Good Lawyers in Injury Divorce DUI

The recession is keeping some couples together who might have divorced in more prosperous times, rather than riding out a difficult relationship. In Detroit, especially, where unemployment and a depressed housing market have hit as hard as anywhere in the country, the approach towards divorce is changing to meet the market difficulty.

Hiring lawyers can sometimes be an expensive proposition, and for those who have it tough financially, hiring a lawyer is not always feasible. According to The Detroit News, local courts are reporting that the number of couples who are divorcing without lawyers is on the rise.

The courts are also reporting the downside of these lawyer-free divorces, which includes incomplete forms and lessons that judges must deliver to inexperienced court attendees. And to go along with the crowded legal offices and slow proceedings, the courts are saying that some couples seeking divorce are missing out on property and custody that could legally be theirs.

Mark Switalski, chief judge of the Macomb County Circuit Court, noted the change in the divorcing couples of today from those of the past. Today, he told The Detroit News that these days couples are fighting over splitting up home and credit card debts, while in the past the starkest challenges came over home assets.

If I’ve got a pot of $100,000 to split up, it’s different than if I’ve got a pot of $5,000 to split up, said Switalski. That factors into their ability to retain counsel.

In Macomb County, the number of couples who began divorce proceedings without a lawyer rose by 16 percent between 2007 and 2009. Lawyers and judges in other nearby counties similarly reported that they had seen similar trends, with more potential divorces representing themselves.

Switalski said that he had to stop the proceedings more frequently to explain legal issues to spouses in divorce cases. The county has even taken to scheduling those representing themselves for Monday afternoons, so that they don’t slow down and disrupt the cases of those who have hired professional legal counsel.

If it was a lawyer in front of me, said Switalski, I’d have a ton of questions and I’d get good answers.

For those representing themselves, the Oakland County courthouse recommends the law library. There is a manual describing how to conduct a divorce without a lawyer, and the library’s director told The Detroit News that the manual is the single most popular book in the library.

While couples can download some necessary forms online, often for a fee, problems can arise when those forms aren’t allowed, and a couple has to leave and return with approved forms.

Predictably, the more complex a divorce, the more likely there are to be errors if a couple is representing itself. And neutral judges can’t offer advice when spouses mistakenly or unnecessarily turn down things they can’t reverse, or miss out on payments or custody claims.

Family law practitioners have offered ideas about helping alleviate this burden. Among them would be to allow divorce lawyers to work on parts of a divorce case, rather than the entire thing, which could reduce fees.

There has been no shortage of celebrity divorce news lately, with all of the emotional fireworks that the public has come to expect. In one instance, a divorce was undone, and in another, some personal details came out into the light. Sports stars, movie stars and familiar tabloid faces are among those whom divorce has impacted.

Singer and actress Chynna Phillips, a member of the musical group Wilson Phillips, made headlines with a change of heart that has gone public. Phillips she filed for divorce from her husband, actor and brother-to-the-stars Billy Baldwin. Her lawyers filed on her behalf on the same day that she got out of rehabilitation for anxiety issues.

Two days later, however, Phillips changed her mind. She had her legal team withdraw the divorce, with the hopes that she could save her 15-year marriage with Baldwin.

Phillips and Baldwin, recently the star of the TV show Dirty Sexy Money, have three children together. The couple’s manager, Lizzie Grubman, told the New York Post, Every married couple has its up and downs, but they are two people who have been together for 18 years and are deeply in love. They will work through their personal issues and they are committed to staying together.

From a heartwarming reconciliation, to a much more messy affair, it should perhaps not be a surprise that Charlie Sheen’s personal life is once again making headlines. Sheen’s wife, Brooke Mueller, has decided to file for divorce. Making the situation all the more racy are new details that Mueller may have had a bisexual affair with a mystery woman.

The unidentified woman has said that she will expose Mueller’s past, as well as revealing details about her marriage to Sheen. According to the Examiner, Mueller feared that Sheen would expose her past, and that she had not filed for divorce for that reason.

The couple is no stranger to tabloid drama. On Christmas Day last year, Sheen was arrested for assault after an alleged incident of domestic violence against Brooke. According to sources, Sheen became enraged when Mueller told him that she wanted a divorce. Now, according to sources, Mueller has reached her breaking point, and has finally filed for divorce.

Moving to the world of sports, the wife of home run king and scandal-plagued baseball player Barry Bonds has filed for divorce from her husband of 12 years. The Associated Press has reported Liz Watson’s Los Angeles divorce filing. The two have already reached a financial agreement, and in the filing Watson cited irreconcilable differences.

The couple, who were married in 1998, have an 11-year-old daughter together, and Watson is seeking joint custody. Details of the financial agreement were not released in the initial divorce filing.

Bonds has been a lightning rod in the baseball world, for his connections to people who have faced allegations of distributing steroids. Bonds has not played baseball in the major leagues since 2007, after breaking the all-time home run mark.

Barry Bonds, the former San Francisco Giants star, has had a rough couple of years. He was investigated for his steroid use, he retired from baseball and now his most recent wife filed for divorce—her second time filing papers to end their marriage.

Bonds and Liz Watson married in 1998. In June 2009 Watson had filed a petition for a legal separation from her husband, citing irreconcilable differences.

Shortly after, she withdrew her request. No details were given as to why she no longer wanted the separation.

It appeared that the couple was in the clear until now. Watson followed her first instinct and this time she filed for divorce.

Watson filed in the Los Angeles court system on Thursday, February 17 stating irreconcilable differences once again.

Both Bonds and Watson at this point appear to be cordial and willing to handle the proceedings amicably.

According to the Associate Press, the court documents show that the couple has already come to a divorce settlement on how they will split their assets. But no specifics were released.

Per the divorce papers, Watson is seeking joint and physical custody of their 11 year old daughter, Aisha Lynn.

According to the New York Daily News, it was rumored that Bonds allegedly had an affair with a woman named Kimberly Bell from 1994 to 2003, and allegedly bought her a house in Arizona. But Watson did not mention this as a reason for the divorce.

Bond’s marriage to Watson was his second marriage. Before Watson, Bonds was married to Susan Branco. Their marriage dissolved in 1994.

Bonds and Branco allegedly fought over a prenuptial agreement that Branco had signed right before the marriage, which denied Branco a portion of Bonds’ money and assets.

Branco claimed she did not understand the agreement because she was a Swedish immigrant and did not fully understand the language. California divorce courts ruled in Bonds’ favor after a six-year court battle.

As soon as news of the divorce became public, the split between Los Angeles Dodgers owners Jamie and Frank McCourt promised to be complicated and contentious, with Dodgers fans feeling nervous about the focus that these team owners would be able to keep on the team.

Since the beginning of the divorce proceedings, ownership of the Dodgers has been the most significant contentious point between the former power couple. Frank McCourt has claimed to be the sole owner of the team, while Jamie McCourt argues that they each have an equal share in it.

Well, these predictions are coming true, as the McCourt divorce and the battle over ownership of the baseball franchise have risen to new levels of heated argument and accusation.

In the divorce case’s latest twist, Jamie McCourt has now accused Frank of attempting to understate his worth by hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Jamie McCourt’s assertion was contained in a state court filing recently submitted by her attorney. The claim about Frank came in response to his previous claim that he has been in what the story calls “a tight cash position and unable to provide the level of financial support” that Jamie McCourt has been seeking in the divorce arrangement.

According to the court filing, Jamie claimed that in September of 2008 Frank’s personal financial statement showed his net worth to be $834.9 million. Last June, she claims, a follow-up personal financial statement show that his net worth had declined to $163.4 million. According to Jamie’s side of the story, this second statement with the lower figure was put together following the couple’s separation, and that its figures were “fabricated” via “blatant balance sheet manipulations.” The idea being, in her mind, that it would show him to be worth far less than he was.

Jamie McCourt’s filing also made the claim that the “net equity value” of Frank’s various ventures was more that $2 billion, according to a LA Times story.

Another piece of evidence that Jamie and her lawyers presented to support her accusation of fudged numbers was a private placement memorandum from May of 2009 in which Frank seemed to propose selling a share in the Dodgers “as part of the creation of a global sports enterprise.”

This global sports enterprise would supposedly own the Dodgers as well as Chinese and English sports franchises. The memo offered a 7 percent stake in the enterprise for $150 million, and it showed that it was presented to a Chinese industrial and financial conglomerate called Citic Group.

There were additional claims in Jamie McCourt’s court filing, which included details claiming the couple received $2.3 million in payouts per month from their various enterprises, and that this was largely tax free based on the manner by which Frank McCourt lived “off cash from lines of credit and loan proceeds, which wouldn’t immediately be taxable.”

One of Frank McCourt’s attorneys called Jamie’s filing “astonishing” and “a scorched-earth spin campaign designed to harm the reputation and livelihood of others.”

Whatever the truth, sports fans are guaranteed a competition in the owner’s box that is every bit as heated as what takes place down on the field.

Televangelist Benny Hinn is a larger than life figure as he roams around on stage in front of thousands of admirers, preaching his particular brand of religion far and wide via television audiences.

Recently, however, according to the LA Times, Hinn faced one person who was not as enamored with his performance: his wife Suzanne. At the beginning of February, Suzanne filed for divorce from her husband of more than 30 years in Orange County Superior Court, citing irreconcilable differences. The two had separated in late January, and were living in different residences.

According to a statement from Benny Hinn Ministeries, the celebrity preacher was caught completely unaware by his wife’s divorce filing:

Pastor Benny Hinn and his immediate family were shocked and saddened to learn of this news without any previous notice. Although Pastor Hinn has faithfully endeavored to bring healing to their relationship, those efforts failed and were met with the petition for divorce that was filed without notice.

Benny Hinn is a proponent of the branch of Christian gospel called prosperity gospel. Prosperity gospel teaches that those Christians whose religious priorities are straight will be rewarded with earthly wealth and health. He is also a purveyor of what he depicts to be spiritual healings, involving the traditional laying of the hands upon his congregation’s foreheads and chanting healing words of faith.

Hinn has become a broadcasting juggernaut for Christian television. His sermons are viewed by millions of people across the world every day, and he travels internationally to preach across the globe. To travel on these so-called “Miracle Crusades” across the land, he employs a private plane, called the Dove One.

It’s unclear what the exact financial situation is regarding Hinn’s ministry or personal fortunes. Suzanne Hinn’s divorce filing did not feature any financial information. He has been criticized in the past for his lavish lifestyle, facing criticism from watchdog groups and other Christians.

Even Senator Charles Grassley from Iowa is investigating Hinn along with other televangelists to determine if he has complied with tax laws for non-profits.

Suzanne Hinn’s attorney did not comment on the divorce filing, according to the firm’s policy of withholding comment unless the client approves it.
The LA Times spoke with J. Lee Grady, a contributing editor to the Pentecostal news magazine Charisma. Grady claimed that the Hinn divorce filing is the latest in a series of high-profile divorces and “moral failures” among Pentecostal leaders.

Another fairly recent and highly visible case of such moral failures was that of Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who admitted to sexual liaisons with a male prostitute and drug use.

Grady also felt that Hinn’s congregation and audience would feel the emotional impact of the divorce. “It will be devastating to the people who have supported Benny Hinn’s evangelistic work around the world,” said Grady. “Obviously because their ministry has been very public, they will need to issue a statement to their supporters to explain how this happened.”

There may be no crying in baseball, but there are plenty of fights that occur both on and off the field.

Take the owners of the LA Dodgers, Frank and Jamie McCourt. The couple filed for divorce in October 2009 and they continue to battle out their complicated issues in the courts.

After 30 years of marriage, Jamie McCourt filed for divorce from her husband in which she cited irreconcilable differences. Since then the power couple has fought over ownership of the Dodgers and other assets.

According to an article in the LA Times, Frank McCourt fired his wife after the Dodgers lost the 2009 playoffs against the Philadelphia Phillies. Jamie was CEO at the time and Frank fired her due to poor performance.

Jamie McCourt said that she and her husband agreed she would remain CEO until the end of the season. In turn she agreed wait to and file the divorce after the season was over.

But things went sour fast.

Frank McCourt claimed that his wife had cheated on him with their personal driver and whisked him away on a vacation at the Dodger’s expense. Now the couple’s main dispute is over spousal support, an issue that appears to be getting harder and harder to settle.

In the initial divorce papers, Jamie McCourt requested temporary spousal support in the amount of $488,000 per month. But she recently increased the amount for alimony to $988,845 per month. Jamie said that her estranged husband lied about his finances to the divorce court and that he had a lot more money than he claimed.

Jamie and her divorce attorney, Dennis Wasser, alleged that Frank used “blatant sheet manipulations” in his 2009 financial statement that he provided to the divorce courts in June.

The financial statement estimated his net work at $163 million. But in a financial statement written nine months earlier, his net worth was valued at $835 million.

Wasser said that “what has occurred here is some extensive planning for divorce court in terms of attempting to diminish on paper the value of the Dodgers.”

Both Jamie and her attorney feel as though she should receive a larger amount for spousal alimony to continue the way of life she has become so accustomed too.

But they also believe that Frank will have enough to money to continue his lifestyle as well. The judge will decide if Jamie deserves more alimony at the hearing on March 29th.

Families do not always approve of who their loved ones choose to marry.

Five years ago, a Saudi couple was forced to get a divorce because the wife’s brothers did not approve of her husband’s lineage. But recently they were granted the right to reunite their marriage, according to Reuters.

The couple had initially married in 2003 after her father approved of the union. And before Fatima Azazz and Mansour al-Timani could marry, the bride’s family checked the lineage or background of her future husband, al-Timani.

It is custom in Islamic culture to determine if the future husband comes from a good tribe before their families join in matrimony.

When the family initially checked his background, they found that al-Timani’s lineage was from a good family. He was from the town of Jouf and belonged to the Shammar Tribe.

The marriage was allowed to proceed, but things changed shortly after Azazz’s father passed away. Her half brothers said they no longer approved of her husband’s lineage and wanted the marriage annulled.

Reuters reported that in 2006 her half brothers claimed al-Timani lied to the family about this lineage and that his lineage was beneath their family.
They petitioned a court in Jouf, Saudi Arabia, to annul the marriage on grounds of tribal incompatibility. The court ruled in their favor and forced al-Timani and Azazz to separate.

After the divorce, they could no longer live together. Azazz went to live in a state run orphanage in Dammam where she gave birth to their second child, and al-Timani lived in an apartment with their 6 year old daughter.

Al-Timani stated that the courts never asked their side of the story and that he never lied to the half-brothers about his lineage.

Al-Timani also said that his wife’s brothers petitioned for the divorce because of a financial dispute over money after their father died.

Ahmad K al-Sudairi, the couple’s attorney, prepared a 20 page document to present King Abdullah in hopes to reverse the ruling. The King in turn had the cessation court review the divorce case.

The court ruled that the couple could be reunited, but that it could take awhile before the ruling takes effect.

In Texas, a unique divorce case is raising the attention of lawmakers, all the way up to the attorney general, who has made the claim that one can’t get a divorce in a state that doesn’t recognize the marriage to begin with.

The Austin-American Statesman is reporting that Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, taking advantage of that state’s law legalizing gay marriage. After they were married, they returned to their home in Austin, where they adopted a child and carried on with their life.

The couple was separated almost a year ago, however, and now they have found themselves in court to determine the terms of their divorce. Whether or not they can even get a divorce, however, is under dispute from some Texas lawmakers.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott intervened in the case, in which, according to the couple’s lawyer, a judge had agreed to grant the couple a divorce and ordered that they put that agreement in writing for the court to sign later. This ruling was the culmination of a two-day hearing to determine custody of their child and separation of property.

After the judge granted the divorce, Abbott filed a petition to intervene. He notes his opinion that rather than granting the divorce, the judge should instead declare that the marriage is void. A spokesman for the Attorney General said in a statement that the State maintains that the Court has no legal authority to grant this divorce, and as a result, the State must intervene in this case to defend the Texas Constitution.

In essence, Abbott’s position is that the case could be resolved sufficiently by voiding the marriage, rather than granting a divorce. Or as his representation put it, the parties can achieve a legal termination of their Massachusetts marriage, through an enforceable judgment.

We never asked them to grant us a same-sex marriage, said Naylor in response to the intervention. We only asked them to legally recognize that we needed a divorce.

Abbott has intervened in such cases before, as in the case of two men who wanted a divorce in Dallas County. The judge in that case determined that the prohibition on same sex marriage violated the right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Abbott appealed that ruling, and the case is still pending.

The judge in the current case brought up the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states. Abbott argued that this clause would not come into play in the case.

Texas is among the states that passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman. In 2005, the Texas legislature passed it with a majority of 76 percent.

Massachusetts passed the law allowing same-sex couples to marry in November of 2003, in a decision by the highest court in the state.

In Chicago, an ugly divorce and custody battle has turned into a dispute over a child’s exposure to various religions.

Joseph Reyes, a 35-year-old law student, and his estranged wife are in a heated debate about which religious experiences their child can be exposed to, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

On Tuesday, the child custody case made its way to court, as Reyes was arraigned in a Chicago court. The charge was that he violated a temporary restraining order dictating that he could not expose the couple’s 3-year-old daughter to a religion other than Judaism. Reyes’ estranged wife is the one who ordered the restraining order.

Reyes did not deny taking his daughter to a Catholic cathedral in mid-January. Reyes, who is Catholic, was accompanied to the cathedral by a local television news camera crew.

The couple is in a fierce dispute about whether or not they agreed to raise their child in the Jewish faith. Reyes has argued firmly that they never agreed to such a provision of child-rearing, nor did they keep kosher or observe the tenets of the faith, and that they only went to synagogue together with their daughter.

Joseph Reyes had converted to Judaism after the birth of their daughter, though he had returned to Catholicism when the couple separated. Rebecca Reyes was not present at the hearing, and her attorneys did not wish to make a statement about the case.

According to court records, Rebecca Reyes filed the restraining order in question after Joseph sent her a photo of their daughter at her baptism at Queen of Martyrs Catholic Church.

I sent her pictures which she took as malicious, said Joseph outside of the courtroom. He offered that he sent the pictures merely to share his daughter’s experience getting dressed up and enjoying the occasion.

Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan approved the restraining order, however, and an appellate court threw out Joseph Reyes’ appeal. When he and his attorneys appeared in front of Judge Jordan again, they requested that a new judge be assigned to the case. Judge Jordan granted that request.

If Joseph is found to be in violation of the temporary restraining order, he could be sentenced to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

Joseph Reyes had a lot to say about the situation, even as his estranged wife chose not to publically discuss it. This is, in her mind, more about control, he said. He went on to explain that he converted to Judaism because of pressure he felt from his wife. When it came to his daughter’s religious upbringing, he was conflicted, but felt pushed by his wife.

Rebecca pushed me in the direction of waiting to come by it on her own, he said. On the decision to raise their daughter in a Jewish household, he said Maybe Rebecca decided unilaterally, but I never signed on to that.

Rebecca Reyes currently has sole custody of their daughter, and Joseph Reyes takes her every other weekend and every Thursday evening. The divorce case in ongoing.

A man currently on trial for allegedly killing his wife after she served him divorce papers recently took back his murder confession.

Werner Lippe had married his wife Faith in 1990. According to an Associated Press article, Werner and Faith began to argue tremendously during the later years of their marriage.

Lippe allegedly had their 15-year-old son tape arguments he had with Faith in order to use them against her in the divorce proceedings.

Faith eventually served her husband with divorce papers. The two scheduled a meeting between them and their attorneys to hammer out the details of child custody and alimony. Both were issues that neither agreed upon.

But before they could have their meeting about the divorce proceedings, Faith went missing.

On October 3rd, Faith had missed several of her appointments. Werner later said the he saw her drive away in a SUV but he could not tell who was driving the vehicle.

Faith never came back home that evening and Werner became concerned. He visited a friend the next day and asked about the proper amount of time before a missing person’s report can be filed.

Later that day he called 911 and advised the police that Faith was missing. The police searched the Lippe household, but found no evidence of foul play.

It wasn’t until later that Werner confessed to his wife’s murder. He was speaking with his friend, James Learnihan, when he said he burned his wife’s body in a barrel he kept at his home.

But Learnihan was wired and police got a taped confession from Lippe.
Once the police confronted Lipped about the tape, he confessed again.
Shortly after his arrest, he changed his story. Lippe said that the he was scared of his friend and thought he was being framed. He only confessed again to the police because they were not listening to his pleas of innocence.

If convicted, Lippe faces 25 years in prison. Lippe had two previous marriages that both ended in divorce and neither lasted over two years.

Kate Walsh, famous actress on TV shows such as “Private Practice” and “Grey’s Anatomy,” recently finalized her long divorce battle with her husband of 14 months Alex Young.

The two married in September 2007, enjoying their marital bliss for a little over a year, until they separated in November 2008.

The New York Daily News reported that Young filed for divorce from the star citing “irreconcilable differences,” but no other details were given. The two agreed to keep most of the details regarding their divorce confidential.

In the beginning, the divorce proceedings appeared to run smooth. It looked hopeful that this Hollywood couple was going to split amicably. When they broke the news of their divorce to the public, they released a statement saying that they would remain friends even after the divorce was final.

But even though they started out with good intentions, true colors showed when the couple had to split their assets, decide who gets what and determine if any alimony would be paid. The big issue occurred when Walsh decided she did not want to pay Young, a top-ranking executive at 20th Century Fox, any alimony.

Young then requested to know the value of Walsh’s contract with ABC in hopes that it would help him obtain spousal support. But the judge overseeing the divorce proceedings denied Young’s request for alimony.

But Walsh and Young eventually came to a settlement to finalize their divorce. Young will receive a cash settlement of $627,000 and half of the residuals for work performed by Walsh during their marriage. Residuals are payments made to Walsh for replays of her television shows. And Walsh gets to keep the house, some bank accounts and a piano.

In a bizarre twist, the two will split the remaining assets by simply flipping a coin. According to a USA Today article, the settlement agreement stated that, “one half of the community property furniture and artwork to be divided by alternating picks after the flip of a coin to determine who will pick first.”

At least they avoided any child custody issues as the couple has no children together.

In a divorce case that sounds like something out of a detective novel, a judge recently determined that the private detective hired by a man to follow his wife was a legitimate part of the divorce process.

According to the story in the New York Law Journal, the Orange County, New York, man hired the private investigator to follow his wife to a hotel, where she was having an affair with a priest. The husband gave the recording to the church where his wife worked, and she was forced to resign.

At the urging of the church, the man turned over the recording of the event to the court. The wife in the case claimed that by hiring the detective her husband had violated an order of protection that prohibited him from going to her home or her workplace.

Family Court Judge Debra J. Keidaisch disagreed with that opinion, however. The judge claimed that the husband in the case reserved the right to collect evidence enabling him to defend himself in the divorce case.

“The hiring of a professional licensed private investigator in a matrimonial action to gather evidence is for a proper and legitimate purpose,” Judge Keidaisch wrote in her opinion.

When the woman filed for divorce in November of 2008, her husband offered the counter-allegation that his wife had been having an affair. In early 2009, the court issued the order of protection that kept him from coming within 1,000 feet of his wife’s home or workplace, except to go to church or for court-ordered visitation. The court order was entered without finding any fault with the husband.

The decision in the case stated that the husband’s private investigator followed his wife to a motel, where he recorded the liaison between her and who the decision labeled “Priest L.” This priest had been assigned to the church where the wife was working. This priest also regularly said Sunday Mass while the wife, husband and their daughter were in attendance.

After he heard the news about his wife, the husband was unable to take communion because he was so distraught. He told the news to another priest, but he was so embarrassed that he asked that priest not to reveal the news to the monsignor. Only after the monsignor arrived at his home did the husband give up the DVD of the encounter between his wife and Priest L.

The wife did not contest the affair. She did, however, make the claim that her husband had disobeyed the court order. She also said that he was not legally obligated to release the DVD to church officials, which in effect led to her necessary resignation.

“Under the circumstances, the hiring of the private investigator, in and of itself, was not an unlawful intrusion upon the rights of the wife secured by the order of protection,” the decision continued. In other words, the husband was not simply required to accept the claims of his wife that she had discontinued her affair with the priest.

In addition, the judge said that handing over the DVD was not harassment, because the father still had contact with Priest L. at church, which qualified as a legitimate and justifiable reason to release the video.