clearly is a divorce deal which was a deal in 2006, not to be reopened later on,” says one of the lawyers representing Simkin's ex-wife.

How do you beat divorce-related-stress? Many people try "treat" behaviors: smoking, drinking, taking drugs (prescription or "recreational"), eating a carton of chocolate ice-cream -- whatever gives them feelings of pleasure and well-being. Unfortunately, all of these are band-aid solutions: they temporarily ameliorate some of the symptoms without addressing the root of the problem.

Here's a better solution: consider practicing meditation on a regular basis (daily is best). Anyone can practice meditation; you don't have to be on a path to spiritual enlightenment or have any religious beliefs. "Thinking you're unable to meditate is a little like thinking you are unable to breathe, or to concentrate or relax," notes scientist, writer, and meditation teacher Jon Kabat-Zinn, Ph.D. in Everywhere You Go, There You Are. "Pretty much everybody can breathe easily. And under the right circumstances, pretty much anybody can concentrate, anybody can relax."

There are as many types of meditation as there are colors in a rainbow. You can meditate while seated, standing, lying down, dancing, singing, eyes open or shut, listening to music, brushing your teeth, eating -- the list goes on.

Mindfulness Meditation

"Mindfulness provides a simple but powerful route for getting ourselves unstuck, back in touch with our own wisdom and vitality," claims Kabat-Zinn. "The key to this path...is an appreciation for the present moment." Too often, we ignore our present: immersing ourselves in regrets about the past or fears about the future. This is never more true than while going through a life-changing experience such as divorce. So now more than ever, you need to learn to bring yourself back into the present, to quiet and unclutter your mind.

The following meditation can help you to maintain your balance, offering a calm clarity even in very stressful situations. At first, you'll need a quiet space free from distraction to practice mindfulness meditation. Eventually, as you build these mental muscles, you'll be able to bring yourself back into the present moment and quiet your mind anywhere, anytime.

Sit comfortably, your spine reasonably straight but not ramrod stiff, and close your eyes.

Focus your attention on your breathing.

From time to time, you'll become aware of emotions, thoughts, sounds, smells, or physical sensations that break your concentration. Acknowledge they are there, then let them drift past like a cloud -- without passing judgment or getting emotionally or mentally involved with them. Bring your attention back to your breathing and continue the meditation.

If you're struggling with intrusive thoughts, try counting your breaths. Think: "One inhale, one exhale. Two inhale, two exhale," and so on up to 10 or 20. Then start again at one.

Here's another exercise that can help you beat stress. Dirgha Pranayama is called the "three-part breath" because you're actively breathing into three parts of your abdomen. The first position is the lower belly (between the pubic bone and the belly button), the second is the upper belly (between the belly button and the bottom of the ribcage), and the third is the chest (the ribcage). Here's how to do it:

• Sit with a straight back, consciously relax your body, and let go of thoughts and worries by focussing on your breathing.
• Breathe slowly and steadily, in and out through the nose and into the belly.
• Inhale slowly into the first position, then into the second, then into the third; then exhale in reverse: third, second, first positions. Rest your hands on the first two positions to feel your belly rising and falling.

Guided meditation can also be very helpful, especially when you're just starting out. Consider taking a regular class, or listening to a tape or CD at home. Try Susie Mantell's award-winning relaxation audio, Your Present: A Half-Hour of Peaceor one of Dr. Kabat-Zinn's "Mindfulness Meditation Practice" CDs.

Rose was so mad she could hardly see straight. She and her husband, Jim, were six months into their "trial separation" when she discovered that he had been dating someone else. Reeling from the impact of the painful news, she sped over to his new apartment, intent on learning every last detail about the new woman in his life. Her heart pounded and terrifying questions flashed through her mind as she drove: "How could he have lied to me? Who was this other woman? Was she attractive?" And, perhaps worst of all, "What was I thinking when I suggested that we should separate?"

At Jim's apartment, a deep and uncontrollable rage rose up inside Rose's chest as she pounded her fist again and again on the dining-room table. "How could you do this to me?" she cried, as Jim sat and watched, white-faced and speechless as the breakfast dishes flew off the table and smashed into pieces on the floor. He had no idea how to react -- or how to begin to defuse the scene that was unfolding in front of him...

Anger is a very familiar emotion for all of us. And in healthy relationships, it can be an overwhelmingly positive force in our lives. "Anger is a very healthy emotion," says Chet Mirman, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist and director of The Center for Divorce Recovery. "Healthy anger can tell us if there's something wrong -- something painful and threatening that we need to take care of. It helps us protect ourselves, and to know when people are crossing our boundaries."

But for couples who are going through separation or divorce, anger is often anything but healthy. In her informative book The Good Divorce (Harper Perennial, 1995), Dr. Constance Ahrons defines divorce-related anger as "an extreme rage, vindictiveness, and over-powering bitterness that is felt when a love relationship is ending. It is a special kind of anger that usually hasn't been experienced before."

When anger is coupled with divorce, it's often used as a misguided means of hanging on to a failed marriage. After all, for many people, a bad relationship is better than no relationship at all. Divorce anger allows people to punish their ex as often as possible, all while maintaining an ongoing (bitter) relationship with him/her. It's a situation that leaves both partners in divorce limbo -- a perilous situation that obstructs growth and self-awareness.

Some people hold onto their anger so tightly -- stoking the fires on a daily basis -- that their rage takes over their whole lives, coloring and informing all their thoughts and actions. They weigh every action to see how much emotional or physical harm it will inflict on their ex-spouse -- even simply being a nuisance will do in a pinch -- without seeing the injuries they may be inflicting on innocent victims.

When Peter announced he was getting married, his ex-wife Jeannie hit the roof. "He has this great new life -- a nice house, good job, pretty wife -- and I'm stuck with nothing," she complains. "So whenever I have the opportunity to spoil something for him, I take it. Sometimes, I'm a little ashamed later, but it feels great at the time." At the last minute, Jeannie refused to let their two children participate in Peter's wedding ceremony. Instead, she dropped them off just as he and his new wife Sara were leaving for their honeymoon. The kids were so upset about missing the wedding and being dropped off without warning that Peter felt he had to cancel the trip -- which in turn upset Sara.

"I was furious with Jeannie -- more for involving the kids in her own personal war against me than for making us miss our honeymoon. I made the trip up to Sara later, but it's much harder to undo the damage to my kids. Jeannie just doesn't seem to get how much her vindictiveness is adversely affecting our children." Using children as human shields in the divorce battle is a common way to fan the flames of divorce anger. Many scenarios are possible, all of which are damaging and punitive to the children: the custodial parent withholds visitation from the non-custodial parent; the non-custodial parent refuses to pay child support; the custodial parent "forgets" to pick the children up; or the non-custodial parent is hours late in bringing them back. "We forget what's best for the children because we are so intent on getting that other person," writes Ahrons. But "getting back through the kids is hitting below the belt."

Divorce anger is also often expressed through the legal process itself. Here, it's very important to remember that your lawyer is your advocate, not your therapist or best friend. Expressing anger to your ex-spouse through the legal process invariably leads to prolonged, emotional proceedings that will ultimately leave you -- and the family resources -- drained dry.

Using the court as a venue to vent your anger is a bad idea for a couple of key reasons: it's the wrong venue, and it's very expensive (financially and emotionally). Unfortunately, the legal divorce process itself tends to add fuel to the fires of anger. Dividing property (some of which has great sentimental value) and trying to prove your case for custody and/or support can be very emotionally charged because these issues underline what is being lost or changed because of your divorce. Some degree of upset is inevitable, but driving yourself alongside your ex into bankruptcy is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So how can you cope with this new and intense anger? The key lies in understanding its roots, and in finding constructive ways to express the hurt, disappointment, and loss that both you and your former spouse are feeling now as you proceed through separation and divorce. "Anger can really be a very healthy and positive tool, but if we use it destructively, all we do is scare people and alienate them," stresses Dr. Andrea Brandt, Ph.D. M.F.C.C., and a specialist in anger management with the California-based LifeWorks Company. "People have to learn to have anger work for them, not against them."

Here's some advice about coping with your own and your ex-spouse's divorce-related anger.

If you're angry:

• Write it out. Work through your anger by keeping a journal or by writing letters you don't mail, suggests Dr. Brandt.
• Shout it out. "If you can roll up the windows in your car or put your head in a pillow and scream, it can drain some of that negative energy out of your body," she adds.
• Talk it out. It's important when you're angry to develop your own personal support system. Instead of directing your anger at your ex-spouse, talk to a good friend (or two), or find a therapist who specializes in anger management.
• Get some professional help. "Remember -- anger acts as a shield. Your anger suppresses other vulnerable feelings that may be too hard to deal with. It's easier to feel angry than to feel lost, confused, and worried," says Dr. Mirman. "Talking to a professional can help you begin to feel those emotions you've been supressing and move past the anger." You could also benefit from a support or anger-management group where you can share your story. "Support groups help people develop much greater self awareness around their anger," explains therapist Deborah Rodrigues. "They remove the sense of isolation and help people move to a position of growth and development."
• Re-examine your "core beliefs." When we point a finger at another person in anger, we're really pointing three fingers back at ourselves, says Sharon I. Roach, S.S.W., a certified Core Belief Engineering practitioner. "Often, anger is based on something that we observe in early childhood and form a belief about. The problem is that as we grow older, our beliefs and decisions can become outdated."
• Take responsibility for your part of the marriage break-up. "It's a rare couple in which both partners were exactly equal in the breaking of the marriage, but it's an even rarer couple in which one partner was solely at fault," writes Constance Ahrons in The Good Divorce. n Do some personal growth work. "Anger is a great motivator towards action and can propel you to take steps in your life to change situations," says Cynthia Callsen, a New York-based counseler and psychotherapist. "Your anger can help you identify old patterns, and then you can take the steps to stop repeating them."
• Learn what "pushes your buttons." Try to understand your anger -- and what triggers it -- before you express it. Don't be afraid to say that you need some time to think about your response.
• Protect your children. Never make them part of your conflict with your former partner by withholding visitation or support or poisoning their minds against your ex. "For the sake of the children, if for no other reason, learn constructive methods of expressing anger," Ahrons says.
• Keep conflicts at a moderate level, Rodrigues advises. "The other person will often match your level of intensity." And be sure to choose your battles carefully. "Expressing every little irritation and disagreement provokes resentment. Think about the most important issues -- and let go of the small stuff."
• Use "I-messages" when expressing anger. Say: "I feel disappointed when you don't call," not: "You stupid idiot, you're always late!"
• Give yourself time to recover from the loss of your marriage. On average, experts say that the healing process takes about two years. "It's important to realize how sad you are," says Ahrons. "This won't necessarily make you more vulnerable to your ex-spouse; your successful handling of your emotions puts you in a more powerful position."
• Forgive, let go, move on. Anger can become a comfort, a constant in our lives, but as long as you continue to nurse your anger against your ex, you will never have a happy, fulfilled, post-divorce life. Own your responsibility for the break-up, and realize that you have the power to make the choice to forgive and move on, or stay angry and remain stuck. It doesn't matter what your ex does, you can still choose forgiveness. (For more on this topic, see "The Power of Forgiveness".)

If your ex is angry:

• Listen to and validate your ex-spouse's comments. "Your ex may be feeling like he or she isn't being heard," says Callsen. "By really listening to his or her concerns, you may realize where the anger is coming from and identify what you can do to help." It also really helps to defuse the situation, by saying something like, "I understand why you're angry with me."
• Don't be afraid to take a "time-out." Walk away from an anger attack if you can't handle it. "You can always say, 'I'm not going to talk to you until you calm down,'" suggests Callsen. "You might be feeling angry yourself that you were just attacked. So walk away, or end the call. Put limits on what you'll take and how you'll be treated."
• Get some assertiveness training to boost your self-esteem. "Anger is like a fire that must be burned up into the ashes of forgiveness," writes Ahrons. "If we are passive, it is like throwing more logs onto the fire..."
• Use your response to defuse the situation. "When someone is angry, they're likely to pull in a million different issues," says Rodrigues. Insist on dealing with each issue separately, and one at a time. You can also try agreeing with your ex, she says. "When you say 'Yeah, you're right,' it tends to quiet people down pretty quickly. There's nowhere to go with it, so eventually the anger shuts down."
• Try not to take your ex-spouse's comments too personally. "Remember that anger is a projection of one's own inner feelings and one's own world," says Roach. Rodrigues agrees: "Accept the fact that this person is angry because they're going through turmoil. It's not your anger, it's theirs, so don't own it."
• Stay calm. It can really help de-escalate the anger, says Rodrigues. "Tell yourself 'I can handle this' during an angry phone call from your ex. Relaxation techniques, such as deep breathing, can also be effective when you're listening to someone who's really angry." A mantra can be helpful, too, adds Brandt. "If I'm speaking with someone who's really angry at me, I'll always say silently to myself, 'This is good for our relationship.'"
• Learn to recognize your own hot buttons.When someone pushes one of your buttons, your response is going to be way out of proportion to the offense. "Other people's feelings and words are simply information," stresses Roach. "If you're affected by them, there may be something that trails behind them from your history that is bothering you."
• Try to feel a little compassion -- no matter how hard that may be. "Now that the relationship's over, the other person is probably feeling fearful and threatened that they'll never love again or they'll never see their kids," says Rodrigues. "Try to hear what's underneath the anger. Quite often, it's fear, pain, or shame." Showing empathy or compassion for your ex can go a long way to defusing his or her anger.
• Be honest with yourself. Recognize that when someone is angry with you, there may be something in what they're saying. "Very often, you might hear something that's really valuable," says Brandt. If your ex is yelling at you, you can choose to think he/she's a jerk and start yelling back, or you can "dig for the gold" in what he/she's saying. Keep the gold; discard the dirt and rocks.
• Value your safety above all else. If your former partner's divorce anger seems to be headed in a dangerous direction, put some boundaries in place and communicate through a third party. "Threats should always be taken seriously," advises Rodrigues. "Remove yourself from the situation and refuse face-to-face contact if you sense any danger at all... put the answering machine on and screen your calls."

Your marriage is in question and you're facing a real dilemma. You may be the one who is deciding should you stay or should you go.

"I feel like I need to get a divorce and end this so-called marriage. Yet how can I be sure? Some days I feel more confident of my decision than others. A part of me still loves him, or at least I care for him. I don't think I am in love with him, but what if I make a mistake? A lot of people will be affected by what I decide. Maybe I should not rush ahead with this. That's amusing since I have been thinking about it for three years. This whole thing wouldn't even be an issue and I could forget about this divorce, if he would just change his behavior."

Or you may be the one who has just heard that your spouse wants a divorce.

"Divorce? Where did that come from? Two weeks ago we were talking about a vacation in the mountains. I had no idea our marriage was this awful? I am shocked and devastated. I have got to find a way to put a stop to this. Maybe this is all a dream and when I wake up things will be back to normal."

Most books and articles on divorce are written based on the assumption that once a couple says they want a divorce that they are ready for divorce. It is our experience as therapists and divorce coaches, who have helped many people through this process that this is in fact not the case. Usually when couples begin the divorce process, either one but more often than not, both, are not really ready for the divorce.

Divorce professionals such as therapists, mediators, and attorneys often believe that statements such as, "I've had it with him." or "My feelings have died for her," are indicators that the marriage is over. Attorneys often equate being hired for their services as an indicator that the couple is ready to divorce. This is not so.

Most couples who begin a divorce are unprepared and are often not even on the same page when they begin. It is this lack of preparedness and readiness for a divorce that either causes marriages to end prematurely or divorces to deteriorate into competitive contests.

The decision to obtain a divorce is one of the most crucial decisions a person can make, with consequences that last for years or a lifetime. A decision this important requires much greater attention than it is usually given by both couples and professionals. It is a process in and of itself. Once a couple is prepared and ready, they will sooner be able to begin their divorce by both being on the same page and this will eliminate most of the emotional and financial struggles that cause divorces to become adversarial and ruthless.

The reason many people do not even think about getting ready for a divorce is because they operate under the assumption that the sooner you can get out of a stressful situation, the better. So there is a natural tendency for people who are in difficult marriages to want to get the divorce over with as quickly as possible in order to move on with their lives. Family and friends often encourage this as well. They hurt for the family and so also prescribe to the myth that the quicker the divorce is over, the sooner everything will return to normal. But unfortunately, in most cases, just the opposite happens. Couples who make rushed decisions to leave the marriage have had no time to evaluate their feelings, thoughts, or options. As a result, they are unprepared for the roller coaster of emotions, the complicated legal system, and the many life-changing decisions that they need to make. Quite often, they make agreements which they cannot sustain, and instead of the situation getting better, they often find that they have just traded one set of problems for another. So it is no wonder that they often get tangled up in lengthy court cases and the very thing they hoped for, a quick divorce, often takes years.

This article outlines what couples need to do in order to face the numerous dilemmas that are inherent in divorce. A dilemma implies that you are torn between two choices, each of which have undesirable fearful elements. If people have not resolved their dilemmas before the divorce, they go through the process trying to manage their fear in different ways by hiding their doubt, responsibility, vulnerability, or dependency. Whether a couple is starting the divorce process or even just contemplating a divorce, they need to first identify with the following divorce dilemmas.

The Three Divorce Dilemmas

Couples who are facing the possibility of a divorce face one of three dilemmas:

1. I want the divorce, but I am not sure if it is the right decision. Since going through a divorce affects the lives of your children, as well as your lifestyle, economics, and marital investment, the pressure to make the "perfectly correct" decision is enormous. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees. The best-case scenario is to make a decision that is not emotionally based, nor driven by your ego.
2. I do not want the divorce, my spouse does. Being in this reactive place will leave you feeling out of control and a helpless victim. You will experience intense emotional devastation, as your life will be changing before your eyes without you having any say in the outcome. In addressing this dilemma, you need to ask yourself if you are clinging to staying on familiar, safe ground and to a marriage based on illusions. It is not easy to acknowledge and confront the problems in a marriage, when you are feeling so hurt by your partner.
3. I only want this divorce because my marriage is not working. If this is your dilemma, then you will want to avoid responsibility at all costs by seeing your partner to blame for the demise of the marriage. There will be tremendous preoccupation and anger about how your partner caused you to make this decision. The amount of noise generated from this blaming will be in direct proportion to your unwillingness to risk expressing any of your own fears and sadness. If this doesn't occur, the divorce proceedings to follow will be riddled with tension and conflict, and a continuation of the blaming.

The common element in all three dilemmas is fear. In the first group, there is a fear of making a mistake and being incorrect, the second will hide from it by denying that there are any problems or admitting their attachment to the familiar, and the third group will fear any accountability and softness. The result in all three circumstances will be dragging, combative, and back-and-forth divorces.

For divorce to be a collaborative and respectful process, the couple must be prepared and ready to separate their lives on all levels; legally, practically, and emotionally. To do this, each person must face their divorce dilemma by answering the eight questions below.

The Eight Questions

Bruce Derman Ph.D. and Wendy Gregson LMFT are members of the Coalition of Collaborative Divorce. They have extensive experience in helping couples obtain a Better Divorce through preparation, collaboration and effective negotiation.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena are serving their clients under the backdrop of a deep recession. A new paper, titled “For Better or for Worse, But How About a Recession?,” tries to explore the effect of recession on divorce rates.

Some forces that act on marriage are said to be “procyclical” or “countercyclical.” For example, a weak economy causes difficulty in a marriage, for obvious reasons, which could lead to a break-up. However, a strong economy increases the earning potential of each spouse, increasing independence, which could make it easier to split up, as well. Each of these forces could lend itself to a willingness to break marital ties.

The authors of the paper, Jeremy Arkes and Yu-Chu Shen, are both of the Naval Post-graduate School in Monterrey, California. Here are some of the interesting conclusions from their paper:

"For couples in years six to 10 of marriage, it appears that the financial strain from weak economic periods has a greater toll on the marriage, as the countercyclical forces dominate the procyclical forces,” Arkes and Shen write. “For couples in their first five years of marriage, perhaps some of these effects cancel each other out or are very small. We speculate that young couples would be less likely to have children and less likely to have mortgage payments, so they may be able to better withstand unemployment experiences.

“For couples married more than 10 years, there are two potential explanations for their ability to withstand the economic crisis,” they note. “First, it is possible that marriages that last that as long as 10 years are stable enough that they would not be affected by financial problems. Second, these older couples would have more expensive housing needs (from having children and higher standards as they get older), so that the weak economy affects the affordability of divorces more for couples in this category, perhaps counteracting the effects of the financial strain when the economy is weak."

“The main point from this research, however, is that the current economic crisis is probably not affecting the stability of marriage for newly-married or long-lasting couples, but the economic crisis is likely causing more divorces for couples in years six to 10 of marriage," they conclude.

Pasadena family law attorneys might wonder how the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Larry King, Mel Gibson and Gibson's ex-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, all got tangled up in a First Amendment dispute at the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s family law division. On Thursday, December 30, the ACLU stepped in to stop Mel Gibson's legal team from a largely closed-door attempt to bar Oksana Grigorieva's lawyer, Martin Garbus, from representing her.

Garbus appeared with Grigorieva on Larry King's talk show, commenting on aspects of Grigorieva and Gibson's divorce proceedings. The move by Gibson's lawyers, including prominent family law attorney Stephen A. Kolodny, to bar Garbus from the case is a result of some of the public statements Garbus made on the broadcast. The ACLU has taken up the cause of Garbus, citing the move as an infringement on Garbus' First Amendment rights. The organization has made it clear that they are only interested in the free speech implications, and not interested in the final outcome of the divorce proceedings.

“This is about whether a lawyer can be stopped from representing a client who wants that lawyer, because of public statements," says Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU. "The ACLU believes, in principle, that only very limited restrictions can be placed on lawyers” in relation to the public comments they may make.

The ACLU’s letter brief said that Gibson's lawyers objected to Garbus' statement on the Larry King broadcast that Gibson “doesn’t want to pay any support for the child.” However, the ACLU argues that nothing in Garbus' statements “in one television appearance on the Larry King show will have any continuing effect” on the legal proceedings.

Known for heartland hits about Jack and Diane and little pink houses, John (sometimes Cougar) Mellencamp has endured three decades in the fickle rock and roll eye. Sadly, his marriage to model Elaine Irwin did not survive. After 18 years, the pair announced last week that they are calling it quits. The breakup comes as a shock to manydivorce attorneys in Pasadena, as the pair was seen as one of music’s royal couples.

It’s a pairing as old as rock and roll itself: the rock star and the supermodel. But unlike Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall and others before them, John Mellencamp and Elaine Irwin appeared to have real staying power. After all, the couple lived in Indiana and stayed out of the Hollywood music scene. Elaine and the kids were often found on tour with John. And, most remarkably, the couple stayed out of the rumor mill… a major feat for a celebrity couple. So stargazers were taken aback when Mellencamp and Irwin broke up right before the holiday season.

They released a statement saying they "are proud of their 20 years together and are very happy with their accomplishments both as parents and as a family," according to spokesperson Bob Merlis. "They will continue to raise their two children in Indiana but have decided to call it a day as a couple."

Irwin is Mellencamp’s third wife and while there is no official reason for the breakup, gossip hounds have speculated that John might already have moved on to another woman. US Magazine, People and several other rags are reporting that movie actress Meg Ryan secretly started dating Mellencamp about 3 months before the divorce announcement to Irwin became public. The pair recently was photographed in New York’s hip SoHo neighborhood at a coffee shop near Ryan’s apartment.

For divorce attorneys in Pasadena, ringing in the New Year with co-workers may not sound that exciting. Then again, we don’t have coworkers who look like Ryan Reynolds or Sandra Bullock. The costars of the 2009 comedy hit The Proposal were spotted hanging out together on New Year’s Eve, sending gossip hounds into a 2011 tizzy about whether the long-term friends are becoming romantically involved.

Bullock hosts an annual New Year’s Eve dinner for her close friends at her Austin, Texas, restaurant Bess Bistro. This year’s festivities were Roaring Twenties-themed and guests were gussied up in their flapper and gangster getups. Bullock’s friend and former co-star Reynolds was in attendance and flying solo. The duo, according to sources, appeared close and didn’t hide from photographers.

“They danced the night away and were there until after 1 a.m.,” a source told Radaronline.com.

Reynolds and Bullock caused waves in Austin a month ago when they were seen at another restaurant owned by Bullock, Walton’s Fancy & Staple. The two have maintained they are simply friends and have known each other for years.

In summer 2009, Reynolds told Entertainment Tonight about his experience working with Bullock on The Proposal.

"I had the most incredible fortune to be working with a dance partner like Sandra Bullock," Reynolds said. "I've known her for about nine years so you don't often get a chance to do a film like this with your good buddy."

Camps for both actors have denied requests for comment regarding their recent public outings.

Meanwhile, Sandra Bullock and Sunny James, the daughter of her ex-husband Jesse James, were seen hanging out on Christmas Day.

“Even although Sandra and her father are no longer together, they have remained in touch,” a source told Radaronline.com. “Despite everything that has happened between Sandra and Jesse, Sandra has remained in touch with Sunny and his other two kids.”

Pasadena, CA (PRWEB) January 3, 2010 - The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer, proudly announces a new attorney, Nitasha Khanna, to their legal team.

Ms. Khanna will serve as an Associate Attorney, practicing Family Law, within the Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer.  

According to Ms. Khanna, "I couldn't have been luckier.  I love practicing Family Law, being an attorney, and I have great mentors at the firm.  I hope to make a difference and help people."

Ms. Khanna recently passed the State Bar of California and had worked with the Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer as a Law Clerk during her time in law school.  She plans on becoming a minor's counsel and getting her Family Law Specialization.

"I am looking forward to applying my undergraduate study in Psychology and understanding my clients and their needs as they navigate through their legal and personal dilemmas.  I am lucky to have the opportunity and ability to help them get through what may be the hardest thing they have had to endure."

When asked about hiring Ms. Khanna, her employer, Donald P. Schweitzer said, "We are excited to have Nitasha join our litigation team.  She exemplifies the type of attorney we try to hire at this firm.  Our firm devotes a great deal of time and effort in selecting the right people for our family law practice.  Finding Nitasha among all the candidates who were interested in the position took a lot of time and patience, but in the end we got the person we wanted."

Ms. Khanna was born in San Jose, California, moved to India when she was five, and returned when she was sixteen.  She graduated, with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2004.  In 2007, she entered Southwestern Law School, where she was a member of the Moot Court Honors Program, a Staff Member of the Southwestern Journal of International law, and was a 2^nd Place Writer and Finalist Oralist at the Intramural Moot Court Competition. 

Kelsey Grammer’s divorce from Camille Grammer has taken some interesting turns of late — and Kelsey wants it to turn faster. Divorce lawyers in Pasadena continue to see couples trying to get on with their lives. But some people are more impatient than others when it comes to moving on from their failed marriage.

It turns out Kelsey Grammer is asking the divorce judge to grant the divorce decree quickly. It appears that his reason for the requested rush order is to enable him to marry his girlfriend Kayte Walsh. Does California state law allow such a maneuver?

Matrimonial lawyers in Pasadena know that many spouses have a desire to end the marriage quickly, even when other issues in the case have yet to be settled. In California, such a legal maneuver is called “bifurcation.” In the case of Kelsey and Camille Grammer, there does happen to be another issue that has yet to be settled — and it’s not a little issue, either. There’s the issue of financial agreements, and there is a great deal at stake.

Reports estimate that Camille could end up receiving more than $50 million. In California, all earnings during a marriage are split equally between the divorcing couples. After all of the assets are counted, Kelsey and Camille Grammer may have amassed more than $100 million while they were married. Kelsey Grammer’s television shows are not the only thing they earned — they apparently made some real estate investments together as well, among other things.

If the judge sees fit to grant bifurcation, Mr. Grammer can marry Kayte Walsh as early as January 1, 2011, or exactly six months from the date when the divorce petition was filed. According to California law, a divorce can become finalized 6 months after the divorce petition filing. Then, the financial agreements can be worked out at a later date. If Kelsey Grammer has his way, he will be remarried by the time those financial agreements are finalized.

This latest marriage would be Grammer’s fourth.

As lawyers in Pasadena can tell you, education is an issue where all parents want their child’s needs to be met. However, many parents are not aware of all the laws that ensure their child is protected. Important legal provisions make educational needs a matter of children’s rights.

For example, many parents are familiar with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. And everyone has heard of the No Child Left Behind Act.

But have you ever heard of the “Williams settlement?”

Here’s a line from the Williams vs. California settlement that a lot of parents interested in family law in Pasadena might find interesting:

“[T]hese thresholds for teacher quality, instructional materials, and school facilities are intended by the Legislature and by the Governor to be a floor, rather than a ceiling, and a beginning, not an end, to the State of California's commitment and effort to ensure that all California school pupils have access to the basic elements of a quality public education.”

On May 17, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the State of California due to substandard conditions in many California public schools. In August 2004, a settlement was announced. The settlement requires that all students have books and that their schools be clean and safe. It also requires the state to take steps to ensure that students have qualified teachers and that schools deliver these important resources to students.

All public schools in California fall under the provisions of the Williams settlement. A statewide accountability system has been put in place where every school district must now provide a uniform complaint process for complaints regarding insufficient instructional materials, unsafe or unhealthy facility conditions and teacher vacancies.

Budget cuts in California are inevitable, and those who place a premium on quality education are ready to advocate. With the coming budget cuts, the Williams settlement is more pertinent to the rights of children than ever.

Here’s a hopeful story for those seeking divorce advice in Pasadena, as well as those hoping to find love late in life: Hugh Hefner, the 84-year-old two-time divorcee is engaged again! Yup, the spry whippersnapper will be trading in the smoking jacket for a tuxedo when he marries 24-year-old former Playmate Crystal Harris next year.

The octogenarian Playboy founder took to his Twitter page over the holidays to tell the world of his engagement. "After the movie tonight, Crystal & I exchanged gifts. I gave Crystal a ring. A truly memorable Christmas Eve.” Hef later added, "When I gave Crystal the ring, she burst into tears. This is the happiest Christmas weekend in memory."

Hef confirmed that he and Harris were engaged on Christmas Day. "Yes, the ring I gave Crystal is an engagement ring. I didn't mean to make a mystery out of it. A very merry Christmas to all."

Harris and Hefner met at the Playboy Mansion during the magazine’s 2008 Halloween party. Harris, who is also a model and singer, has spoken openly about the vast age difference between her and Hefner.

"A lot of people talk about the age difference between Hef and I, but I don't see the age difference at all. If anything, I feel like I'm the adult and Hef's the kid," she told News of the World last year. She also shot down claims that she is a gold digger. "I would say that I'm not after Hef for his money. I have my own career going.”

This will be the third marriage for Hefner. The magazine icon divorced his first wife, Mildred Williams, in 1959. He married again in 1989 to Playmate Kimberly Conrad, whom he was separated from in 1998. Conrad and Hefner didn’t finalize their divorce, however, until 2009.