California Divorce and Family Law

Judge grants father custody in Connecticut's longest divorce case

An 86-day, $13 million divorce trial has ended with a judge awarding a Westport travel magnate sole custody of his four children and the right to keep most of his fortune.

In a written ruling, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone said Nancy Tauck's claims that her ex-husband possessed child pornography and molested two of his children were "false and spurious."

"This case represents not a victory for either parent, but a tragedy for everyone involved," Abery-Wetstone wrote.

She awarded Peter Tauck sole custody of the couple's children, ages 5 to 10. She said that as a result of Nancy Tauck's actions, two children were put through interviews for sexual abuse and all started therapy.

The trial easily beat the previous state record of 37 trial days for a divorce case and may have set a national record as well.

"This couple fought tooth and nail over every possible issue, generating new issues whenever possible," Abery-Wetstone wrote.

At first, Nancy Tauck, 48, will be limited to monitored 10-minute daily phone conversations with each child.

She can earn additional time with her children by completing an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program and months of supervised visitation.

Peter Tauck, 50, must attend at least two Alcoholics Anonymous meetings a week, continue treatment for attention deficit disorder, and employ a full-time nanny.

Nancy Tauck wanted 55 percent of her husband's approximately $50 million net worth and alimony of $125,000 a month for 17 years.

Instead, Peter Tauck was ordered to pay $33,333 a month for six years and $20,833 per month for two years after that. He gets to keep the family's $5.7 million Westport home and $3.6 million vacation home in Lake Placid, N.Y. He must pay Nancy Tauck $7 million, with $2 million going directly to her lawyers, and $1 million a year for the next five years.

A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with Nancy Tauck's attorney, Wayne D. Effron.

Attorney Gaetano Ferro, who represented the children, declined comment to The Hartford Courant.

Peter Tauck's attorney, Tom Colin, said his favorite part of the 132-page ruling is the judge's signature at the end.

"Because it means it's over, and hopefully now this family can move on with its life, peacefully, once and for all," Colin said. "This was the most intense, contentious case I've been involved in, without a doubt."

More about this case in Boston.com.

Nation's Leading Divorce Lawyers Finding More Cases Settled Before Trial

     A majority of the respondents to a recent poll of American 
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer (AAML) members cited an increase 
in divorce cases being settled before trial. In all, 58% of the
attorneys said that they have seen more cases being resolved 
without trial during the past five years.

    "A growing number of couples are having more success negotiating
settlements with the assistance of their lawyers," said Gaetano "Guy"
Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
"Negotiated settlement gives the spouses more input into their divorce
judgment than does letting a judge decide the issues. It affords the
opportunity for more creative resolutions which can minimize adverse tax
consequences. Settlement is almost always less stressful for the spouses
than trial and, where there are children, makes it more likely that the
parties will be able to effectively co-parent."

    The number of attorneys who noted an increase in the number of divorces
being resolved without a trial during the past five years was significantly
greater than those who felt there were fewer negotiated settlements taking
place. Only 12% of the respondents reported fewer cases being settled
before trial.

From PRNewswire. 

Tax issues in divorce and separation

In the event of a divorce, the court has the authority to divide or allocate all the property and assets belonging to both parties. This includes pension plans, IRAs, and other retirement assets.

Pension plans, profit-sharing plans, 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans and other "qualified plans" are all subject to an "anti-alienation provision" under federal law that provides that the plans can not be assigned or subject to any type of attachment, garnishment or levy. In general, creditors, including divorcing spouses, cannot reach these plans. There is an exception for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO" pronounced "KWAD-row").

Under a QDRO, a spouse, former spouse, child or any other person who is a dependent may receive qualified plan assets belonging to the participant. A QDRO is a specific type of domestic relations order from a court that creates an alternate payee's right to receive all or part of the benefits payable under a participant's plan. It does not alter the amount of the benefits under the plan.

There are precise procedural rules governing how a QDRO must be created and administered. The QDRO must contain 1. the name and last known mailing address of the participant and each alternate payee; 2. the name of each plan to which the order applies; 3. the dollar amount or percentage (or the method of determining the amount or percentage) of the benefit to be paid to the alternate payee; and 4. the number of payments or time period to which the order applies.

A QDRO may not require a plan to provide an alternate payee with a form of benefit that is not otherwise available under the plan. A QDRO cannot require a plan to provide for increased benefits. It cannot require a plan to pay benefits to an alternate payee that are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another order previously determined to be a QDRO. (For example, a QDRO for the divorce from the second spouse can't change a QDRO for the first spouse.) Lastly, the QDRO cannot require a plan to pay benefits to an alternate payee in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity for the lives of the alternate payee and his or her subsequent spouse.

Since IRAs are not subject to the "anti-alienation provision" a QDRO is not necessary to divide an IRA. IRA assets may be divided in accordance with a court decree or a property settlement agreement approved by the court. The former spouse who receives part or all of the IRA is required to treat the assets as his or her own IRA. Be careful. If an individual gives IRA assets to a former spouse without a court decree or a property settlement agreement approved by the court and authorizing the change in ownership, the former spouse who withdrew part or all of the IRA will be required to include the transferred amount in income — that is, the IRA is treated as distributed to the owner.

An amount distributed to the former spouse from a Roth IRA is tax- and penalty-free, but an amount distributed in accordance with a separation agreement that was not approved by a court is not eligible to be rolled over or transferred to an IRA of the former spouse.

Divorcing spouses must remember to change all of their beneficiary designations.

Read more in Lancaster Online.

 

Scaife's Wife Gets Giant Settlement After Messy Divorce -- Claims Newspaper is 'Hobby'

The estranged wife of billionaire and newspaper owner Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh banking heir turned media mogul, was awarded $725,000 a month in temporary support during their acrimonious divorce, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Sunday.

Scaife, 75, and his second wife, Margaret Ritchie Battle Scaife, are battling on several fronts, from how to assess and divide his wealth to custody of a yellow Labrador retriever named Beauregard, the newspaper said.

A judge may also have to decide whether the $20 million to $30 million a year she claims he spends to support the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review constitutes a business loss, as he contends, or spending on a hobby, as she sees it. Scaife owns the newspaper - a rival to the Post-Gazette - along with the Tribune-Review of Greensburg and several smaller dailies and weeklies.

Forbes magazine this year estimated Scaife's wealth at $1.2 billion, ranking him No. 799 on its list of the world's billionaires. The divorce papers, though sealed, were available online for several days last month on Allegheny County court's Web site, the Post-Gazette said.

"Wife cannot possibly expend the guideline amount of support no matter how lavishly she chooses to live," Scaife's lawyers wrote in court papers seeking to have the award reduced.

Margaret Scaife's lawyers, Gary Gentile and William Pietragallo II, put his monthly income from earnings on nine trusts at $3.9 million.

Records filed in the case suggest Scaife has spent $140 million to $244 million, depending on whom you believe, to subsidize the Tribune-Review since its inception in 1992. Scaife's other papers are generally profitable, the divorce papers state.

Tribune-Review Editor Frank Craig, reached Sunday by cell phone in Japan, said he had not seen the story and declined comment to The Associated Press. Ralph Martin, the paper's president and chief executive officer, did not return a message left at his office Sunday.

The reclusive Scaife is known as a staunch political conservative who spent millions funding a series of investigations into President Clinton.

Margaret Scaife, 60, kept a separate residence in Pittsburgh after the couple married in June 1991 and has been arrested twice since their split over domestic confrontations at his nearby mansion, the Post-Gazette reported. The trespass and assault charges were later dismissed.

She filed for divorce last year alleging infidelity, while he filed divorce papers this year, the Post-Gazette said. They do not have a prenuptial agreement, the newspaper said. He has two children from his first marriage to the former Frances Gilmore.

Margaret Scaife's alimony could grow higher depending on how Judge Alan Hertzberg views his income. He has asked for briefs due Thursday before making a final decision on the temporary award, which was set on a preliminary basis by a hearing officer last year.

Albert Momjian, a divorce attorney in Philadelphia, said he had obtained the previous $275,000 record for a temporary alimony order in Pennsylvania.

"I can't conceive of any alimony amount that would be that large," Momjian said of the Scaife case. "That's gigantic."

Lawyers for both spouses declined comment for the Post-Gazette story, citing the order sealing the file, and none returned phone messages left at their offices Sunday by the AP.

"It's highly confidential and we're not really prepared to talk about it at this point. I don't think anybody will," Scaife's lawyer, H. Yale Gutnick, told the Post-Gazette.

From Editor and Publisher.

Money Moves For A Second Marriage

Remarriage is the triumph of hope over experience, wrote Samuel Johnson, the famous 18th century English essayist. People show the same optimism today.

"Still, a little advance planning can help you avoid problems," said attorney Marty Shenkman of Teaneck, N.J. Among the items to consider:

•   Prenuptial agreement. These documents can spell out who will be responsible for which expenses after a marriage. They also can declare where each spouse's assets will go, after death or divorce.

Your prenup might put a limit on what will go to your new spouse. Such a provision may protect some of your assets, for yourself and for children from a prior marriage.

"For a prenup to be valid, both spouses must have an attorney," Shenkman said. The lawyers should be independent of each other.

A prenup can be overturned if one spouse was not adequately represented. Or if assets weren't disclosed.

Undue pressure also might cause a prenup to be thrown out. That might occur if one spouse is asked to sign an agreement right before the wedding.

So a prenup should be negotiated at least several weeks in advance of the ceremony.

But asking your spouse-to-be to sign a prenup can be awkward. One strategy is to point out that you're acting on the advice of your attorney, accountant, or financial adviser.

Emphasize estate planning and consider including some provision to protect your new spouse at your death. Also, downplay talk of divorce before you're even married.

•   Principal residence. Among other assets, a prenuptial agreement can cover living arrangements. That's particularly important if both prospective spouses own valuable homes.

The prenup can spell out whether one spouse will move into the other's place. If the unused home is sold, will the sales proceeds be divided, held jointly or go to the current owner?

If one partner will move into a home now owned by the other, should that family home be held jointly or kept in one person's name? Such questions can be addressed in a prenup.

"If title is changed to joint ownership with right of survival, the surviving spouse automatically will inherit the home," Shenkman said. Then the original owner's children won't inherit what they might consider a family home.

•   QTIP trust. This stands for qualified terminable interest property. QTIP trusts can provide for your new spouse. After your death and your surviving spouse's demise, they can also help other beneficiaries, such as your children from a previous marriage.

Say you are older than your remarriage partner. You have substantial assets.

You might die first. At that point, preselected assets could go into a QTIP trust. Like all QTIPs, this trust will pay lifetime income to the surviving spouse, Shenkman says.

That could be interest and dividends from trust assets. Another way you could set up a QTIP is to pay a specified percentage of trust assets to the survivor.

If you wish, you can draft a trust to give the trustee discretionary power to pay some of the trust principal to the survivor, in case of need.

No one else can benefit from any QTIP trust while the survivor is alive.

The spouse who creates a QTIP can be the trustee. But only for a QTIP that takes effect during his or her lifetime. He will need another trustee to step in after his death.

In any case, people rarely name themselves as trustees.

At the death of the second spouse, remaining assets pass to other beneficiaries. Those beneficiaries are typically named by the trust creator.

Often, beneficiaries are the creator's children from a first marriage. That's one way to provide for your new spouse as well as your children.

There can be tax benefits, too. If the above conditions are met, assets you leave to a QTIP trust won't be included in your taxable estate. Any assets remaining in the trust won't be subject to estate tax until the survivor's death.

So estate tax can be deferred. The tax may be smaller, if the trust assets have been reduced.

•   Life insurance. A QTIP trust has advantages, as described. But there may be drawbacks, too.

Say a hypothetical John Smith remarries at age 50. His daughter Kelly is 22. Smith's second wife, Alice, is 40.

Suppose John dies at age 80 and leaves most of his assets to a QTIP trust. Alice, then 70, might get income from the trust for 15 years.

In this scenario, Kelly will have to wait 15 years, from age 52 to 67, to inherit her father's assets. There might not be much left for her, if the trust is depleted to pay medical expenses and nursing home bills.

To avoid such an outcome, John might buy insurance on his own life, payable to Kelly. If he buys this when he remarries, he will be relatively young and healthy.

Then Kelly can collect benefits at John's death. She won't have to wait until her stepmother's death, to see if anything is left in the trust.

•   Will. You also will need a new will after you remarry. Your old one may not reflect your wishes. You might want to change beneficiary designations, too, for your life insurance and retirement accounts.

Read it all at Investors Business Daily.

Divorce threat persists throughout marriage

More than 70% of those who married since 1970 celebrated a 10th anniversary.

That statistic — one of many released Wednesday by the U.S. Census — shows that divorce itself has stabilized in recent decades, neither rising nor falling significantly. But experts say the longitudinal information also suggests divorce remains a threat throughout married life.

"People are at risk of divorce throughout their marriages. That risk probably peaks in years 5 through 10," says Andrew Cherlin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University.

But making it to the 10th doesn't mean a couple won't split, Cherlin says. "Lots of divorces are occurring after the first decade of marriage. It's not the case that if you make it through the first 10 years, your marriage is divorce-proof."

First marriages that end in divorce last a median of about eight years, Census numbers show. But researchers say that statistic has nothing to do with the so-called seven-year itch. "The notion of a seven-year itch isn't well borne out," says Steven Martin, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland-College Park. "There is nothing special with being married eight years."

The Census collected detailed marital responses in 2004 from 27,000 men and 32,000 women as part of its periodic Survey of Income and Program Participation.

"This is pretty much the only data source for this detailed look at marital history for both men and women," says Rose Kreider, a Census Bureau family demographer.

Though 74.4% of men who married between 1970 and 1974 stayed married at least 10 years, just 46.2% were still married after 30 years. Among women, 71.6% were still married after 10 years, compared with 42.1% after 30 years. Cherlin says the number of those whose spouses died is small; nearly all marriages that end by 30 years resulted from divorce rather than death.

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history and family studies at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of the 2005 book Marriage: A History, says it's "questionable" that marriages of the Ozzie-and-Harriet era were any more stable than those today. In the '50s, "divorce was harder to get, and there were fewer economic options outside marriage," she says.

Of those Census surveyed in 2004:

•12% of men and 13% of women had married twice, and 3% of both men and women had married three or more times.

•Among adults 25 and older who had ever divorced, 52% of men and 44% of women were currently married.

•About a third of men and about a quarter of women said they had never been married.

From USA Today.

Dating After Divorce

Parents Need To Heed Kids' Reactions But Not Give Them Too Much Power

The cellphone calls would start a couple of hours after she left. "Mom, it's 10 o'clock, when are you coming home?"

And later, "Mom, where are you now, Mom?"

When Anita Garvey started dating a couple of years after her divorce, her teen daughters said they were happy for her, but even so, it wasn't easy on the kids - or Garvey.

"It was almost like I was a teenager. It was like a role reversal," said Garvey, who was divorced four years ago. It was perhaps made harder, she said, because she had been an at-home mom for most of her children's lives, leaving the house to work only six years ago.

"They were used to having me 24/7," said Garvey, of South Windsor. "Working was a little hard for them to digest, and then divorce was hard for them, and then when I started dating, I could sense they felt me pulling away."

Finally, one of her daughters said, "Mom, you know, I'm not liking this too much."

For parents who are navigating the dating scene in search of a new partner, the process of parenting while on the prowl is delicate at best.

The challenges for a single parent range from the practical - finding the time, a sitter and a date - to the complex: gauging whether you are ready for a relationship, what your child's emotional reaction is, whether the date has long-term potential. All of this may make it seem easier to simply wait until the kids are out of the house.

But even then there can be problems - twentysomethings have been known to dislike mom's boyfriend as much as 12-year-olds - so it's probably worth proceeding when you feel you're ready, experts say. With 25 percent of families with children in homes run by single parents, according to 2006 U.S. Census Bureau figures, you'll have plenty of company.

So here is some advice from experts and parents who have been there.

First, make sure you are ready to date, said Donna Ferber, a licensed professional counselor in Farmington with a specialty in life transitions and author of "From Ex-Wife to Exceptional Life: A Woman's Journey through Divorce." If a marriage ended in divorce, Ferber said, "It's good to take the time to learn what went wrong before anesthetizing with a new relationship."

Priscilla Dunstan, an Australia-based specialist on communication with children - known internationally as the "baby listener" - and a single mother herself, suggests setting up social and recreational times with friends from the beginning. This gives you social support, while also getting your children used to the idea that you need time for a social life, too. This way, Dunstan wrote, in an email, "when you start dating ... your children won't feel that your date is taking up their time with you, it's just a regular night out."

If there's one mistake that gets made too often, according to Ferber, it's introducing children to a partner before the child is ready or before the parent knows whether the person has much potential for a stable relationship.

"The child may not be through grieving," said Ferber. "The parent may feel like this is something new and exciting, but their child may not be on the same page. Their reaction may have more to do with their own grieving process than with the person.

"Secondly, if you do connect and then break up, the child experiences a loss all over again," said Ferber. Children may ask, "Did I do something wrong?"

Dale Macken, who was divorced 14 years ago when his children were ages 4 and 1, said that over the years he'd never introduce a new girlfriend to his daughters until he was fairly certain the relationship would be long-term.

And when he did introduce a date to his daughter, he'd call them simply a "friend," with the hope of having his kids treat them more casually.

"But Dad, they are `girls,' and they are `friends,' so they are your `girlfriends,'" he recalls his daughter once saying to him. "No honey," he'd tell her, "they are friends who are girls."

Macken, who lives in Bristol, joined a singles group at the First Church of Christ in Wethersfield. He liked it because he could get to know a woman as a friend first in a group setting before thinking about a romantic involvement. Macken and Garvey are now dating.

It's "a slippery slope" deciding when to introduce kids to a potential mate, Ferber said.

Read more at the Hartford Courant.

WIFE HOPE$ OTHER GAL PUTS . . .REF IN PRENUP PERIL

The wife of crooked NBA ref Tim Donaghy - who two years ago denied to her rumors that he had an Arizona girlfriend - was spurred to file for divorce last week after The Post confirmed the other woman's existence, a source said.

Kim Donaghy now believes news of the other woman will help her get a hefty divorce settlement from Tim - despite her having signed a prenuptial agreement 12 years ago, another source said. Kim in the past had tearfully told friends: "I want to leave the bastard, but I can't because of the prenup. If I leave, I get no money unless I have serious proof that he's ruined the marriage," according to that source.

The developments come as Tim Donaghy awaits sentencing on federal gambling-related charges. He last month admitted in Brooklyn federal court to taking money in exchange for feeding gambling buddies inside information about basketball games.

"At some point, maybe two years ago, [Kim] had heard rumors about a girl in Arizona," said a source close to Kim. "He [Tim] was bragging about her to his golf buddies, and I guess one of the wives told her, so she confronted him."

"He convinced her that it wasn't true. He said, 'No, no,' and just kept denying it. And she believed him."

But two weeks ago, The Post revealed Tim had a woman he had called his "girlfriend" in Phoenix - Cheryl Wolfe-Ruiz, a busty, blond sports-bar owner.

That story disclosed that Tim had slept in a hotel room he rented for Wolfe-Ruiz when he traveled to Phoenix for a game, despite the fact that the NBA had rented him another room.

"When the story came out, and she was staring at the face of her husband's girlfriend in The Post, that was it," the source said. "And shortly thereafter, she started filing the papers. It was just too much."

Kim Donaghy filed for divorce last Thursday in Florida, claiming the marriage is "irretrievably broken."

Tim's criminal-defense lawyer, John Lauro, yesterday declined to comment on the divorce and purported prenup agreement. But Lauro angrily denied Tim had ever told a friend that "if she knows what's good for her, she'll never try to leave me . . . she says she wants out and I always say, "I dare you, I dare you to leave me.' "

The Post yesterday quoted a friend of Tim as saying that.

Lauro said, "Those quotes are false . . . Someone for whatever reason is trying to portray Tim in a false light."

A source said Kim long had contemplated divorce but held off on it because she had signed a prenup that shielded Tim's assets.

"Kim would always say, 'I'm a prisoner in the castle.' She was miserable, but couldn't leave because of the prenup," the friend recalled. "If she left him, she wouldn't get any money. She's got four kids she's got to raise. She needed the money, the money was always why she stayed."

"There was that huge picture of this blond, smiley girlfriend in The Post, she certainly had grounds to leave him," Kim's friend said.

"Kim's case is basically proven for her. She knew she had to step up once the story came out. She needs the money and now she'll get it. She's got proof that he cheated on her."

From The New York Post.

Tell-All PCs and Phones Transforming Divorce

The age-old business of breaking up has taken a decidedly Orwellian turn, with digital evidence like e-mail messages, traces of Web site visits and mobile telephone records now permeating many contentious divorce cases.

Spurned lovers steal each other’s BlackBerrys. Suspicious spouses hack into each other’s e-mail accounts. They load surveillance software onto the family PC, sometimes discovering shocking infidelities.

Divorce lawyers routinely set out to find every bit of private data about their clients’ adversaries, often hiring investigators with sophisticated digital forensic tools to snoop into household computers.

“In just about every case now, to some extent, there is some electronic evidence,” said Gaetano Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, who also runs seminars on gathering electronic evidence. “It has completely changed our field.”

Privacy advocates have grown increasingly worried that digital tools are giving governments and powerful corporations the ability to peek into peoples’ lives as never before. But the real snoops are often much closer to home.

“Google and Yahoo may know everything, but they don’t really care about you,” said Jacalyn F. Barnett, a Manhattan-based divorce lawyer. “No one cares more about the things you do than the person that used to be married to you.”

Most of these stories do not end amicably. This year, a technology consultant from the Philadelphia area, who did not want his name used because he has a teenage son, strongly suspected his wife was having an affair. Instead of confronting her, the husband installed a $49 program called PC Pandora on her computer, a laptop he had purchased.

The program surreptitiously took snapshots of her screen every 15 seconds and e-mailed them to him. Soon he had a comprehensive overview of the sites she visited and the instant messages she was sending. Since the program captured her passwords, the husband was also able to get access to and print all the e-mail messages his wife had received and sent over the previous year.

What he discovered ended his marriage. For 11 months, he said, she had been seeing another man — the parent of one of their son’s classmates at a private school outside Philadelphia. The husband said they were not only arranging meetings but also posting explicit photos of themselves on the Web and soliciting sex with other couples.

The husband, who like others in this article was reached through his lawyer, said the decision to invade his wife’s privacy was not an easy one. “If I were to tell you I have a pure ethical conscience over what I did, I’d be lying,” he said. But he also pointed to companies that have Internet policies giving them the right to read employee e-mail messages. “When you’re in a relationship like a marriage, which is emotional as well as, candidly, a business, I think you can look at it in the same way,” he said.

When considering invading their spouse’s privacy, husbands and wives cite an overriding desire to find out some secret. One woman described sensing last year that her husband, a Manhattan surgeon, was distant and overly obsessed with his BlackBerry.

Read it all at The New York Times.