Recent Posts in Financial Category

Family attorneys in Pasadena thought the divorce of Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant and estranged wife Vanessa was pretty much a done deal. After years of rumors of affairs, it appeared that Vanessa finally had enough. But new photos surfaced of the couple sharing a Valentine's kiss near the Lakers locker room, leaving fans wondering if Kobe and Vanessa called off what many counted on being the year's nastiest divorce.

Celebrity gossip blogs were positively buzzing last week when photos and video of Kobe and Vanessa Bryant kissing after a Lakers game showed up online. The pair was set to embark on an expensive and brutal divorce, but perhaps they changed their mind?

Not so much. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Bryant divorce is alive and well. The couple has already divided their vast assets in court. Records from an Orange County court show that Vanessa is set to receive $18.8 million in property from her NBA ex. Kobe is said to be worth $150 million and since the couple did not sign a prenuptial agreement, Vanessa could potentially walk away from the relationship with $75 million.

In the meantime, experts say it isn't uncommon for couples to have a "financial divorce" while trying to repair a relationship.

"A married couple can decide to split their specific assets and continue their marriage," Chris Melcher, a family law attorney, told the Times.

A financial divorce can sometimes improve a relationship, he says.

"There is more of a balance of power in the relationship," Melcher said.

Yet other sources are reporting Vanessa Bryant is done with Kobe and currently shopping for property in New York City.

Vanessa Bryant filed for divorce in December, citing "irreconcilable differences." The couple was married on April 18, 2001; they have two daughters.

If you're considering aPasadena divorce, you may be wondering if there is a minimum length of time you must be married in order to receive alimony. While the length of your marriage doesn't determine if you can receive alimony, it is often a factor in how long the payments are made.

Alimony, sometimes called spousal support or maintenance, is a payment made by one spouse to the other in the event of a divorce. Alimony is for the financial support of the adult receiving the payments. Child support is for the needs of the children from the marriage and is determined separately.

In California, a marriage lasting 10 years or more is considered of long duration and thus eligible for extended alimony benefits. If a couple is married for less than 10 years, generally alimony eligibility is determined to be half the length of the marriage. For example, a couple married for six years would have three years of alimony eligibility. This is just a starting point for alimony awards, however. Many other factors are also considered.

Some of the factors that determine alimony awards are the health, age, and future earning prospects of the divorcing couple. For example, a 50 year old woman who has not held a job outside the home in 25 years would be much more likely to receive alimony than a 25 year old with an MBA. Contrary to popular belief, gender is not a factor in determining alimony awards. Alimony is concerned with earning potential alone.

There are four types of alimony awards:

• Temporary alimony is alimony awarded pending the divorce proceeding;
• Rehabilitative alimony is alimony given to allow the lesser earning spouse time to become self sufficient;
• Permanent alimony is paid until the death of one of the spouses or the remarriage of the recipient; and
• Reimbursement alimony is payment for expenses the spouse incurred during the marriage - such as paying for a graduate degree for the higher earning spouse.

A Pasadena matrimonial lawyer can provide advice regarding which type of alimony is most appropriate for your case.

If you're divorcing in Pasadena and think that an amicable divorce is impossible - especially in California - think again. Sure, many celebrities have knock-down, drag-out divorces, but there are few superstar couples who handle divorce with class. Like Katy Perry and Russell Brand.

Married in October 2010 at an Indian tiger sanctuary, actor/comedian Russell Brand and pop star Katy Perry were that kind of quirky Hollywood couple that broke the mold when it came to how a famous couple was supposed to act. So leave it to the pair, who called it quits in December, to divorce like nobody else in Tinsel Town. Brand finalized papers last Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court which officially ended his 14-month union to Perry. The documents, according to RadarOnline.com, state that Perry and Brand "have entered into a comprehensive written settlement of all issues, including, without limitation, with respect to the property to be confirmed or assigned to each party."

Most surprisingly, Brand did not go after a penny of Perry's reported $40 million fortune, despite the fact that the pair had no prenuptial agreement. A source close to the pair told TMZ, "This divorce is as amiable as it gets and Russell was a mensch." The couple's considerable assets include four shared properties in New York, Los Angeles and London worth an estimated $15 million. Perry and Brand waived their rights to a trial by checking boxes that they "agree this cause may be decided as an uncontested matter" in the legal documents, indicating that they have reached a settlement outside of court. Perry is only requesting to legally restore her maiden name to Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson.

Further proving that this was a friendly divorce, Perry signed her divorce papers with a smiley face after her name.

In California, the pendulum continues to swing with respect to our "move-away" law.  Based on three recent published opinions from San Diego County, the custodial parent's presumptive right to move has been significantly strengthened.  In order to understand how California move-away law has been changed by these decisions, it is first necessary to understand the two California Supreme Court decisions that set the ground rules for trial courts dealing with this issue.

            During the mid‑1990s the California Supreme Court published a decision entitled In Re Marriage of Burgess, which held that a custodial parent has the presumptive right to move away with the parties' children, so long as the move is not motivated by vindictive purposes, and that there is a rational basis for the move.  The Supreme Court specifically held that the trial court is not allowed to second guess the custodial parent's reasoning for the move.  Thus, even if the trial court believes that the custodial parent's reasoning is a little off and that he or she has the same or better opportunities in California, it cannot deny the move. 

Approximately seven years later, the California Supreme Court published a second "move away" decision entitled In Re Marriage of La Musga, which purported to clarify the prior decision.  In La Musga, the California Supreme Court held that if a non‑custodial parent makes a prima facia showing that the move away would be detrimental to the children and to the relationship between the left-behind parent and the children, the trial court must decide the issue after a full evidentiary hearing, and that the court must decide if the move is in the best interest of the children.  The California Supreme Court also stated that the trial court must take into consideration several common-sense factors such as the distance of the move, whether or not the custodial parent would share custody, whether or not the relationship between the children and the left-behind parent would be damaged by the move, etc.

            In my practice as a family law attorney, I have seen the pendulum swing in both directions on this issue.  After the Burgess decision, the trial courts were pretty much rubber stamping requests for move away and it seemed like any opposition to the move was futile.  After the La Musga case was published, however, trial courts and mental health professionals became very vocal in their opposition to move aways and it became significantly harder for a custodial parent to move away with children if the other parent objected.

            Now, in the wake of the three published cases out of San Diego, I believe that parents wishing to move away with children will have a much better chance of doing so.  Since all three decisions essentially ruled the same way, I will review only one of the cases for the purposes of this article, In Re Matter of Mark T. v. Jaime Z.

In Mark T. v. Jaime Z., the father filed to establish paternity in 2007.  On November 10, 2008 the Trial Court made orders for the father to have overnight visitation.  The mother was obviously given primary custody of the child.  The mother then filed an Order to Show Cause requesting the court's permission to move to the State of Minnesota with the minor child.  The mother's reasons for the move, as stated in her declaration, were that she had support from family members in Minnesota, she had no job in San Diego, and that she was forced to borrow money.  She also stated that she believed she would have better job opportunities in Minnesota.

            In February, 2009, the mother and father entered into a Stipulation and Order that they would participate in a child custody evaluation.  Subsequent to their agreement, a child custody evaluator interviewed the parents and eventually made recommendations.  However, while the custody evaluation was underway, the parties entered into a second Stipulation and Order that acknowledged the mother was the primary custodial parent.

            In June 2009, the child custody evaluator released her report.  The child custody evaluator stated that the mother's need for her family support in Minnesota was no substitution for the child's need to be with the father.  The Trial Court followed the recommendations of the evaluator and precluded the mother from moving to Minnesota because the Trial Court believed that the move would have a detrimental effect on the child.

            The mother appealed the decision.  The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case back to the Trial Court with specific findings that:

            1.         When faced with a move-away request, the Trial Court must decide custody based on the assumption that the move will take place and determine what custody arrangement is in the child's best interest if the move occurs;

            2.         The Trial Court applied the incorrect legal standard in ruling on the mother's move-away request because it based its order on an assumption that the mother would not move if the Trial Court denied the request;

            3.         The Trial Court's order was impermissibly coercive;

            4.         The child custody evaluator's report failed to address what the proper parenting plan would be if the mother moved to Minnesota and the Trial Court erred by adopting the child custody evaluator's recommendations;

            5.         The father's attorney should not have been allowed to question the mother regarding whether or not she would move without the children; and

            6.         Improper motive for move is only one factor for the Trial Court to consider and it is not an automatic ground for a custody change.

            Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that the Trial Court abused its discretion by failing to apply the proper legal standard for making the move-away orders.

            The lessons that we learn from the three cases from San Diego are very important.  First, we now know that trial courts may not coerce parents into remaining behind by giving them a choice of either staying and having primary custody of the kids or moving away without the children.  Second, we also learn that it is not permissible for a child custody evaluator or an opposing counsel to ask a custodial parent if he or she will in fact move if the children were ordered to remain with the other parent.

            Practically speaking, now a trial court has the tough decision of deciding where the children should live, assuming that the custodial parent has already moved.  In Mark T. v. Jaime Z., the Trial Court should have decided whether the children were better off with the mother in Minnesota or with the father in San Diego.  Obviously, if the parties have already stipulated that the children are better off with the mother on a primary basis, it will be difficult to assume that they would be better with father in the case of a move away.  I believe that these decisions will cause more people to litigate over who should have primary custody because if the primary custodian decides he or she wants to move, it will be pretty difficult to object in most cases. 

Do parents have an obligation to assist with expenses relating to their child's college education? While some parents start saving for their child's tuition as soon as they receive a positive pregnancy test, others believe it's important for their children to work and pay for their education on their own. However, if a child has divorced parents, the court may order college support payments. Parents can also negotiate to have this included as part of their divorce decree.

Child support payments are payments that are made for the living expenses of the child, while college support payments are payments that are made for the post-secondary education expenses of the child. It is possible to be ordered to pay both child support and college support for the same child, although sometimes a judge will allow you to pay child support payments directly to the child instead of your ex-spouse if he is living off campus and has significant monthly expenses that must be paid.

Judges consider several different factors when deciding if college support is appropriate, such as the financial resources of the child's parents, the child's own income and assets, the nature of the child's educational goals, and the standard of living the child would have had if his parents had not divorced. If a parent is ordered to provide college support, the child receiving the support often must meet specific obligations regarding school attendance, the number of credits earned each semester, and the grades received for each class.

If you have tuition remission offered as an employment benefit, this can't be used in place of your court-ordered college support payments. Typically, courts will rule that both parents must benefit from the tuition remission.

Any Pasadena divorce attorney will tell you that college support awards are controversial, since there are no laws requiring parents who remain married to contribute financially to the cost of their child's education. Even if you are not legally ordered to provide college support payments, however, you should consider that your child's eligibility for grants, loans, and other forms of financial aid is dependent upon your income. When completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), college students must report parental income and assets regardless of whether or not they are receiving parental assistance with their educational expenses.

 
Even the most amiable folks divorcing in Pasadena have to figure out who gets to keep the house. And in those not-so-amiable breakups, houses and apartments can become battlegrounds. Over the last few months, we've seen celebrities duke it out over beach houses and billionaires trying to cling to castles - but when it comes to property squabbles, nothing beats the saga of the Star Trek apartment.

Super Star Trek fan Tony Alleyne has been profiled more than a few times for having the ultimate Trekkie apartment. After his wife left him in 1994, Alleyene spent a staggering $150,000 to transform his one-bedroom apartment in Leicester, U.K., into an exact replica of the fictional starship the U.S.S. Voyager from the Star Trek: Voyager television series.

"I have always considered that of all the Starfleet ships, Voyager is, in terms of interior, the luxury liner of the galaxy," Alleyne said in an interview in 2009.

No detail of the ship was skipped and Alleyne calls the remodel his "life's work." The project took ten years to complete and has been blogged about by fans of the franchise since its completion. A high-tech bathroom, voice-activated blue lights and his own captain's chair are just a few of the one-of-a-kind features.

So imagine Alleyene's disappointment when he learned that his ex-wife would be taking the apartment from him. How did an ex of nearly twenty years stake claim on her estranged husband's ultimate sci-fi man cave? Turns out Alleyene's ex-wife is the actual owner of the apartment and has been paying the mortgage since the pair broke up in 1994. She is just now seeking an official divorce and hopes to sell the apartment as a "conventional property." She plans to dismantle all of the Star Trek fixings and remodel the apartment before she puts it on the market.

While navigating your through a contested divorce in Pasadena, it is likely that you have experienced differences of opinion when it comes to financial matters and coughed at numbers that seem astronomical. However, it is highly unlikely that your divorce settlement has a $75 million dollar price tag. Yet that's exactly what the Aga Kahn Prince Karim is being asked to fork over in his divorce - and he is flatly refusing to pay.

Although the Aga Kahn, who is the spiritual leader to millions of the Ismaeli Muslim community, is estimated to be worth anywhere between $5 and $10 billion, he has filed a last-minute appeal in a French divorce court. His refusal to pay sets in motion an unprecedented review by the Cour de Cassation and could delay the divorce for up to seven years. Given the additional time and lengthy proceedings, the move shocked both legal experts and high society watchers alike.

Aga Kahn and his former pop star wife, Begum Inaara Aga Kahn, broke up nearly six years ago after rumors of his affair with an airline hostess surfaced in the European tabloids. This past September, a French court ordered the twice-married racehorse owner to fork over a $75 million dollar settlement, which seemed small compared to the estimated $500 million settlement Inaara was initially rumored to receive. The Aga Kahn was allegedly set to marry for a third time to Beatrice von der Schulenburg. The refusal to pay his current divorce settlement will undoubtedly delay that marriage. His current wife, formerly known as Gabriele zu Leiningen, will retain the title of Her Highness the Begum Aga Kahn. According to the Telegraph, "The Cour de Cassation must now decide whether the latest ruling was legally watertight, failing which it could order a new appeals trial, further dragging out the process."

This article will analyze this recently published appellate decision (In Re Marriage of Cryer ) that should serve as  glaring example as to why individuals should proceed carefully before filing such motions. 

In "In Re Marriage of Cryer," we see the failed attempt of a famous actor, Jon Cryer, to modify child support.  Jon Cryer, known for his leading role on a popular sitcom called "Two And A Half Men," married his wife in the year 2000.  During the same year, the parties gave birth to their minor child.  However, four years later, after Mr. Cryer completed his first season of "Two And A Half Men", the parties separated and filed for divorce.

In 2004, Mr. Cryer entered into a Stipulated Judgment for Dissolution pursuant to which he bought Ms. Cryer a condominium, and agreed to pay her a sum of $10,000.00 per month in child support, based on his rather high income and a 35 percent timeshare with the parties' minor child.

In May 2009, the minor child suffered an injury while in Ms. Cryer's home.  The Department of Children and Family Services subsequently filed a dependency action, and removed the child from Ms. Cryer's care and placed the child with Mr. Cryer.  As a result, Mr. Cryer filed an Order to Show Cause for downward modification of child support based on his increased time share and Ms. Cryer's decreased timeshare with the minor child.  This motion was filed in August 2009, at which time Mr. Cryer admitted that he earned $327,000.00 per month and had liquid assets amounting to $7 million. 

Judge Pellman of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the presiding judge over this matter, denied Mr. Cryer's request in part and granted it in part.  Upon hearing Mr. Cryer's arguments, she ordered that his child support obligation be reduced to $8,000.00 per month, from the original $10,000.00 per month, to reflect his increased time with the child.  However, Judge Pellman declined to reduce his child support obligation to the guideline amount of zero, because she believed that ordering child support based on the guideline formula would be "unjust and inappropriate." 

Judge Pellman also determined that Mr. Cryer was an extraordinarily high-income earner and found that it was in the child's best interest to come home to his mother's house in the manner that he was accustomed to living in Mr. Cryer's house.  The evidence showed that Ms. Cryer was financially dependent on Mr. Cryer, and that she would not be able to maintain the house if support was drastically reduced.  Based on her extensive prior experience as a judge in Juvenile Court, Judge Pellman is very familiar with the process that occurs after the Department of Child and Family Services files a petition in Juvenile Court.  Judge Pellman noted that the dependency action was in its early stages and that the Juvenile Court could modify custody at any time and return the child to Ms. Cryer as the child's primary caretaker.  Thus, it would not be in the child's best interest to grant Mr. Cryer's request for guideline support.

Mr. Cryer believed that Judge Pellman erred in ruling on his request for modification of child support and appealed her decision.  On appeal, however, Judge Pellman's rulings were affirmed.  The Court of Appeal held that Judge Pellman did not err by reducing child support to $8,000.00 per month because of the potential for a quick change in custody and visitation, the special circumstances related to the great disparity in the parties' incomes, and the trial court's findings that it was in the child's best interest that guideline child support not be ordered.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cryer, Judge Pellman also ordered him to pay all of Ms. Cryer's attorney's fees related to the multiple hearings on this matter, which amounted to more than $40,000.00.  Thus, Mr. Cryer not only lost in his attempt to lower child support to the guideline amount, but he also got stuck paying the bill for his failed efforts. 

In light of this decision, I think one can conclude that modifying child support is not as easy as it looks.  If you don't believe me, ask Jon Cryer.

Written by: Donald P. Schweitzer

Family attorneys in Pasadena, along with courtroom watchers and celebrity gossip columnists, have been wondering for months what the final price tag would be on Mel Gibson's divorce to wife Robyn Denise Moore. Well, wonder no longer. ABC News is reporting that Moore will be taking half of Gibson's $850 million fortune.

Married for 31 years and separated for nearly three, the Gibsons have accumulated considerable assets during their marriage, including major real estate investments (like the island he bought in Fiji for $15 million in 2005). People magazine is reporting Mel and Robyn did not have a prenuptial agreement and hence she also is entitled to half of any film residuals Gibson receives for the rest of his life.

The divorce will take effect on January 9, 2012, and is believed to be the most expensive in Hollywood history. Finalized by a judge in Los Angeles, the judgement keeps nearly all of the details of the settlement secret. Only one of the couple's seven children is still a minor and "therefore subject to a custody agreement," according to ABC News. Custody arrangements are believed to be the next item on the agenda for both Gibson and Moore and will likely be settled in January.

The massive payout comes just months after Gibson agreed to pay ex-girlfriend and mother of his young daughter Oksana Grigorieva $750,000. The couple was embroiled in a brutal custody battle that included the now infamous recordings of Gibson ranting sexist and racist comments. Gibson pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving Grigorieva in March. During the domestic abuse drama, Robyn Moore stood by her estranged husband's side and told the press Gibson was never physically abusive towards her or their children during their long marriage. Gibson and Moore reportedly waited to hash out the details of their divorce until his problems with Grigorieva had been addressed.

By April Lopez

One of the top four negative life experiences is divorce. It is heart melting and gut-wrenching.

Divorce affects all parties involved. The husband and wife will ultimately have a reduction in income and/or an increase in expenses. Families and friends will be divided and most importantly children will be caught in the middle.

The fact is 52 percent of all marriages end in divorce.

Some people have financial problems but sometimes we don't realize that these problems are big enough to end the marriage. If your marriage still ends up in divorce even after a heart-to-heart talk with your spouse, you need to create an exit strategy and rebound after the divorce.

When it's time to move on, you need to pick your head up, regain your confidence and strut. You also need to revise your W4 (withholding allowance certificate) because it most probably states there that you're married with a number of exemptions. Since you are now single, you have to claim single. Next is changing your beneficiary designations.

You may have put your spouse's name on your retirement accounts, pension plans and life insurance policies, etc. So before your ex-spouse and his/her new partner can take advantage of that, you may want to change your designated beneficiary immediately. Additionally you need to update your will, and power of attorney. Do you want your ex-spouse to take your various assets? Do you want your ex-spouse to decide on major medical decisions for you? Do you want your ex-spouse to take over your finances if something unfortunate happens to you? If the answer to all questions is no, then you should update your will, living will and power of attorney.

In a separation agreement or divorce decree, it may state who's responsible in paying certain bills, so next stop is closing all joint loans and credit cards. Both spouses will be held liable if both names are on the loan. So close out all credit cards and loans and transfer balances to accounts listed exclusively in the name of the person who's responsible in paying them. For getting names off a title, deed, mortgage and car note, you need special handling. You need to talk to an expert to ensure that you do things right.

Maintaining the same standard of living, lifestyle and expenses that you had when you were married on a reduced single person income is one of the most common mistakes divorced couples make. So, make sure you plan for this properly. If your divorce settlement is complicated, you may want to consider using a financial expert to help you with your financial projections.

by Brette McWhorter Sember, JD

There are several ways child support can be paid, and each method has advantages and disadvantages. One parent can directly pay the other by cash, check, or money order. This person-to-person method is simple and does not require waiting for any processing time by the state. The receiving parent must keep records and track the payments. Enforcement is more difficult and is not as automatic. If you agree to this type of payment, it is wise to include a provision that if payment is missed for a certain number of months, wage garnishment (see below) will be set up automatically.

Wage garnishment is another method of payment. Child support is deducted from the paying spouse's paycheck and sent either to the receiving spouse or to the state Child Support Enforcement Agency. Garnishment requires an extra step of formally notifying the paying parent's employer and setting a court date for the garnishment order. The parent receiving the support must handle all of the paperwork. The employer is legally obligated to withhold the support from the paycheck. The advantage of this method is that payment is made automatically. There are several disadvantages. First of all, the paying parent is likely to find it embarrassing, which might escalate hostilities between you. Second, there are limits to how much can be garnished from wages, so you may not be able to get the entire support amount this way. If your spouse is self-employed, you cannot garnish the wages. You also cannot prevent the paying spouse from quitting his job, which then puts you in the position of having to do more legwork to find the new employer and garnish again.

Wage garnishment is controlled by the Consumer Credit Protection Act, a federal law that limits the percent of wages that can be garnished. The garnishment law allows up to 50% of a worker's disposable earnings to be garnished for child support if the worker is supporting another spouse or child, or up to 60% if the worker is not. An additional five percent may be garnished for support payments more than 12 weeks in arrears.

The third option is to have your state child-enforcement agency collect all child support. You can agree to send payment through this organization from the beginning or at any point while child support is being paid. This is also the agency that will assist you in collecting unpaid child support. The advantage of this method is that the receiving parent doesn't have to do any legwork or keep any records and the parents don't need to have any contact with each other about child support (which can be helpful if you're prone to disagreements about this). Payments are automatically increased with the cost of living. The disadvantage is that the agency may take a small percentage of the payment as an administrative fee. The paying spouse may not appreciate this method, as there is absolutely no slack given for late or missed payments. Another disadvantage is that you're dealing with a government agency, so there is likely to be red tape and backlogs.

Divorce may make the most sense when you think you can least afford it.

A dissolution isn't cheap, but there are certain times it can be financially advantageous such as now given our country's current economic predicament.

I am not encouraging divorce, but you should not let a poor economy prevent an inevitable break up. In the stock market, you buy low and sell high. Why would you divorce high and not low?

The current economy significantly affects the outcome of a divorce but not the fundamental decision to file. In general, a couple's economic situation is a contributing factor, but I have yet to see a client choose to file for divorce simply because he / she is unhappy with the marital income, assets, debts, or liabilities.

There are usually deeper issues and problems that dominate the action. Divorce is something you don't want to choose unless you must. To those of you who must, I want you to keep in mind the timing of a divorce.

As money becomes tighter, a lot of people are increasingly concerned with the costs of divorce, including attorney fees, the additional expenses of a physical separation, and the effects of the divorce on the marital estate.

They see their finances, they see the mortgage is upside down, and they know the likelihood of future child support and spousal support payments will make it difficult to financially manage a divorce, so they go about planning for the future and preparing to file for a divorce later on when they have better financial footing.

But is that the best move?

Hard economic times are potentially favorable to the party that generates more income and has more assets, particularly temporarily depressed assets. It may be less financially painful to divide the assets, such as your home or your retirement account, when the values are much smaller.

With the national unemployment rate hovering around 9% and many more people underemployed or facing cutbacks in hours, judges are more sympathetic when the non-custodial parent's salary or bonus has been cut.

The loss in income and earning capacity could lead to lower child support payments, especially as courts have become more reluctant to impute income to a party given the present economy and lack of available jobs.

Whenever a court looks at alimony and child support it will look at your income. Different courts use different formulas, but in virtually all courts the ability to pay is a critical factor.

How many other things in life work like that where the cost of the product or the process is determined by your ability to pay?

If you are considering filing for divorce, you need to complete a strategic analysis and look at where your assets might logically end up at the end of the divorce, whether they are divided via trial or settlement. Then, assess what those values are today compared to a date in the future. Do the same thing with respect to alimony, child support and debts.

Again, I want to stress that I do not advocate for divorce. Do not allow the timing and financial analysis to drive the threshold decision of deciding whether or not getting a divorce is right for you. Your decision to divorce should not be based on a cold financial analysis by you, a lawyer, or a CPA.

But if you've already concluded that you are going to get a divorce or you suspect your spouse may be waiting for favorable circumstances before filing, then you need to sit down with a divorce lawyer to explore the best timing options in your case to minimize your financial exposure.

By

Anne Vitiello

I was sitting among a circle of the earnest, at an Omega Institute retreat weekend. It was the first of a total of 4 nights (non consecutive) that I had taken for myself, away from home, during a 12-year marriage (Not that I hadn't been away overnight on other occasions, but it seems reasonable not to count the weekends at cancer hospitals and rehabs with my Dad -- though that rare, quiet breakfast at the Cincinnati airport did feel like a guilty indulgence).

Participants discussed their feelings of alienation at holiday gatherings. The vegan loathed the feasting on dead animal flesh; the still-closeted gay only son dreaded the inquiries about his relationship status; the troubled poet felt she would grind her teeth to splinters suppressing an outburst; the long-married husband yearned for a different life... All in turn expressed their personalized version of the same theme: a silent scream of alienation.

By the time it was my turn, I had overcome my fear of seeming dull, and mustered the courage to express something counter to the growing consensus of "anti-traditional" proclamations: "Well, as the person who probably would have spent the week prior to the holiday cleaning, shopping, decorating and cooking, I am starting to get the same feeling sitting here in this circle!"

Same sense of being an outsider. Different scenario. And the lesson that often feelings of otherness are our own creation, not something that those around us are imposing.

Divorce has become so commonplace and accepted, there's no reason to feel like an outsider. However, try telling that to odd Uncle H. who opted out of three invitations because he would prefer solitude over a pitying glance or well-intentioned advisory speech. And tell the same to kooky Aunt F. who was two chardonnays into the evening and three feet from the kids table when she blurted that she hit the dating lotto on her post-divorce lover, landing a guy who was hung like a cannon after enduring years of sexual famine.

The divorced are, at worst, in grief, and at best, in transition. Both altered states can make for some odd company. We may drink too much, talk too much, not want to talk, not want to eat, not do our share of the dishes, not remember peoples' names or presents. We may break from tradition, possibly spend holidays visiting new places rather than facing lifelong family.

We may dread being set up on a blind date or resent being passed up for one. If we are without our own kids, we may have a hard time enjoying yours. We may have a new relationship, and feel extra-weird about it, or may seem too comfortable or entitled to our new freedom for your own liking.

It's all about perspective, and more than that, it's about compassion. Forget empathy for the moment; it's unattainable for all but very few human beings. We seek one another's company (or we don't) at holiday time, and the perfect gift we could give to everybody is some slack. It's free, after all. And it is the most appropriate choice, especially when you do not relate to the recipient's point of view.

Of course holidays can be treacherous for anybody, including the married's. Heck, I remember in-laws too; it wasn't that long ago. But the occasional tensions among extended family can look like child's play compared with the post divorce potential for drama. Who knew that the infamous chopped liver incident of `99 would eventually pale in comparison with this year's invitation sabotage?

If the holidays can be an emotional minefield, then the holidays plus divorce can be that same minefield being spritzed with napalm.

So, let's declare a truce. We accept your smugness or intolerance, you accept our grandiosity or mopiness. A generosity of the heart may bring us to unconventional outcomes that are in fact most true to the spirit of the season.

Last year marked the first time since their birth that I spent Thanksgiving without my daughters. I felt abundant gratitude toward my sister who, though a keeper of great traditions, was understanding about my declining to spend the day in her crowded, happy home. She offered alternatively the private use of her beautiful mountain lake house, where I could instead create a new way of enjoying a quiet holiday.

A good policy: Have mercy, even when it seems unwarranted. We know that marriage can be a drag (in fact, who knows better than us?). But divorce is a death, even if sometimes akin to euthanasia. And deaths, like births, mean upheaval. So, a recently divorced person is no more assured of "normal" behavior than are the bereaved who have just pulled the plug on a loved one, or a woman who has just given birth.

It's understandable that if your marriage is less than blissful, you may have scant patience for divorcees who can't keep a lid on their annoying exhilaration or depressing drama. They may seem deserving of destitution in their personal or financial lives. However, when in doubt, let's give the benefit of same. Because as is often the case among human beings, we are more alike than we are different.

Peace on Earth, and at the punch bowl.

If you're divorcing in Pasadena because of your spouse's infidelity, chances are good that you wish the other man or woman would pay for helping end your marriage. Well, if you're divorcing in Mississippi, you can actually sue your spouse's lover for ending your marriage and even walk away with a big chunk of change. Just ask Chrissy Strickland.

Chrissy was married to Chuck Strickland in 1996; the couple had a son in 1998. During divorce proceedings in 2007, Chrissy described her marriage as good, if not perfect, while Chuck admitted that the couple had more than their share of ups and downs. During a tumultuous camping trip, Chrissy left with their son Wilder after several hours of arguing with Chuck. After her exit, Chuck befriended fellow camper Melissa Simmons, who was on vacation with her then-husband Lane Simmons. After the tents were taken down and everyone returned to their home lives, Chuck and Melissa continued to talk over the phone and online. A total of 158 calls between the pair were made in an eight-week timeframe. Both Chuck and Melissa confessed to their spouses that they were in love with one another. Both couples separated on September 17, 2007.

Chuck and Melissa each testified that they did not sleep with one another until they were separated. But Wilder testified that he saw them in bed together over the summer and Lane said that he found a contraceptive sponge in their bathroom despite the fact he had undergone a vasectomy. In 2008, Chrissy sued Melissa for alienation of affection and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Last week, the trial court ruled in Chrissy's favor. She was awarded $87,550 plus $500 in punitive damages.

The Mississippi Court of Appeals ruled that Melissa was to blame for dissolution of the Stricklands' marriage.

"Notably, the cell phone records show that Melissa called Chuck more than twice as much as he called her," Judge Kenneth Griffis wrote for the court on Nov. 29. "A few months later, Chuck abandoned the marriage, saying that he was in love with Melissa. Based on these facts, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that, but for Melissa's active interference, the marriage of Chuck and Chrissy probably would not have ended."

Full custody or sole custody is when one parent has exclusive rights over the children regarding all aspects of their lives. The parent with full or sole custody is usually awarded a maximum amount of child support from the other parent because there will most likely be little if any interaction between the non-custodial parent and the children. Full or sole custody is usually awarded in situations in which one parent has been proven unfit for parenthood or has shown no interest in interacting with the children or whose presence around the children may be harmful to them.

Joint custody is when one parent is considered the primary custodian. The primary custodian is the parent that the children will live with most of the time. The non-custodial parent is entitled to visitation. Usually the visitation schedule is very liberal and allows the non-custodial parent a substantial amount of time with the children. However, joint custody does not mean that both parents will have equal time with the children. The non-custodial parent usually pays child support to the primary custodian based on their income and expenses and how many days per year the children will be with them. This is the most common form of custody.

Shared custody

Shared custody is a situation in which both parents will have equal time with the children. They alternate weekly, monthly or whatever is agreed upon. Shared custody is awarded only if both parents get along exceptionally well. Obviously, both parents need to agree on shared custody and need to be living in close proximity to each other to insure that the children are not bounced from school to school, etc. Usually neither parent pays the other child support payments because all expenses are shared between them equally.

Joint custody is the most common because it sets boundaries that both parents must follow and that it is legally easy to monitor and control. In addition, it offers the children a "home base" if you will. This gives the children stability. Shared custody could be a great option for parents who get along. The children get to spend equal time with both parents and this could also lend to greater stability for the children. With shared custody, the children are rarely "starved" for the other parent. However, shared custody requires extremely good cooperation between the parents and in most situations a divorce is a result of one of the party's inability to get along with the other.

When deciding the type of custody that you are going for you need to ask yourself what is best for the children. Don't decide just because you don't like your ex anymore that she is all of a sudden a bad mother. It can be difficult to acknowledge someone's good qualities during a divorce or separation but it is imperative that you do so. This means putting your feelings aside and moving your children's interests up front. Take into consideration everything that the children will need both physically and emotionally and base your decision on their needs and not what is best for you. Step back for a moment and try to picture how your children's lives will differ with each type of custody, and then pick the one that they will benefit from the most and then proceed to prove that this is the children's best option to the judge. If you are seeking sole custody for example; what you are saying to the court is that you, rather than your ex, are more capable of taking care of the children and that they are better off being with you than with your ex. If you believe that this is true then you have to prove that the mother poses somewhat of a danger to the children or that she is a bad influence on them because of alcohol or drug addiction; perhaps she is abusive or unwilling to take care of them and you have always been the one to provide all of the necessary care-giving to the children.

Family attorneys in Pasadena often warn clients of the perils of missing spousal or child support payments. An expensive arrangement can become financially devastating if a spouse shrugs off paying their ex what they owe as part of their divorce settlement. Minneapolis-based CEO Andrew Redleaf is one millionaire who is learning this lesson the hard way.

Back in February 2008, Redleaf was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Elizabeth, $140.7 million in cash payments over a five-year period. Elizabeth, in exchange for the settlement, agreed to waive any interest in Andrew's business. Andrew Redleaf runs Whitebox Advisors, a hedge fund that manages $2.5 billion in assets. Initially, Elizabeth was to receive two lump-sum payments of $20.8 million before the divorce was granted, followed by another one-lump sum payment of $30 million in 2013 while the rest was to be paid off in monthly installments of $1.5 million. Redleaf initially stuck to the agreement, making the two upfront payments as well as monthly payments of $1.5 million through January 2009.

But according to court documents, he skipped more than a year's worth of payments after claiming his income had declined. After Elizabeth won a judgement worth $21 million, which he paid, Andrew then tried to renegotiate the settlement - again stating that his financial situation had changed. The courts also denied this request. After missing three more months of payments, he requested a 4 percent rate on what he owed. But last week, the court fired back and ruled that Andrew Redleaf must pay an additional 10 percent interest on the judgments as mandated by a Minnesota statute on judgements over $50,000.

Redleaf and his attorney then took the case to the state of Court of Appeals, arguing that the 10 percent interest rate was beyond the market rate. Judge Thomas Kalitowski of the Court of Appeals disagreed. His ruling did not address whether Redleaf could make the payments.

"The court here only had to determine that (Andrew Redleaf) was liable to (Elizabeth) for a sum of money that he had not paid," the judge said in the ruling.

Redleaf's attorney disagreed with the ruling and told reporters that the interest rate should be reconsidered.

"In family court, there should be discretion to the trial judge to decide the interest rate," the attorney said.

By Heidi Bitterman, Esq.

When filing a petition for separation or dissolution of marriage, the concept of estate planning is usually the farthest thing from one's mind.  While the likelihood of death of either spouse during the dissolution process may be remote, the consequences of failing to plan for this event are significant to both parties. What most people do not realize is that, until the entry of judgment of dissolution occurs, the parties retain the status of spouses and are accorded all the rights and privileges of that status as provided by law. 

So, for example, if you had engaged in estate planning with your spouse during marriage, the estate plan remains valid during the dissolution process.  Most, if not all, married couples leave their respective community and separate property interests to the other spouse.  If you were to die before your divorce is final, your assets would still be distributed in accordance with your estate planning documents.

Those who have not engaged in estate planning prior to dissolution are by no means better off for not having planned.  For those who die without a Will or Trust, your estate proceeds by a process called intestacy, which is a set of rules in the Probate Code that dictates to whom your estate will be distributed.  If you die before your divorce is final, the California Probate Code states that all of your community property shall be distributed to your surviving spouse.  As for your separate property, the law provides that your surviving spouse can inherit at least a portion of that too, up to 100% if you have no surviving children, parents or siblings.

The rights of spouses also extend to making decisions for the other spouse during periods of incapacity, specifically in the areas of medical and financial decision making.  Unless designations on the Advance Health Care Directive and Power of Attorney are revoked, or documents are drafted naming someone other than the spouse as the primary agent, your spouse retains the ability to make medical and financial decisions for you should you become incapacitated during the dissolution process.  

Divorce is an emotional and often frustrating process.   Estate planning may be the last thing you want to do during this time.   However, carefully consider the consequences of failing to plan and its effect in light of your changed circumstances.  Creating or updating your estate plan will bring you peace of mind and the satisfaction of knowing that your new wishes will be honored.

Over the last five years, Pasadena divorce lawyers have seen some of the biggest divorce settlements of all time. In June 2010, Tiger Woods gave his soon-to-be-ex-wife Elin Nordegren a staggering $100 million settlement. Music superstar Paul McCartney settled with his ex, Heather Mills, to the tune of $50 million just three years ago. Actor Kelsey Grammer could wind up paying nearly $70 million to his ex-wife, reality star Camille Grammer. But none of these compares to the latest megabucks divorce settlement that CNN is reporting to be one of the largest in history.

A Hong Kong judge has ordered a business tycoon and real estate mogul to pay a $154 million divorce settlement. High Court Justice John Saunders ruled last Thursday that Samathur Li Kin-kan must pay ex-wife Florence Tsang Chuiwing the massive sum, which represents 20 percent of the couple's assets under Hong Kong's sharing principle. Married in 2000, Li and Tsang separated in 2008. Saunders observed in his ruling that the pair lived "a lifestyle which was best described as just below that of a U.S. billionaire." Saunders ordered that $26 million be paid immediately and that the balance be paid in 90 days.

Although Li is the son of billionaire Samuel Tak Lee and is estimated to be worth $4 billion, Saunders wrote, "The contributions of the husband and wife to the marriage partnership were equal." Tsang herself is a lawyer, and CNN reports that she left the courtroom on Thursday smiling and telling local media she was "delighted" with the ruling.

For some perspective, $154 million translates to roughly $1.2 billion in Hong Kong dollars. The assets included in the settlement are a home in Hong Kong worth $250 million, a London residence valued at $30.5 million and a $2 million budget for Tsang to purchase two vehicles. While impressive, the settlement falls short of the most expensive divorce of all time - the $1.7 billion paid out from media mogul Rupert Murdoch to his wife Anna in June 1999.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena have seen just about every lawsuit revolving around weddings and relationships that you can possibly imagine. And yet there is always room for one more bizarre lawsuit to make us scratch our collective heads. This month, the lawsuit that has us saying "hmm" involves a groom who is suing his wedding photographer six years after the pictures were taken and even though the couple is now divorced. And the case only gets weirder from there.

According to The New York Times, Todd J. Remis of Manhattan is suing the wedding photographer who captured the intimate moments of Remis' nuptials to Milena Grzibovska in 2003. Remis is demanding that he be repaid the $4,100 cost of the photography. He also is requesting $48,000 to re-stage his wedding, including travel costs to fly his guests to New York to attend the fake celebration, which will be re-shot by another photographer. Making wedding magic happen twice might be a tough feat, however - especially considering his ex-wife is believed to be currently living in her native Latvia.

Dan Fried, an owner of H&H Photographers, the company being sued by Remis, has called the demands "an abuse of the legal system." And Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed the majority of the grounds for the lawsuit, like the "infliction of emotional distress." However, she has allowed the case to proceed in order to determine whether there was a breach of contract between H&H and Remis.

"This is a case in which it appears that the 'misty watercolor memories' and the 'scattered pictures of the smiles ... left behind' at the wedding were more important than the real thing," the judge wrote, quoting Barbra Streisand's hit "The Way We Were." "Although the marriage did not last, plaintiff's fury over the quality of the photographs and video continued on."

She is expected to rule on the case in the upcoming months.

The marriage and divorce of pop superstar Madonna and Guy Ritchie has been veiled in mystery. When the pair broke up in 2008, the details were fuzzy at best as both sides kept their mouths shut. Divorce attorneys in Pasadena and gossip columnists had both heard that infidelity, jealousy and giant egos were the things that caused the supercouple to call it quits after 8 years of marriage. Now, the usually coy Guy Ritchie is finally talking about his marriage to Madonna.

In an interview with Details magazine, Ritchie says, "I stepped into a soap opera, and I lived in it for quite a long time - I'll probably be more eloquent on it ten years from now - when you end up with a lot of the things you set out to chase, and find that you've stumbled into all sorts of hollow victories, then you become deeply philosophical."

Ritchie, who doesn't dish the details of why the pair broke up, does say the marriage isn't something he wishes he could reverse.

"It's definitely not something I regret," Ritchie said. "The experience was ultimately very positive. I love the kids that came out of it, and I could see no other route to take. But you move on, don't you?"

And move on he has. The 43-year-old has an infant son with model girlfriend Jacqui Ainsley and is the director of the new film Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

Ritchie says ultimately he's happy about the choices he made regarding love and relationships.

"I'm quite happy that experience was accelerated for me. I'm glad I made money, in other words. And I'm glad I got married," he says.

Ritchie and Madonna have two sons together: Rocco, who was born in 2000, and David, whom the couple adopted in 2008. Their divorce, which is said to have brought Ritchie a $75 million settlement, is considered one the most expensive breakups of all time.

Financial concerns are usually near the top of the list for folks seeking divorce advice in Pasadena especially when couples have embarked on lucrative business ventures together. Sometimes financial situations get really complicated and carry on long after the ink is dry on divorce papers.

Take the tangled finances of 77-year-old singer Frankie Valli and his ex-wife Randy Valli, for instance. The 1960s falsetto singing sensation Frankie Valli saw a career resurgence in 2005 when Jersey Boys, a musical based on his career with his band The Four Seasons, was a hit on Broadway. The show won six Tonys, was a worldwide smash and brought in millions for Valli.

The profits from that show are at the center of Frankie latest battle with Randy. According to TMZ, the 51-year-old Randy already receives $30,000 a month from Frankie (as well as several hundred dollars in public assistance). Official court documents claim that Randy Valli currently nets $25,000 in Jersey Boy royalties, $5,000 in spousal support and $810 a month in public assistance for taking care of their minor children. Her new lawsuit is seeking additional royalties as well as financial coverage of legal fees. The legal documents state that Frankie makes more than $515,000 a month, with the majority of the money coming from Jersey Boys. Jersey Boys has a sold-out touring production, a permanent home in Las Vegas and a production in London - all of which bring in millions of dollars to Valli and the other producers every year. The musical, which is headed for the big screen, recently became Broadway's 25th-longest-running musical.

Valli married Randy Clohessy on July 7th, 1984; the couple filed for divorce last year. The pair have three children together. Valli was married twice before he met Clohessy.

If you're seeking divorce advice in Pasadena, you've probably been warned about the progressive alimony and custody laws in California. California has some of the tougher and more contemporary alimony policies in the United States. Other states, particularly on the East Coast, have had the same alimony laws since the 1950s. But it looks like all of that is beginning to change.

Massachusetts, New Jersey and Florida have undergone alimony law face-lifts which have erased the old school policies that kept the states in the divorce dark ages. The common goal of the states is to get rid of lifetime alimony, a policy which is dated and nearly impossible in today's economic climate. Many of the laws were established when men worked and women stayed at home with the children, meaning costly payouts to ex-wives. These outdated laws force divorcing couples to return to divorce courts whenever circumstances change. Under this arrangement, the legal fees and divorce proceedings are never-ending, even when the marriage has been over for years.

Specifically, proposed Florida Alimony Reform, which limits alimony payments and duration, is similar to newly-passed Massachusetts laws.

"Florida's permanent alimony laws are relics from another century," says state Rep. Ritch Workman. "Too often, lifetime alimony brings payers to bankruptcy, insolvency and foreclosure."

New Jersey Alimony Reform hopes to accomplish much of the same - but neither state will see changes immediately. Massachusetts will be the first state to see the benefits of alimony reform next spring.

Huffington Post blogger Elizabeth Benedict thinks the reform is long over due.

"Citizens in Florida and New Jersey - and Massachusetts, until the new law fully takes effect in March 2012 - deserve better than this, " Benedict writes. "Way better. What happens in family court in these states is a national disgrace. But the Massachusetts Miracle has put wind in everyone's sails. The good weather might just be moving from North to South this time."

Many older people looking for divorce help in Pasadena often voice concerns about their financial future. With a bleak economy and dismal job market mixed with little or no retirement savings, older Americans of any marital status have plenty to be concerned about. Now a new study commissioned by the Salvation Army finds that older divorcees have one more serious issue to worry about: homelessness.

Entitled "No Home at the End of the Road," the study examines the overwhelming housing stress currently affecting older single women. Divorced Baby Boom generation women, according to the findings, are one of the most financially vulnerable groups and are at a high risk of poverty and homelessness as they grow older.

One hundred eleven single women over the age of 40 who admitted they didn't expect to be homeowners before retirement were surveyed by Dr. Andrea Sharam of the Sinburne Institute. Seventy-seven percent of the 111 women surveyed were renting even though 79 percent of the women possessed higher education. These numbers deflate educational breadwinner theories, which suggest women with higher education earn larger salaries. And even those women in the survey who reportedly earned over $70,000 a year admitted to having minimal savings. In general, the majority of women received low monthly retirement payments or expected to do so. Fifty-eight percent predicted they would have less than $100,000 superannuation at retirement. Sixty-five percent of the women who are renting their homes said they were in debt. Most shockingly, a third of the women felt that they would never have sufficient income to retire while 20 percent felt certain they would need to keep working after age 70.

Sharam says divorced women are at particular risk regardless of their financial past.

"It's not about low income, it's about your life course," Dr. Sharam said in an interview with The Age. "You can do remarkably well, but as soon as you divorce, it's a different story."

Sports fans and divorce lawyers in Pasadena alike have been watching the contentious divorce of Dodgers owners Frank and Jamie McCourt rage on for nearly two years. In that time, we've seen the pair battle relentlessly over the team, which she says she's entitled to half of while he says he's the sole proprietor. After months of back and forth over which one of the spouses will end up with the struggling baseball franchise, it looks like a big time (and big dollar) settlement has finally been reached.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Jamie McCourt will walk away from the Dodgers and relinquish her rights to the team for a payout of $130 million. This agreement is expected to bring about the end of what experts believe is the most expensive divorce in California history. The settlement would dissolve Jamie's relationship with the team and would prohibit her from making any further claims. With Jamie out of the way, Frank can now pursue his publicized plan to retain ownership of the team by selling the highly-profitable television rights in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

According to theTimes, Frank and Jamie McCourt "incurred $20.6 million in legal bills related to the divorce through July" while the battle for the Dodgers alone might have added an estimated $14 million in legal fees to the previous total. Frank isn't off the hook just yet, however. Mr. McCourt now has to face-off with Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig to decide the ultimate fate of the Dodgers. Selig has asked the Bankruptcy Court to force a sale of the Dodgers via court order. MLB officials cite financial mismanagement as the reason why the team should be sold publicly, while lawyers for Frank McCourt believe Selig is using the "enormous negative publicity" from the divorce to help force the sale of the team.

Here are the 7 most important factors to remember when negotiating a divorce settlement:

1. Money will Almost Always Become an Issue in Divorce

You are probably thinking: "Is that supposed to be a secret? I knew that already!" Yes, that may be so -- but you may also be underestimating how much of an issue it will be. Even with the promise of fairness from your ex-spouse, or of a deal that sounds too good to be true, you should still do your homework. Remember not to make offers during negotiations out of feelings of guilt and "give away the farm." Seek out the appropriate professional and information, so that years from now you do not feel badly that you agreed to a settlement too quickly. You also want to budget, budget, budget! You will be much more confident in your decisions if you prepare an estimate of a monthly budget (required in some provinces and states) to determine if you can afford to retain certain assets.

2. A 50/50 Division of Property is Not Always Equal

When I began to use this phrase, my teenage daughter reminded me that in school, when children are taught about fractions and things are divided 50/50, it is always equal! I concurred, but explained that in the division of a couples' matrimonial property, this fact is not always the case. For example, a $400,000 house does not always equal $400,000 in stocks, or $400,000 in rental or recreational property. There are tax implications affecting many decisions, which may affect many of the assets and their values very differently. Overlooking this fact may mean that you get less property than you actually should, or at the very least, you may end up with future tax hits that you were not prepared for or even aware of. The housing market and stock market are just a couple of examples that in the future may affect the property you choose to retain and in turn your future personal net worth.

3. "Divorce the House, Before the Spouse"

Decisions about retaining the family's largest asset should not be an emotional one. As difficult as it sounds, this decision should be made strictly by considering the responsibility and the dollars and cents involved. You must find out before signing the legal agreement whether you can qualify for a mortgage on your own. Many people believe that a lender will simply remove their ex-spouse's name -- but that is usually not the case! Speak to a lender as soon as possible to find out if you can qualify and (if so) how much you can qualify for. If you do qualify, make sure you ask yourself these questions:

Can you afford the monthly cost to service this debt? What about the costs of maintaining the home? Things like, utilities, property taxes, and unexpected maintenance such as a new roof? Do you have the time and energy to maintain a home? Will you be left with 25 years of 'stuff' to deal with on your own? Are you prepared to mow the lawn, and clean your home?

4. Understand the "True" Value of Your Investments and Retirement Assets

Get advice on the market risk of your investments. Will you be satisfied if you are the partner left with all of the high risk investments, and then the market takes a turn for the worse? Will you be satisfied if you did not retain 50% of the private investment that today is worth little -- but can be extremely lucrative down the road? If you are dividing a portfolio of investments, it is extremely crucial to understand the make-up of these assets, and the background on some of these stocks and funds, before making a decision. There are hidden or unknown costs associated with many types of investments. If you decide to dispose of them, you must be aware of this fact. A surprise that you owe the 'tax man' money down the road will likely be very stressful. You may also need to be educated on stock options and other types of employee incentive plans that you or your spouse may have. These types of plans have become more prominent in recent years, as more employers have chosen to offer them to employees instead of raises. Options that may be 'under water' today may increase significantly in value down the road as the economy slowly improves.

5. Ensure that Pensions and Businesses are Valued Properly

Next to your home, a pension -- especially for an employee that has been with his or her company long term -- can often be one of the most valuable assets that a couple has. Certain types of pensions may need to be valued by a trained actuary in order to determine its true value. Failure to do this may mean that you miss out on a great deal of money being included in your matrimonial property total. Remember that the value on the annual statement of a pension is not always the correct one to use. It is also necessary for the spouse with the pension to look into the regulations of that pension, in order to determine the amount that the spouse is entitled to receive, and in what manner. For self-employed spouses, the value of their business is often included in valuing a couples' matrimonial property. The valuation of a business can be very complicated, and for many it is absolutely necessary to consult with a Chartered Business Valuator.

6. Ensure that the Payor of Child and/or Spousal Support is Life Insured

In the event of a payor's untimely death, it is necessary to have life insurance in place to fulfill future support obligations. Imagine if you have young children and are receiving child support, or if you are in your 50s or 60s and receiving spousal support (or alimony), and something happens to your ex-spouse (the payor)? In such cases, you will suddenly be without that income, which may be financially devastating.

7. Many Divorce Decisions have Significant Implications for Your Tax Return

There are many available claims on your tax return, especially with respect to children, which can save you significant tax dollars. The rules for most of these are complicated -- especially as they apply to separated parents. However, when applicable, the tax savings can be significant. Do your research before signing your legal agreement, and have a professional complete at least your first tax return after legalizing your financial settlement. These are the 7 most important factors to remember when negotiating a settlement. Treat the financial decisions as a business deal, and educate yourself on the facts so that you will be an empowered decision-maker, and in control of your financial future. Also keep in mind that divorce is one of the few times in life when we often do not listen to our intuition, although it is the most important time to do so!