Do You Need Divorce Insurance? Take the “Divorce Probability” Test and Find Out

Published in The Huffington Post, April 19, 2011.

This past week, a colleague in the collaborative practice community, Chris Chen, a CDFA (Certified Divorce Financial Analyst) in Waltham, Massachusetts, told me about a company offering divorce insurance.  As someone involved in the business of both divorce and marital mediation (www.maritalmediation.com) I was intrigued.  I couldn’t resist taking a look at the company’s website, www.wedlockdivorceinsurance.com.  Here’s what I found:

WedLock Divorce Insurance^SM  is an insurance product marketed by SafeGuard Marketing Management, Inc., a division of Safeguard Guaranty Operations, Inc., which itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of SafeGuard Guaranty Corporation.  http://www.wedlockdivorceinsurance.com/About_us.aspx . 

The company, a North Carolina-based start-up, was formed by John Logan, a former victim of divorce.  Logan’s own personal experience with divorce proceedings served as the catalyst for developing this new product.

    Offering the insight that most divorces “don’t happen overnight”, Logan’s aim is to give people “a realistic and affordable way” to protect their net worth in case of divorce.  The divorce insurance basically provides coverage based on the number of “units” purchased and is payable after a 48-month waiting period.  This is essentially a “pre-existing condition” provision, the pre-existing condition being that your marriage is on the rocks, and you and your spouse hate each other.  (The waiting period can be reduced to 36 months by purchasing an “Accelerated Maturity Rider”). 

In order to get paid after the divorce, all you need to do is send a copy of your court decree to “Claims Direct Access” in Sandy, Utah. You can use the money for anything – even a post-divorce vacation with future spouse #2. However, it is unclear whether the divorce insurance proceeds might have to be shared as “marital property” with the ex-spouse, especially if earnings during the marriage paid for it.

 The parents of a spouse can buy a WedLock policy for their child.   What a thoughtful wedding gift that might be, although it may cripple a good in-law relationship. 

You can apply and pay for the policy online, and you won’t even have to take the “Divorce Probability Calculator” test on the site to qualify for coverage.   (More about that below.) 

The coverage consists of “Units” in the amount of $1,250 each, with an automatic increase of $250 per unit per year, a very nice feature.  Each unit costs $15.99 per month.  The sample contract on the firm’s website shows that for 15 units of coverage (payout of $18,750), the cost to you is slightly under $240 per month.   (“Hey, honey, marry me, but I’m spending $240 a month on this little insurance policy.  I hope you don’t mind!”)  

The maximum policy is 200 Units ($250,000 of coverage) and would cost about $3,200 per month.    Due to the cost, the insurance is probably mainly used to pay legal costs and not to replace assets taken by the rapacious ex-spouse in the divorce proceeding.  In fact, 10 or 15 units of coverage might nicely pay for a Collaborative Divorce, which is a very nice way to go if you’re getting a divorce.   To learn more about Collaborative Divorce, visit www.massclc.org

According to the website, WedLock policies are underwritten by a number of insurance companies, depending on where you live.  These are the so-called excess & surplus insurance lines which provide unusual insurance.  Reasons for this include insurance offered by new entity, a new kind of coverage, or one with an inadequate loss history or unusual risk.  E&S policies are not written by standard, licensed insurance carriers subject to state regulations.  

According to the video on the WedLock site, its insurance is not available in North Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, or Pennsylvania.   By the way, in case you’re interested and would like to make extra money,  you can have the “ability to earn unlimited income through” by selling WedLock Divorce Insurance through SafeGuard’s  Partner Affiliate Program. 

I loved the website.  It contains wonderful information about divorce: its causes, factors, and statistics, all nicely researched.  http://www.wedlockdivorceinsurance.com/(S(sgewocwgy4pt34dtbiepevft))/Learn_more.aspx

 There is a divorce cost calculator, which helps you estimate how much your divorce hair cut will cost. http://www.wedlockdivorceinsurance.com/div_costs.html

The site is actually kind of upbeat and not depressing at all, especially if you think you are far from divorce.   I loved taking the “Divorce Probability Calculator” which tells you how risky your marriage is.  This happens immediately online.  You only have to give the company your name and email address in order to take the test and get your results.  After you take the test, WedLock electronically delivers a very nice report which explains the results.

The Divorce Probability Calculator relies on the 20 factors that research has shown are significant in the success or failure of a marriage.  These include key elements such as educational level, age at marriage, cohabitation before the marriage, whether it is a second (or third) marriage, the existence of children from a previous marriage, and unemployment of a spouse.

I put the factors that are present in many of my married friends into the “Divorce Probability Calculator”:  casual drinking, religion “not important”, having cohabited during marriage, and “regularly arguing” with your spouse.  The result was not good – a score of 92.  That hypothetical person would have a “Very Strong Probability” of divorce.   The result noted, “The news is not good.” But on a more encouraging note, it posed the question, “Does that mean you should never get married because you’re almost guaranteed to get divorced?  Certainly Not!  You may end up happily married forever after… but statistically, the odds are against you”.  

Then I adjusted the factors, thinking that maybe my friends didn’t “regularly” argue, but “occasionally” argued.  I hoped this would greatly improve the results. 

Unfortunately for my friends, the score went down only to 72.   They are at risk of losing their marriages, their homes, and in general, getting a divorce “hair cut”.  If they are marital mediators who help people improve their marriages (www.maritalmediation.com), this might be somewhat professionally embarrassing for them, too.  Many of my friends had previously thought their marriages were strong, and loved their spouses.  Now it has become my duty to warn them and inform them otherwise. 

 When I put “rarely argue” into the factors, the score got better – a 63.  But I thought the couples who rarely argue are the ones who – surprisingly to all their friends and family – end up in divorce court.

Then I began to wonder whether 92 was really a bad score, or if the results continued beyond 100.  I put in some additional unfavorable factors to test my hypothesis.   In addition to “regularly argue”, I added high school (not college) education, the existence of step-children in the marriage, and unemployment.  At that point the result was 150 points.  It was a still “Very Strong Probability” of divorce (the same as when the score was 92), but I was given this advice: 

 “Does [this] mean you should never get married because you’re almost guaranteed to get a divorce?  Certainly not!  In your case, we very STRONGLY [emphasis in the original] recommend that you adjust your budget to ensure that you can cover yourself against the unexpected.  In any event, we wish you the best of luck!” 

For all of you who take the “Divorce Probability Calculator” on WedLock’s site, I wish you the best of luck, too.  Based on the results, you might seriously consider buying WedLock insurance.

 © Laurie Israel 2011.

Can Transformative Mediation Help Your Marriage?

Published in The Huffington Post, March 21, 2011. 

As a divorce lawyer and divorce mediator, my divorce clients describe problems that led to the failure of their marriages.  These problems seem to be universal.  There might be anger and frustration about sharing household duties and creating income for the family that finally caused a breakdown.  Some marital failures were a result of concrete problems relating to livelihoods and financial security.   Other couples report problems associated with lack of time, diverging interests, in-laws, difficulty with children.  Whatever the problems are, at the end of a marriage the spouses no longer want to live with each other. 

 We take our divorcing clients’ problems seriously and respectfully.  But when asked, most divorce lawyers and divorce mediators will tell you the same thing:  in most cases, if their divorce clients had addressed their problems a year or two earlier with the proper help, their problems could have been resolved.  

 This vision has motivated many of us divorce attorneys and divorce mediators to begin working in the area of “marital mediation”, in which we use mediation as a way to help married people improve their marriages and avoid divorce. 

 How can mediation help a marriage? 

 Here is a pattern that we often see divorcing clients complain about.  The husband may be the primary bread-winner.  The wife complains that he spends too much time outside the home and doesn’t adequately participate in home life and with the children.  The husband is under a lot of stress at work and is exhausted when he returns home.  The wife is exhausted with child and home care, and may also be working outside of the home.

 When people think of mediation, they think of “traditional” mediation.  In this type of mediation, the mediator focuses on helping people come to an acceptable agreement, usually written.  It is a solution- oriented process.  The mediator focuses on resolvable issues where agreement can be reached. It is the type of mediation often used in workplaces and with divorcing couples. Because it is results focused, the roots of the problem are not addressed.  When used for divorce mediation, this can be appropriate, because the couple has decided to end their marriage, and not deal with the reasons for the breakdown.

 Another type of mediation is “transformative” mediation, which can be very helpful in ongoing marriages.  Transformative mediation does not necessarily seek to resolve an immediate problem. It is a free-form process that does not immediately narrow its focus to try to seek solutions or agreements. 

 The transformative marital mediator helps guide the clients to talk and think deeply about issues that are troubling them about their marriage.  These are often issues that the spouses cannot meaningfully talk about themselves, because they are emotional issues.  Talking about them always seems to be a replay of anger, and nothing seems to improve. 

 When spouses discuss difficult issues in front of a third-party neutral mediator, things are different. Just by having a third party present and listening, the parties are better able to express themselves without interruption and without argument.  The mediator can guide the discussion to keep it respectful, open and on track.  This process can help the clients clarify the nature of their problems and better understand and respect the views of their spouse.  With understanding, a range of options for minimizing conflict becomes more apparent.

 The mediator does not provide counseling or give advice.  But the mediator does view the exchange and give feedback.  This by itself is very helpful.  The mediation can help eliminate patterns of conflict, reduce negative thoughts, and reframe interpretations about motive.

 The mediator can give the party feedback to their communications and whether there is miscommunication and lack of understanding. Part of the work of the mediator is to identify the underlying issues in the conflict or discussion.  These may be issues that are not recognized by the spouses themselves even in a long-term marriage. Having a third party identify issues makes it acceptable for the spouses to openly discuss the issues.  The mediator can lead the spouses in a productive discussion and how it may relate to their marital conflict.

 Transformative marital mediation can be seen as a place for full discussion, active listening, being receptive to the other party’s point of view, and being heard, understood and acknowledged.  When marriages do not work out, it is generally lack of acknowledgement and understanding between the parties that is the core of the failure.   With an increased understanding from transformative mediation, spouses can begin to solve their problems, reduce their conflict and have a happier marriage. 

 If you would like to locate a marital mediator in your area, search “marital mediation” and your city or state, and you will find mediators who work in this area of practice near you.

 © Copyright 2011.  Laurie Israel.

Massachusetts’ “Almost” Alimony Law

posted March 15, 2011 in The Huffington Post.

Alimony is a highly-charged word. 

Discussions of alimony generally get the strongest reactions from both men and women when working out the terms of a divorce.   Believe it or not, it’s generally more contentious than custody disputes over children or property division.

Men (the typical gender of the alimony provider) are understandably concerned.  They are no longer entitled to receive their wife’s love or services but still must pay.  To add insult to injury, sometimes alimony is payable even when the wife had decided to end the marriage.   And men are understandably concerned about the negative effect of alimony on the wife’s future motivation to make her own living. 

On the other hand, married women have often experienced significant decreased opportunities in their careers.  They often have made (by mutual decision with their husband) their top priority to take care of the family, home, children, and husband – to be a homemaker.  That’s why some commentators view a marriage as an economic partnership, with the right to alimony payments as essentially a payment of the marital partnership’s income interest.

It is the atypical cases that capture the attention of the media. We hear about lifetime alimony paid to an “able-bodied” spouse after a very short marriage.  Or a man who is ill and penniless, but must still pay alimony.  On the other side, we hear about cases where a wife whose marriage has ended has no career or work prospects and is unable to support herself adequately because of no or insufficient spousal support.   Alimony can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whose ox is being gored.  

Massachusetts current alimony laws.  Presently, Massachusetts has very typical alimony laws.  The issue of alimony (as is the issue of property division) is based on an analysis of many factors, among them, age, opportunity for future acquisition, length of marriage, contribution to marriage (including as a homemaker), conduct, and employability.    

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter208/Section34

 

Nothing in the Massachusetts statute defines when alimony should end.   And Massachusetts judges don’t believe the statute gives them authority to order a termination date at the time an alimony order is set.   In a recent case, Pierce v. Pierce (2009), quite surprisingly (to most lawyers) the Court denied the request of a 66 year-old retired attorney to terminate alimony.  http://ivkdlaw.com/alimony-pierce.asp

Alimony laws tend to be quite vague, Massachusetts’ present laws included.  This is due to the multiplicity of case facts and situations to be decided.  When we advise our clients, we have to rely on an amorphous set of case decisions, anecdotal reports from colleagues on non-reported cases, various guidelines and pronouncements for lawyer bar associations and law groups.  Complicating the alimony landscape in Massachusetts was a 2009 change in an administrative ruling setting the child support amounts.  In this change, the ceiling of income subject to child support was greatly increased (to provide parity to married and unmarried parents).  As a result, everyone’s concept of what was the proper amount of an alimony to be paid became very unclear and confusing.

Massachusetts previous proposals.   Over the past few years, there have been a number of proposals to amend the Massachusetts alimony laws to provide more guidance for divorcing couples, their attorneys and the Courts.    In 2009, there were 2 competing proposals, neither which was enacted into law.  One proposal, S.B. 1616, simply granted judges the additional power to determine the duration of alimony order at the time it was set.  The other, H.B. 1785, proposed an alimony law that made a priority on increasing the earning capacity of the receiver and limiting alimony payments.  Neither proposal was enacted.

H.B. 1785 is instructive, because it was thought to be unduly punitive to potential recipients.  It had been devised and promoted by an alimony reform group, led by men who believed alimony laws were unjust to payors.

 The goal articulated in H.B. 1785 was to promote self-sufficiency for the payee spouse within a “reasonable period” of time.  “Reasonable period” was defined by the statute as a period which could not exceed one half the length of the marriage, or twelve years, whichever is less.  There was an exception:  if there were children under 16 that the supported party was taking care of, then the “reasonable period” could extend until the youngest child had attained 16 years of age. 

In H.B. 1785, the amount of alimony would be automatically reduced during the second half of the alimony term by ten percent a year.  If the payee party did not exhibit “willingness and diligence” to seek employment counseling and training, she would be punished by reducing the duration or amount (or both) of the alimony order.

H.B. 1785 sought to eliminate other important factors in the Massachusetts alimony statute, including conduct, employability, station (which means the lifestyles of the parties), the needs of a party, and opportunity of future acquisition.  These factors were struck in their entirety.  The result could be devastating for a wife who had foregone employment opportunities to create a family and maintain a home life. 

The new proposed Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act.  

In January, 2011, a new alimony bill was filed with the Massachusetts Senate entitled “An Act To Reform And Improve Alimony” to be known as the “Alimony Reform Act of 2011.

http://www.ivkdlaw.com/Massachusetts-Alimony-Reform-Act.asp

 It is quite thoughtful, and seeks to try to take out the uncertainty and unfairness in present alimony laws.  The Act seeks to balance concern for the well-being of the spouse needing support, with equity for the paying spouse.   The proposed law is quite unique, and may have a ripple effect on other states’ alimony laws if enacted.    The proposed Act has been supported by both the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, which means it may have an excellent chance of passing into law.

Here are some basic elements of the proposed Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act.

Durational Limits.  The duration of alimony under the Act depends on the length of the marriage.  It can be no greater than  50% of length of the marriage if the duration was 5 years or less;  60% if 10 years or less, but more than 5 years;   70% if 15 years or less, but more than 10 years; and 80% if 20 years or less but more than 15 years.  In a marriage which is 20+ years, the court may order alimony for “an indefinite length of time” but is not required to.  All these parameters can be modified if required “in the interests of justice”.   These durational parameters are similar to those that have been suggested by guidelines issued by American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and by rulings of Massachusetts judges.

Termination at Remarriage and Cohabitation.  Under the Act, alimony ends at remarriage of the recipient (unless the parties specifically agree otherwise).  It should be noted that termination upon remarriage is not required by the Internal Revenue Code (to permit deduction of alimony payments), nor is it currently required under Massachusetts laws.  Under the partnership view of marriage as creating an income interest in a spouse’s (greater) earnings, this seems to be unfair as a blanket rule.   I have often suggested to people negotiating divorces that a modification of the blanket termination rule (such alimony as reduced by 50% upon remarriage) is a good thing for both parties.  It might encourage the remarriage of a spouse whose economic self-preservation would lead to a decision not to remarry.

The Act provides for suspension, reduction or termination upon cohabitation of the recipient spouse, with someone with home sharing a “common household” after at least 3 months of cohabitation.  Thus the Act seems to encourage cohabitation rather than remarriage.

Termination at Full Retirement Age.   To address the concerns raised in the Pierce case,

http://ivkdlaw.com/alimony-pierce.asp

the Act provides that alimony orders will end when the payor reaches full retirement age for social security.  This court can deviate from this rule for good cause.  An example that might result in deviation might be a “later-in-life” divorce when the parties are their 50s or 60s, with inadequate retirement savings and a payor who had intended to work past normal retirement age.   There also might be post-divorce extension for “good cause”, such as a material change in circumstances which might render the termination inequitable.

Amount of Alimony.    Many of the factors in the present Massachusetts alimony statute http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter208/Section34

are included in determining the amount to be paid (and also the duration) of alimony under the Act. These include length of marriage, age of parties, economic and non-economic contribution to the marriage.  The term “station” has been changed to “ability of each party to maintain the marital lifestyle”.  Note the word “each” in that factor.  A recipient should not be entitled to a higher lifestyle than the payor.  (This is actually embedded in case law under Massachusetts’ current statute.)

The concept of marital post-divorce partnership is now newly reflected in a new factor termed “lost economic opportunity as a result of the marriage”.  Employment and employability, “including employability through reasonable diligence and additional training, if necessary”, harkening back to H.B. 1785, is now included as a factor.  Those mythical ex-wives who wish to sit in front of the TV watching Oprah and eating chocolates are now forewarned. 

Another guideline is established with respect to amount.  It is generally not to exceed “the recipient’s need” or 30 – 35 percent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes at the time of the divorce.  (This comports with current Massachusetts alimony practice.)  Income subject to child support is deducted from the gross income of a party.  It is unclear as to what happens to an alimony order when children are emancipated.

Existing Alimony Orders.   Under The Alimony Reform Act of 2011, an ex-spouse in a case decided prior to enactment can never file on the basis of material change of circumstances to reduce or increase the amount of an existing alimony orders. But the Act itself is a “change of circumstances” that may entitle an ex- spouse to vary the duration of alimony in an existing order.  However,  if a couple had initially agreed that the alimony terms in their separation agreement were to be non-modifiable (this is often done with mutual advantage to each of the spouses), the duration cannot be changed after the Act is passed.

Massachusetts again a Beacon.   After many years of discussion, Court decisions, theorizing, and uncertainty, Massachusetts may be closer now to an alimony system that works better, is fairer to both parties, and reflects equity.

As with its leadership in free public education, abolition of slavery, enactment of same-sex marriage and health care reform, Massachusetts may once again serve as a beacon to the country. It is poised to do just that in the formulation and anticipated enactment of “An Act to Reform and Improve Alimony”.

http://www.yourfamilymatterslawblog.com/massachusetts-alimony-reform-act-of-2011/

© 2011 Laurie Israel.

Are California Divorce Laws Bad for Marital Health?

Published in Huffington Post, 2/10/11.

In the US, every state has a different set of divorce laws about distributing assets between ex-husband and ex-wife.  So if you get divorced in California you may end up with a very different financial settlement than if you had divorced in Massachusetts.

“Community Property”  laws v. “Equitable Property” jurisdictions
California and 7 other states (Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Washington, and Wisconsin) are so-called “community property” states, having adopted community property laws.  Two other jurisdictions, Alaska and Puerto Rico, are “opt in” states, whereby spouses can elect into community property treatment. The community property states are primarily in the West and are based on the Mexican legal system, which was derived from Spanish law. 

Simply stated, in community property states, all income earned (and debts accrued) during the marriage are considered “community property” – property belonging to both spouses.  Community property includes the portion of retirement accounts accruing during marriage, and all property acquired during the marriage.

In a community property jurisdiction, premarital property and property gifted to a spouse or inherited will be considered “separate property”.  This separate property stays with the spouse in whose name it is titled if there is a divorce.  Alimony rules may soften these community property rules if the result is harsh.

Generally “community property” is divided equally upon divorce.  In some community property states, such as Texas, a court has the authority to decree an “equitable” distribution of community property which might be unequal.

Divorce in the other states generally falls under the “equitable property” regime.  Under this system, all property is divided on equitable principles, such as length of the marriage, opportunity for future acquisition, earnings potential, and other factors.  Premarital, gifted, or inherited property may also be included depending on the facts of each situation.  In other words, a Court has the discretion to do what it decides is fair. 

Differences in Divorce Rates
I have been intrigued by the reports of high divorce rates in certain states and low divorce rates in others.  In recent reports on the divorce rate [http://maritalmediation.com/2011/02/divorce-rates-according-to-the-wall-street-journal-and-cdc] among the states with the highest divorce rates are Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho, three community property states.  California was not included in that study because it no longer provides public divorce statistics. However, earlier data and anecdotal information indicates that California also has a very high divorce rate and southern California may be the highest in the country.

The lowest divorce rates are in Massachusetts followed by the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa and Illinois. These are all equitable distribution states.

Texas is a community property state with a medium divorce rate.  One distinctive aspect of Texas is its extremely restrictive rules on spousal support.  In Texas, no matter how long a couple is married, the party receiving alimony is limited to a maximum order of $2,500 per month for a three year duration and only if the marriage was 10 years or longer.  The courts limit the spousal support to the shortest possible time for the spouse to begin employment to provide for his or her “minimal reasonable needs”.

Although the equitable division of community property can sometimes mitigate the harsh application of this law, Texas may be the state which best personifies Tammy Wynette’s famous song, “Stand by Your Man” as a marriage principle for many women.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew.

Do elimination of  “transaction costs”  increase incidence of divorce?
It makes one wonder why community property states tend to have high divorce rates, and why equitable distribution states tend to have lower divorce rates.

One of the reasons may be the “transaction costs” in divorce.  If divorce is very easy, divorce becomes more frequent.  If people know that they don’t have to share property, divorce is easier. 

Take, for example, a marriage in a community property state where one spouse owns a lot of premarital property or inherited property.  This wealthier spouse knows that they can leave the relationship with no personal financial impact because it’s separate property.  Maybe that’s why community property states tend to have higher divorce rates.

Consider the multiple marriages and divorces of many celebrities.  There may be huge transaction costs in their divorces, but they have enough money to start over in a new relationship without being financially hurt.  So a celebrity can leave their marriage easily, while someone less affluent may be stuck working it out with their spouse.  The less affluent couple may end up in a very good long-term marriage like the one Huey Lewis and The News sang about in the song, “Happy to be Stuck With You”.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Re30H83sIQ  . 

As the lyrics say:

And we’ve had our ins and outs, but that’s the way it’s supposed to be
We thought about giving up, but we could never stay away
Thought about breaking up, but now we know it’s much too late

Perhaps “being bound by all the rest, like the same phone number, all the same friends, and the same address” as Huey Lewis sings, is not enough to make for a viable marriage.  However, a marriage bound up with the familiarity of time, commitment, and affection is something worthy of aspiration.  That is not to say that long-term marriage is the most moral option, but that it can be valuable and enjoyable.   If there’s no easy way out, spouses may be willing to overcome the inevitable obstacles in a marriage.

Which takes us to prenuptial agreements. 

As a lawyer and mediator, I have worked on many of these.  And I have come to believe that they are usually unnecessary and often serve to weaken the marriage at the outset.  A person with a prenup has been given a preset path to divorce with no transaction costs.

While some attorneys and financial advisors recommend prenuptial agreements in order to reduce the financial risk if the couple divorces, a prenuptial can actually serve to increase the divorce risk of the couple.  Why should someone stay and work things out when the exit path is so easy?

Financial convenience, though certainly not a reason to stay married by itself, can take a marriage through a rough period so that the couple can grow and the marriage can flourish again.  Divorce factors that may contribute to divorce,  like prenups, celebrity wealth, or residing in a community property state may lessen the chances of making it through a long-term marriage. 

© 2011 Laurie Israel.  All rights reserved.

“Divorce Tourism” – American Style

In India, only one out of every hundred marriages fails.  But the divorce rate is rising, especially in big cities, due to changing lifestyles, urbanization, women’s economic independence, and growing prevalence of “western” attitudes towards marriage.  Though the divorce rate is low compared to most developed countries, it has reportedly doubled in the past five years.   At the same time, traditional Indian culture views divorce as shameful, and marital counseling is only just beginning to gain acceptance. 

 “Divorce Tourism” is the invention of Vijesh Thakkar, owner of a Mumbai tour company, KV Tours and Travel.  After watching his best friend’s marriage disintegrate, Thakkar wondered if he could help other married couples heading for divorce. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1941208,00.html 

With this impetus in mind, he launched “divorce tourism” packages in 2009 to help couples who are heading towards divorce.  The idea is that the couple embarks on a week-long stay in a resort with time and leisure to heal their relationship. 

At first, Thakkar thought that a relaxing vacation in a quiet destination could regenerate a marriage. But   couples having marital problems often continue fighting during a vacation.  A couple could not identify and resolve their communication difficulties, even in the relaxing atmosphere of a vacation. 

Then Thakkar’s inspiration was to add the option of including a “tour guide” with the couple, who is a marital counselor.  Sometime this tour guide was introduced to the couple as a marital counselor.  But due to the stigma of divorce and resistance to psychotherapy in India, sometimes the vacation and tour guide had been secretly arranged by a concerned friend or parent.  In this case, the tour guide traveled incognito.  As the vacation unfolded, the tour guide would discretely help the couple resolve communication difficulties without revealing his true identity. 

The recent Hollywood comedy “Couples Retreat:  Return to Eden” is a lamehearted comedy about four couples who attempt to improve their marriages by undergoing counseling on a tropical island.  

If we’re to take this concept seriously, we should imagine a vacation involving one couple and one “tour guide”  –  a professional who deals with marital problems.   In societies where therapy is widely accepted, this could be conducted openly and could be a sound approach for marital therapists and other professionals to address marital problems.  In fact, it might be much more conducive to constructive thinking and conversation than the typical therapy session sitting on chairs in a drab office.

The “tour guide” could either be a marital counselor, or another professional who deals with marital problems, such as a marital mediator.  In marital mediation, a mediator works with a couple using mediation techniques to identify and understand communication problems.  While there is some overlap between marital counseling and marital mediation, either approach can be very helpful to a couple whose marriage is in trouble.  http://www.maritalmediation.com.

The advantage of taking a vacation with a “tour guide” is that there is plenty of time to view the couple’s interactions in real time, not bounded by an hour therapy or mediation session.  It is intensive.  The “tour guide” can take notes on the spouses’ verbal interactions, sometimes combined with audio recording.  That way, exactly what was said could be analyzed with the “tour guide” and the couple.   Negative communications and misunderstandings can be revealed.  The couple can be helped with ways to address and minimize corrosive interchanges. 

Often struggling couples will fight quite viciously about trivial matters. The “tour guide” can point out what the couple does not see – they are arguing at times about nothing important.  When the couple sees actual data about their arguments, they sometimes can let go of some thought patterns and bickering that are causing corrosiveness in the marriage.  When a marriage starts to improve, the trajectory for further improvement is set, and things can gradually get better. 

Of course, “Divorce Tourism” would be expensive, based on cost of a vacation for three plus the professional fees of the “tour guide”.  But if it could increase the chance of saving the marriage, it’s certainly worth considering.

While “Divorce Tourism” will not always be successful in forestalling a divorce, in many cases it could be a powerful tool in setting a couple back on a fulfilling marital path.  If two people wish to remain married, but cannot figure out how because of incessant conflict, it may be a creative opportunity for them to get to the bottom of what is destroying their marriage.  

Most marriages are killed by a litany of petty unresolved arguments, unrealistic expectations, and overemphasis on unimportant disputes.    For these spouses, “Divorce Tourism” may be a fruitful alternative to a visit to a divorce attorney’s office.

© Laurie Israel 2011.

What We Can Learn from the Top 10 Celebrity Divorces of 2010

Do celebrity divorces provide entertainment? Yes, but maybe we can learn something from them too.

Courteney Cox and David Arquette
Courteney Cox and David Arquette are in a trial separation and contemplating divorce.  They say they have “grown apart” during their marriage and that was confirmed when we all heard David talking about his sex life on Howard Stern’s radio show.  Honesty is a virtue, but one’s new single sex life is better left unsaid if you hope to reunite with your ex.  To David’s credit, he tweeted an apology.  Could the impetus of the separation have been California’s divorce law, which likely would increase Courteney’s spousal support obligation at the 10-year point?

Lesson:  Keep your single sex life to yourself during your trial separation.       

Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren
Some couples can rebuild trust in their marriage and heal from an instance (or two) of infidelity.  Tiger Woods’ obsessive interest in sex outside the marriage turned out to be fatal to his marriage with Elin Nordegren. 

They conducted their divorce, however with great dignity and relative civility (except for the golf club incident, which was totally understandable).  And Tiger’s attempt toward self-improvement included a treatment facility to try to cure his sex addiction.  Few divorcing people own up to their own deficits and act responsibly so we offer our best to Tiger and Elin for showing people the way to a dignified divorce under extenuating circumstances.

Lesson:  A marriage can survive a single affair if there’s a great commitment of patience and forgiveness.  A marriage will rarely survive multiple affairs.  In the case of sex addiction, probably best to end it with dignity.

Jennifer Jason Leigh and Noah Baumbach
Sometimes when complicated people get married they have, well, complicated marriages.  Leigh and Baumbach are that kind of couple as seen through Leigh’s acting persona and Baumbach’s writing.  Their 5 year marriage has come to an end, with an infant son born just seven months ago.   

Both Baumbach and Leigh came from artistic families with great professional success.   They share something else in common which is a family history of divorce.  Leigh’s parents divorced when she was two years old and Baumbach’s when he was a teenager.  In fact, his breakout film, “The Squid and the Whale” (2005) was based on memories of his parents’ breakup.    While some children of divorce work harder, others follow their parents’ pattern and cannot achieve a high level of commitment.

Hopefully Baumbach and Leigh’s professional collaboration, which included “Margot at the Wedding” (2007) and “Greenberg” (2010), will survive the demise of their marriage.

Lesson:  Know your risk factors.  Two artistic and career-focused people from divorced childhoods will probably need to work harder on their marriage than the average couple.

Al and Tipper Gore
Al and Tipper Gore announced that they were getting divorced after 40 years of marriage, citing a divergence of paths.   Since meeting in high school, they persevered through the near fatal car accident of their son in 1989, Tipper’s clinical depression, 8 years of vice-presidency, a court-decided loss of the 2000 presidency, and Al’s rebound on the world stage as an environmental activist.  Did their previous common purpose in times of struggle become weaker after the challenge had gone?

 Lesson:  People change over time.  Sometimes a deep sense of common purpose is required to make a marriage last over decades.

Frank and Jamie McCourt
The McCourts’ divorce was widely reported this year, due to litigation involving a postnuptial agreement signed in 2004.  The couple was married 30 years and has 4 grown sons.  After their purchase of the Los Angeles Dodgers and their move to Los Angeles, the marriage unraveled, at least partly due to the bungled postnup,  which was identified as a problem when they went to an estate planner to develop a joint estate plan in 2008. 

Postnups can be very helpful to mature marriages, by addressing and clarifying financial issues.  This one was not, and caused many  problems.  It may have caused the end of the marriage, while running over $20 million in legal fees, making it one of the most expensive divorce lawsuits in California history. 

Lesson:  Anyone considering a postnup can learn from the McCourts’ mistakes by working out an agreement that preserves and strengthens the marriage, rather than weakening it.

Cameron Crow and Nancy Wilson
Cameron Crowe and Nancy Wilson divorced after a 24-year marriage.   Like Robin Williams and his wife, Marcia Garces, they chose to end their marriage through a process called a collaborative divorce, pledging to be “honest, cooperative and respectful” and to put their children’s interests first.

Cameron and Wilson worked out all issues (including joint custody and spousal support) through face-to-face meetings with their attorneys and themselves.  As part of the process, they agreed not to litigate using their current attorneys.  This gave the Cameron and Wilson benefit of legal counsel and a safe place to work out the terms of their divorce, in private.  This can only help their 10-year-old twins while they grow up with divorced co-parents.

Lesson:  If you’re going to split, do it respectfully and avoid litigation if at all possible.

Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt
Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt’s marriage was reported to be on the rocks and their lives became a reality show until the divorce announcement turned out to be a hoax.   Apparently the “divorce” was merely a publicity stunt to restart her career.

Heidi and Spencer are both very young. (Heidi was born in ‘86 and Spencer in ’83.)    Their wedding ceremony was in Mexico with no family members present and lasted 15 minutes.

No doubt,  Heidi and Spencer do have some marital problems.  Spencer is a self-identified “fame whore” who wants any kind of press, even negative while Heidi doesn’t like bad press. 

Lesson:  During the hoax, Spencer stated his love for fame and her love for puppies were incompatible.  As a divorce lawyer, I thought I heard just about every reason for divorce, but apparently, not this one.  There are no lessons to be learned here.

Scarlett Johansson and Ryan Reynolds
Ever heard of the saying “absence makes the heart grow fonder”?  Don’t believe it when it comes to marriage.

The Johannson/Reynolds marriage has ended after just two years.  It has been blamed on their conflicting work schedules with much business travel.  The spark is extinguished (for now), but, according to them, they remain best friends.  Both appear poised for a rebound.  They are young and beautiful and every first-timer has the right to a “marriage mulligan”, don‘t they? 

Lesson:  If you consistently put your career before marriage, you are not helping your odds of a long-term successful marriage.

Kelsey and Camille Grammer
The demise of the Grammers’ 13-year marriage came after Kelsey spent time in New York City for a gig as Georges in the play “Cage Aux Folles”.  Kelsey seemed to enjoy the single life and did not want to return to his marriage, which was apparently already in trouble.  Would it have lasted had he stayed in L.A.?

Lesson:  Again, a heavy work schedule involving lots of travel is not the recipe for marital success.  Sometimes work does need to come first, but be aware of the marital strain you are creating.

Billy Ray Cyrus and Tish Cyrus (parents of Miley Cyrus)
After 17 years of marriage and 5 children, the famous parents of the “Hannah Montana” star have filed for divorce.  The gossip rags claim it was jealousy over Billy Ray’s “Achy Breaky Heart” groupies but perhaps more insightful is this 2004 quote from Billy: “You know what, this train may come off the tracks, but I’m going to be a dad. I’m going to be a husband, and try to have something in my life that is right.”  It sounds like he’s had doubts all along.

Lesson:  Part of marriage success is the simple fact of believing in the marriage.  If you want your marriage to success, you have to ignore the short-term distractions of groupies, fame, and money.

© 2011 Laurie Israel.

Batting Zero: Did the McCourt Postnup Destroy Their Marriage?

As published on the Huffington Post, divorce section, 12/23/10.

If you don’t follow baseball news, the McCourt case is the epic divorce battle for ownership of the $800 million Los Angeles Dodgers after a 30 year marriage. After wading through the 100 page court opinion of the case^*, I’ve come to some surprising conclusions about postnuptial agreements. The key point is that Frank and Jamie McCourt signed a postnuptial agreement in 2004 which was found to be invalid.

If the court had come to the opposite conclusion, a 30 year marriage would have ended with the wife owning 15% of assets while the husband received 85%. Does that seem fair? In fact, it almost happened, so let’s review the facts of the case.

The couple drafted the postnuptial agreement when Frank purchased the Dodgers in early 2004. After the purchase, the couple planned a move to California from Massachusetts with their four grown sons.

In Massachusetts, the McCourts had previously arranged their multi-millions in real estate under separate titles to protect the assets. That means if they had gotten divorced in Massachusetts, the separate titles would not have mattered because marital property is presumed to be jointly owned. By contrast, once they moved to California, they were in a “community property” state where separate titles have legal ramifications.

There is dispute over what happened during the chaotic process of drafting the postnuptial agreement. Jamie claims that she signed the postnup for asset protection, and had no intention of changing her equal rights to the Dodgers or any other assets titled in Frank’s name. However Frank says that Jamie was risk-adverse and traded away her risky Dodger’s stake for safer ownership in the couple’s residential properties.

Soon after the postnup was signed, the McCourts moved to California and started running the Los Angeles Dodgers with Jamie as CEO. They seemingly forgot they had signed anything.

But in 2007, Jamie and Frank jointly consulted with a California estate-planning lawyer to discuss a living trust. Jamie came to understand that if they divorced, the previous postnup could lead to Frank gaining sole rights to the Dodgers.

Jamie instructed the estate planning attorney to use the living trust agreement to fix the situation. Frank reviewed this revised living trust agreement and apparently agreed to make the Dodgers into community property.

But then Frank refused to sign.

The estate planning attorney told Jamie she had two stark choices, have a “civil conversation with Frank or a nuclear bomb”. The attorney sensed that if the McCourts didn’t start talking, their marriage would explode. They didn’t talk, and the explosion happened.

Frank abruptly fired Jamie as the Dodgers’ CEO. Five days later Jamie filed for divorce and litigation followed.

During contentious and conflicting testimony, the court had to consider many factors about the postnup: Did Jamie and Frank have the same intentions? Had Frank met his fiduciary duty to take care of his wife? Was a lawyer’s word processing mistake serious enough to throw out the agreement?

Some of the facts read like a comedy of errors, except that it’s sad. Jamie and Frank received so many postnup drafts that they barely looked at them. The lawyer never asked if they intended to change their rights of equitable distribution under Massachusetts law. Neither spouse seemed to understand what the postup said.

A good postnup can help a marriage, but in the case of the McCourts, it may have contributed to the McCourt’s marital breakdown.

Postnuptial agreements are not always bad, in fact, they can often make a marriage stronger. Here are some lessons from the McCourts’ blunders during their postnup process:

Use a family lawyer, not a business lawyer. Family lawyers usually focus on families, while business lawyers and estate planning lawyers generally focus on assets. A postnuptial agreement should be primarily focused on maintaining marital connection.

Sit down and talk. The McCourt’s never discussed if they wanted to shift millions of dollars in property rights which was the central implication of the agreement.

Read it carefully, and read it again. Legal documents can be mind-numbing and mistakes get made. Take your time and read every word.

Make sure the agreement is drafted to meet narrow aims. Strip out any unnecessary terms and focus on the matter at hand.

Don’t be greedy. A one-sided postnup is not just mean, it’s very likely to be ruled invalid.

Be fair. A postnup is supposed to help your marriage. An unfair postnup will always backfire.

^*McCourt v. McCourt, Los Angeles County Superior Court # BD514309 (Dec. 7, 2010). If you want to dig deeper, here’s more about postnuptial agreements

© Laurie Israel 2010

Driving Your Spouse Crazy… Literally!

As published in TheHuffington Post, in the Living section on 12/20/10.  

Almost every married couple I know experiences conflict when driving in the car. One of them is a backseat driver. One of them drives too fast, or too slow, or too dangerously, or just plain badly. Nerves get frayed. Tension rises. The relationship in the car may reflect the darkest side of the marriage.
Driving raises basic issues about control, acknowledgment, values and capabilities that play out in marriages. Here are some of the common issues that arise on the road, how they relate to marriage, and some thoughts about how to cope.

1.   What’s the best route to take.   She tells him to go on the highway and across town. He takes a supposed shortcut that takes them straight into a traffic jam. She says, “I told you so.”

Analysis:   In a marriage, spouses often have different ways of doing things. Usually, it’s not that important because both choices will lead to an acceptable result. In the car, there is less patience for sub-optimal decisions because there isn’t time to discuss and both partners are trapped in an enclosed space.

Advice:   It’s almost never important if you take the longer route, and you may see something unexpected.

2.   Changing lanes.   Your spouse is about to change lanes to exit but doesn’t look through the side window. You see the car next to you speeding up. You shout, “Watch out!” Your spouse pulls back but misses the turn and you’re stuck until the next exit.

Analysis:   Most spouses resent being put in danger by the other spouse. But when driving in a car going 65 mph, the reality is that you’re both in danger all the time.

Advice:  There is a 99% chance your spouse would have seen the car in time even if you hadn’t shouted. And if you do crash, you get to bring it up for the next 10 years.

3.  Tailgating.  You are driving in slow traffic. Your spouse doesn’t like the speed at which the car in front of you is driving and tries to speed them up. Your front bumper looks like it’s attached to the car in front.

Analysis:   Anger and frustration are part of being human. We need to understand that our spouse may have different anger points than we do. As married people, we need to respect and tolerate our differences, and even appreciate them.

Advice:   If the tailgating is genuinely dangerous, you should bring it up calmly. If your spouse doesn’t change their behavior, continue to bring it up again, but stay calm.

4. Driving Aggressively.  Your spouse is changing lanes, passing cars, and seems very frustrated to be contained by traffic. This is unusual driving behavior for your spouse. You are getting increasingly uncomfortable and fearful.

Analysis:   Most married couples have a sense when their significant other is troubled by something. Usually your instincts will be right about this.

Advice:   Ask your spouse openly if something is bothering them. Don’t give them a hard time about the aggressive driving. If your spouse can talk about it, their aggressive driving will probably stop.

5.   Signaling Every Turn.   You are driving on a deserted side street; there is no one behind you. You don’t bother to signal, but your spouse says, “Put the left signal on!” You get angry because it seems silly to signal when no one can see it.

Analysis:   People in relationships have some different values. For one, following the rules may be very important. You should appreciate that your spouse has stricter standards of behavior, and this may actually be a good quality overall.

Advice:   If it does you no harm, and makes your spouse happy, why not use the signal?

6.  Parallel Parking.  You learned to drive in a big city. Parallel parking was part of your life. However, your spouse came from farm country and needs 50 open yards to successfully parallel park a car.

Analysis:   Marriage is affected by each person’s different cultural, religious, geographic, and economic background. By appreciating and absorbing elements of their different background, you can become a better person.

Advice: Appreciate the unique qualities of your spouse on each of their 10 attempts to parallel park. Don’t tell them you can do it better. Remember, your spouse is better at plenty of other things than you are.

7.  Backing Up the Car. Your spouse zooms backward out of the driveway with great energy. You are petrified. Luckily no cars are coming.

Analysis:   Sometimes you just have to trust your spouse to do the right thing. While your spouse may not always make the right decision, overall your spouse has good judgment.

Advice:  Be rational. When was the last time your spouse had an accident? Was it a major accident? Assume your spouse knows what your spouse is doing and is just as interested in protecting your lives and your car as you are.

© 2010 Laurie Israel. All rights reserved.

Don’t Let Your Attorney Hijack Your Divorce

As published in Huffington Post, 11/30/2010. 

You have embarked on a divorce, selected a lawyer, and now are ready to begin the process.  Be careful of the many pitfalls as you work with your attorney.  Here are some things to avoid as your divorce wends its way through the legal process:
 
1.  The Letter.  The divorce usually starts with your lawyer sending a letter to your spouse telling him or her of your intention to divorce.  Your story, as told to your lawyer, may become unrecognizable in the letter sent to your spouse.   The tone may be cranky, nasty, aggressive, accusative, or all of the above.  It may distort facts or contains information you did not want to express to your spouse.  Your attorney may have sent it without your approval.  You are mortified, regretful and embarrassed.    The letter is the opening salvo, sets the tone for the entire divorce, and is never forgotten. 
 
2.  The Filing.  Many divorce attorneys believe that it is correct operating procedure to file a divorce first, and ask questions later.  Filing a divorce sets court calendars in motion, and the timing is no longer yours to choose. The non-filing spouse may have to be served by a constable appearing at their door or place of work.  Litigation is war — there is no other way to describe it.  So what began as a magical, loving association ends with a war.  War is nasty by definition, and people get injured.  Innocent bystanders are harmed.  The divorce lawsuit will never be forgotten.  Granted, sometimes filing is a necessary way to start the divorce, but often it is not.  A divorce process can be started by face-to-face meetings with your spouse and your attorneys or with a mediator.  These methods set a very different tone than a constable at the door.
 
3.  Are You Really Ready for Divorce?  You may have hit bottom in your marriage, and believe the only thing to do is to get divorced.   Upon your first visit to an attorney, beware that many attorneys will go into full-force fighting gear and start the divorce process without considering that you may need more time to think about it.    Attorneys are sometimes like plumbers — they see a problem and take the steps to “fix” it without considering that a person who is contemplating divorce may be just thinking, envisioning, and fact-finding.  If your divorce attorney takes a zealous role, you won’t have time to consider whether you really want to divorce.   In fact, hitting bottom can be a wake-up call towards reclaiming and revitalizing your marriage.  You won’t find the space to do that if you visit an overly aggressive divorce attorney who starts the process right away.
 
4. Money Issues Distort the Process.  Yes, money issues in divorce are very significant.  When separating a family into two households, there is almost always economic scarcity.  Divorce lawyers tend to do money division very aggressively.  Remember, a litigated divorce is a war in which the lawyers view more money as a win, and less money as a loss.  But divorce trials will always create harsh feelings, and very often will produce unfair results.  If there are children, the corrosiveness caused by fighting over money will spill over into the children’s emotional well-being for their entire lives.  Children see and hear very clearly and will know what’s going on.  Spouses who work through money issues directly (or through a four-way process with their lawyers, or through mediation) almost always can come to terms which are reasonable and workable.  The spouses feel better because they, and not their attorneys, are in control and their needs are fully expressed and acknowledged.  The bitterness that comes with winning and losing in Court can be eliminated by working through the financial problem together.  In a sense, working on money issues together can be the last act of the marriage.  And it can be a loving and respectful one.

© Copyright 2010 Laurie Israel.