A Guided Tour
Suzanne L. Hillier
Smashwords Edition
Copyright © 2011 by Suzanne L. Hillier. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without express permission of the copyright owner.
Suzanne L. Hillier
32 Stanford Drive,
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
E-mail: szhillier@gmail.com
The anecdotes set forth in this book are based on actual incidents. They all occurred in the Canadian Courts. Federal and State Laws may vary in your locale. Be sure to check all pertinent laws in your area with your attorney All names, some of the professions and a few of the locations mentioned have been deliberately changed to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This Summary is only meant as a guide to point the way. Hopefully, your attorney will fill in the specific details relating to your case.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication
Hillier, Suzanne L.
Divorce/A Guided Tour
Divorce ~ A Guided Tour/ by Suzanne L. Hillier
Published by Suzanne L. Hillier at Smashwords
Available in print through all Bookstores and on-line booksellers
Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. It may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person with whom you wish to share it. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to www.Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Praise for Divorce ~ A Guided Tour
“A Must read for anyone involved in divorce proceedings.”
~ Thomas Smotrich, Attorney”
* * * * * * *
“Valuable advice on how to to avoid unnecessary legal fees.”
~ Ron Sharrow, Attorney & Novelist
* * * * * * *
“A tour of the unintended consequences when divorce mistakes are made. Don’t do it that way!”
~ Dr. Judi Hollis, Arthur, Licensed Family & Marriage Counselor.
* * * * * * *
Dedication
For Garth Macdonald
Chapter 2 - Tax and Other Complications
Chapter 3 - Guilt, Jealousy and a Matter of Timing
Chapter 4 - The Physical Abusers
Chapter 5 - Solutions & Preventive Measures
Chapter 6 - The Vindictive Spouse
Chapter 7 - Nice Guys Who Didn’t Finish Last
Chapter 8 - Children from the First Marriage
Chapter 9 - The Financial Cheaters
Chapter 10 - The Emotional Abusers and Trial Hazards
Chapter 11 - Alienation: The Most Dangerous Game of All
Chapter 12 - The Harmful Parents
Chapter 14 - Joint Custody Problems and Access Orders
Chapter 15 - The New Significant Other
Chapter 17 - Your Attorney: Sleazebag or Redeemer?
Chapter 18 - The Trouble With Judges
Marriage vows include the phrase,
“…until death do us part.”
Probably because death is so much cheaper and emotionally less draining than divorce!
~Anonymous
<> <> <> <>
This book is not for attorneys. It is not a law book even though it concerns a smattering of law. It is a book for you, if you are faced with the prospect of ending a marriage, or are at the beginning, or in the middle, of that sometimes earth shattering trauma of life known as divorce.
For over thirty years, I have represented, comforted, supported—and yes, also lectured and berated—some ten thousand clients who have come to me for help while in the process of dissolving their marriages.
A portion of them have literally breezed through the entire process and have emerged stronger and happier than before the separation. Most often, these were individuals for whom separation meant a happy relief from a miserable union. They had independent careers, were childless, or had children who were already independent, and, more importantly, had a significant other already in the wings or often in the nest.
For others, divorce meant misery, financial and emotional insecurity, resentment, vindictiveness and ongoing frustration. So eager were some clients to get revenge on the spouse who initiated the separation, that they ruined their unfaithful mate’s career, ignoring the fact that in the process, they undermined their own financial security.
Some were rendered so irate by their spouse’s wish to end the marriage, that, instead of considering an early, guilt-inspired, handsome offer of settlement, they insisted on pursuing revenge through the courts, ending up with so much less.
Still others spent thousands of dollars in legal fees, pursuing phantom money. Others refused to sell joint assets, sabotaging the marketing of properties so that they, as well as the despised spouse, ultimately ended up the losers.
Then there were those despicable individuals, who, indifferent or ignorant of their children’s mental health, mounted crusades to alienate them from the estranged spouse. They succeeded, only to end up with broken children, whose battered self-esteem forever undermined their scholastic and emotional futures.
People do stupid and harmful things when they are upset. They ruin themselves financially and they ruin their children emotionally. They spend needless thousands in legal fees merely because they refuse to grant the label joint custody to the other parent. On occasion, they permit themselves to be exploited by unscrupulous attorneys who take advantage of their ignorance and keep the meter running to their own financial advantage.
For the last thirty years, I have witnessed women so angry with their husbands that they did things that would render them certifiable under any other circumstances. I have seen fathers frustrated and depressed beyond belief when they were denied access to their much loved children for weeks or even months. As a consequence, they were forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees just so they could exercise their prerogative of being a dad.
I have seen physically abused spouses, male and female, and clients who lost it and paid dearly as a result.
This guide attempts to pinpoint and address, in a practical way, many of the issues of law which trouble the ordinary individual going through a divorce.
You may not always agree with my recommendations. For example, I do not advise confessing infidelity. Nor do I advise severing a relationship because of a single sexual lapse or even a brief affair, provided it is no longer ongoing. But I do advise taking advantage of guilt and timing. I take a practical approach based on my own past observations. You’ll find that it works and in the long run it will save you considerable money and maybe even considerable heartache.
I do not gloss over the facts. There are bad attorneys and judges as well as excellent attorneys and judges; judges so astute and sensitive it is an honor to appear before them.
There are men who would cheat, hide assets and lie regarding their worth rather than give their wives their rightful share of Community or Net Family Property. There are women who are capable of the vilest acts to get even in the payback lottery. Then there are those significant others who make it a career to prevent the wife and kids from the first marriage from having sufficient funds to lead a decent life.
And then, there are the crazies, quite a few of them, from whom you can only protect yourself by a solid pre-nup―or flight.
To illustrate all of this, and more, I have used examples from actual incidents I have encountered in my practice. I have changed names, at times businesses, professions, places, and physical descriptions. I have no wish to embarrass any of my former clients, many of whom still phone me on occasion and for whom I have the fondest of memories.
This book focuses on issues rather than the intricacies of law, which are best left to the legal profession. As such, it can be of use to those in both Canada and the United States who are involved or will be involved in divorce proceedings.
The law, when referred to, is the law of the Province of Ontario, Canada, where all provinces have an approximately similar property regime. The Divorce Act, a federal statute, is uniform throughout Canada. The laws of the Community Property States, Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin are similar to the property laws of Canada. All of these Provinces and States have provisions to equally share property and debts accumulated during the marriage. They exclude inherited property and deduct the value of property owned before marriage.
The other States have what are known as Equitable Distribution Laws, in which property acquired during marriage belongs to the spouse who earned it; but property must be distributed in a fair and equitable manner.
In these States there are no set rules and the courts look at a variety of factors. As these vary with each State, although there are many similarities between States, the reader had best rely on the advice of an attorney who can consider their unique circumstances and place of residence.
I can’t stress enough the importance of a competent attorney to prepare prenuptial and separation agreements, and pre-trial motions, which are uniform throughout North America. Their experience and knowledge will be of great benefit to an individual facing divorce, regardless of their place of residence.
I want to share my experiences with you. It is my belief that despite the well known adage that ignorance is bliss, it is not bliss at all, but a looming disaster. By being aware of the mistakes made by others, you can avoid making your own. By learning from the good choices made by others, you can decide to emulate them. You can and will have a successful divorce!
This is your guided tour.
<> <> <> <>
He was a sturdy, red-haired, detective sergeant with a square jaw, who could put down the Hulk in an arm wrestle.
“The problem started on our wedding night when he came out of the bathroom in a long black wig, full makeup, including false eyelashes, painted fingernails and a long pink nightgown with a plunging neckline that showed a red hairy chest with no cleavage,” she told me.
I almost died,” she murmured.
“I would think so,” I replied, picturing the burly police officer I had seen occasionally giving evidence at court when I did criminal work.
“No previous indication of this?” I asked.
“None,” she replied with conviction.
“It was,” she explained, “the only way he could get himself really excited. He got off on all sorts of ‘stuff’.”
As if to prove it to me, she handed me a huge bag of utensils, for lack of a better description, including various wigs, huge women’s undergarments, suspender belts and webbed stockings. There were large wooden rings---suitable for a large wooden organ—and at least six pairs of handcuffs. She asked that I keep them—in case we needed to use them as exhibits.
“Lord,” I mused. “He must really get a kick out of making arrests.”
She was a nice Jewish girl who had been an office manager for ten years before they met during his investigation of a real estate fraud.
“What was the attraction?” I asked.
“My last boyfriend had come out of the closet and the sergeant seemed so masculine—so really straight.”
She laughed, shaking her head, and I joined her.
I thought that anyone who could keep a sense of humor under these circumstances deserved a medal—or at least, a divorce.
Although she had gone along with it, her tolerance had started to wear thin. For their last dinner date, he had worn scarlet nail polish, female underwear beneath the sports jacket and slacks and had insisted on handcuffing her on the way to the restaurant.
“It’s become a real drag," she complained—which of course it was!
“When I told him I was coming here, he said, ‘let’s keep some things between us. You’ve been a party to this remember?’ Then he told me that he wanted to share the kids but he didn’t want to pay child support. We’d split the house money equally but his pension wasn’t to be considered.”
“He’s being a real bastard, especially when I gave fifty thousand from my grandmother’s inheritance to pay down the mortgage on our home. I just want what I’m entitled to, that’s all. I’ve been out of the work force since the birth of my oldest child and I’ve got to get some re-training. All I want is a leg-up for a couple of years.”
I suspected she had met someone else, but didn’t ask. It always made things easier when a party had a significant other, especially if the significant other had funds. I gave her the news.
“The fifty thousand you paid toward the mortgage from your inheritance is gone. You were kind enough to reduce the debt on a joint asset and any judge will tell you that you intended to benefit your spouse. Just forget about it. Unless he wants to give you a bit extra, you’re not going to get it.”1
I continued to explain, “We can get his pension evaluated; you can get one-half of its increase since the marriage. With his shift work and irregular hours, we can’t do this one-week on, one week off, two-step that’s become a joint custody trend. By necessity, you’ll have to work around his schedule, which means you must stay on friendly terms. But there’s no real point in not doing that anyway, is there?”
I sent a letter setting out proposed covenants for a separation agreement and suggesting that the sergeant see an attorney. A week later, a reply came back from an attorney whose practice was limited to criminal work. The sergeant was unwilling to agree to any of the reasonable demands and wished to work toward reconciliation.
My client became annoyed, “That is simply out of the question,” she said.
He retained a criminal attorney, because he had, most probably, worked with him in a trial and the lawyer might be doing it for him free—pro bono. His attorney was obviously unaware of current family law. His refusal to even consider any of our reasonable proposals was a clear indication that he shouldn’t have involved himself in a matrimonial dispute.
I sent another letter citing the applicable law supporting each of the previous demands and politely suggesting in the last paragraph that he might consider referring his client to an attorney more acquainted with matrimonial law.
The sergeant advised my client that I had really insulted his attorney.
My client was justifiably irritated. It had been two months since she had first consulted me and nothing was happening. Conditions at home were becoming increasingly strained and the kids were feeling it.
“I want you to use everything I told you,” she instructed me. “If his buddies at the precinct found out he was into pink nightgowns, wigs and handcuffs, he’d have to quit. And he loves being a police officer—and he’s a good one. I don’t believe his behavior at home has affected his being a good police officer. But, I need some short-term support and the kids need ongoing support. I don’t want to do anything to put his job in jeopardy, but get this thing settled!”
Even though it was all irrelevant, I drafted a divorce petition including every detail of my client’s sex life with the sergeant, commencing with the pink nightgown on the honeymoon. Conduct, unless it is financial misconduct, or at least has financial implications, is simply not taken into consideration in Canada or in many of the United States, except when there is a custody dispute. Some courts in the United States, however, do consider conduct even if it appears to have no financial impact. 2
What really matters is the equal division of family property and the amount of spousal and child support. This was also a problem, because as with all police officers and teachers, the take home amount was never as impressive as one would expect when considering the gross, because of the large deductions for pensions and income tax.
Just after the kids went to bed and the sergeant had consumed his second Molson-lite, my client presented him with the draft petition.
The Sergeant left a message the next morning. He instructed that under no circumstances was the divorce petition to be issued in its present form nor was it to be sent to his attorney. He requested a settlement conference.
I informed him that we would not meet with him without his attorney but agreed not to make reference to the proposed divorce petition. We demanded financial disclosure in regard to the pension, which would be evaluated by an agreed upon appraiser.
The meeting went well. He withdrew his demand to buy out her interest in the matrimonial home and agreed to place it on the market.
Her share of his pension was to come out of his one-half equity in the home together with a small lump sum, which was, in reality, compensation for the fifty thousand which had been applied to reduce the mortgage.
There would be a designation of joint custody, which is a big deal for daddies, even though it may not always make any difference in actual time spent with the kids. In an ideal world, it should mean actual sharing. From a practical standpoint it means you can tell friends and family that you have joint custody. This is helpful when you wish to speak to the pediatrician or your kids’ teachers.
In this case, because of the sergeant’s erratic hours, a flexible access timetable was necessary and my client was glad to cooperate. I still suspected there may have been someone else in her life, but she was a reasonable woman and the boys adored their father. None of the embarrassing details of his sexual proclivities were ever released and the divorce went ahead in due course based on the grounds of the parties having been living separate and apart for more than one year.3
Several months after the divorce, I received a telephone call from the sergeant. He was buying several properties and wondered if my firm could represent him. In other words, he was ensuring my future silence. There is a strict rule of confidentiality between a lawyer and client, and as a result all information relating to the client is privileged. As I had always known, the sergeant was not a stupid man—just kinky.
The satisfactory ending to this potentially destructive situation could have been very different. Had the interesting scenario of the sergeant’s personal life been exposed, his job may have been jeopardized or certainly his relationship with his fellow police officers. The animosity created would have prevented the mutually satisfactory and inexpensive separation agreement that was negotiated.
Don’t destroy the source of your future financial well being.
On the other hand, sometimes a little nudge, as in this case, is just what is needed to get things on track.
* * * * * * *
He was a mechanic and I felt that even submerging himself in a tub of suds for a week would never remove the dirt from his fingernails and his other extremities. He had with him a tattered divorce petition which, no doubt, he had been carrying around in a greasy pocket for way beyond the period allocated for a reply. Luckily for him, there had been no interim motion and pleadings had not been noted as closed.
She worked as a dietician in a hospital and, I was sure, was much more hygienic than my client. Besides a sale of the home, she sought a non-harassment order, because she claimed he had been stalking her. Two of their adult children, who were in their twenties, were living in the home with their father. One had a serious drug problem.
“I love my wife and want her back,” he told me.
After reading the petition, I told him that I believed the possibility was remote.
“What’s she doin’ bringin’ up somethin’ that happened twenty-five years ago?” he complained.
What indeed—except to lend color to the petition, it was not relevant. But it would hardly endear him to any judge or anyone else who became privy to the information.
At a stag party the night before his wedding, his buddies had procured the services of a hooker-dancer to provide the evening’s entertainment. To show his friends his appreciation, he became a participant in the performance. As a result, both he and his pregnant new wife contacted gonorrhea. Both of them were extremely distressed and the marriage hardly got off to a rollicking start.
“But why bring it up now,” he grumbled. “It didn’t hurt the baby and she forgave me back then.”
I had to agree with him. There was absolutely no financial reason to bring this up twenty-five years later, especially when he had supported her while she completed her university degree in order to become a dietician.
“I never cheated on her again. In fact, I wouldn’t call it cheating what I did. We weren’t even married yet. It was just that the guys had hired this broad and I was drunk out of my mind.”
I assured him if we were to proceed, I would move to have the stag episode “struck” or removed from the pleadings as being irrelevant.
He suffered from severe arthritis and made much less from his employment than his wife. The drug-addicted son, whose problem had worsened since his mother’s exodus, could almost be categorized as a dependent child as he did not work and was totally dependant on his father for his support. These issues were an important consideration.
There was no settlement. He kept insisting on a reconciliation which was clearly out of the question. Believing there was merit to his demand for spousal support as well as support for the son, the wife did not go ahead with a court motion asking for a sale of the home.
He did not want to pay more legal fees to move the matter to a conclusion, so it simply languished unresolved. In retrospect, this was exactly what my client wanted but surely not his wife.
A lesson to be learned: Do not have your attorney clutter up your petition with irrelevant and embarrassing incidents that have nothing to do with the validity of your claim. This can only cause unnecessary animosity and distraction. Had this matter proceeded, the offending paragraphs would have been deleted with resulting costs against the wife. Why put yourself in that position?
* * * * * * *
I know what you think about insurance brokers. You think about dignified men in pinstriped suits who carry large brief-cases full of important material and whose idea of diversion is a quiet Saturday night bridge game and a Sunday afternoon of golf. You may be right. I’m sure many insurance men wear pinstripe suits, carry large briefcases and indulge in conservative diversions.
When I think of insurance guys, however, I think of Mr. Rideout with his big fat bottom high in the air while his wife powders his butt and then fixes his diaper after giving his bits and pieces a nice soapy wash. And yes, this was always followed by a warm bottle with a free flowing nipple—half milk and half rum.
Mrs. Rideout, accommodating lady that she was, diligently powdered, creamed, and diapered Mr. Rideout’s privates for eight years until she decided that not only did it not stimulate her, but that there were more enjoyable ways to promote sexual activity. In fact, all the creaming, diapering and powdering had made her, as she put it, “a nervous wreck.”
She was so distraught, that she was incapable of ever working again. She wanted Mr. Rideout to compensate her fully for those tortured years by giving her generous ongoing support and a greater division of property than the Family Law Act would otherwise allow.
“You will not get an unequal division of net family property because you catered to your husband’s sexual peccadilloes,” I warned Mrs. Rideout. “Nor will it affect your quantum of spousal support. Of course your inability to work is relevant, preferably evidenced by a psychiatric report. And of prime importance is your husband’s ability to pay. Hopefully, we can settle the matter.”
But Mrs. Rideout was not listening. “He will be embarrassed and he will settle,” she assured me.
He was her third husband. She had walked away from the other two with very little. In fact, from her last marriage, nothing at all. It was different, however, with Mr. Rideout. He had bought out his partner and his insurance company was worth a substantial amount. This was based to a large degree on his affable personality, which added to his popularity with his clients in the small city where he and Mrs. Rideout resided.
“His clients would just die if they knew,” she told me.
She had not sought psychiatric help for her emotional state nor had she been placed on medication by her general practitioner. She just went merrily on powdering and diapering Mr. Rideout until she felt she could bear the marriage no longer. Her feelings were no doubt heightened by her hiring a recently divorced personal trainer, who was teaching her how to keep in splendid shape with Pilates.
Mrs. Rideout wanted full details of the diapering and powdering to be included in a divorce petition. I cautioned her that it was not a good idea. Besides, it was clearly irrelevant to financial issues.
She had no evidence to show that she had been adversely affected emotionally by acquiescing to Mr. Rideout’s regression to an infantile state as a prelude to sexual arousal. In fact, Mrs. Rideout had been living an active life throughout the eight years of marriage, exercising, horseback riding and changing her hair color at least once a month.
Although she did not provide details, I was suspicious that the personal trainer was supplying her with a lot more than a toned body. This also was irrelevant, and, if true, Mr. Rideout was unaware of her extra-curricular activities.4
Our best bet, I advised Mrs. Rideout, was to emphasize that as a result of the eight-year marriage, she had terminated her employment as a court reporter and, since she had been out of the field for a prolonged period, she was unaware of the substantial changes in technology that had taken place. Besides, she had become accustomed to a somewhat grandiose lifestyle of traveling and shopping. It would be unfair to have her revert to an ordinary lifestyle without a cleaning woman and all the other amenities that Mr. Rideout was able to provide.
Mrs. Rideout, however, insisted on the inclusion of the powdering and diapering part of the marriage. I finally agreed, hoping it would not prevent a decent settlement or incite Mr. Rideout to the point where he would fight us all the way to the courtroom.
Unfortunately, it did both. Mr. Rideout was furious, calling Mrs. Rideout a harlot, a word I had last heard many years before when studying Chaucer at university.
“It was all lies,” he stated, and he would not even commence negotiation until this disgusting material was removed from the divorce petition.
The Rideouts were still under the same roof. Mrs. Rideout had been advised not to leave under any circumstances, as had Mr. Rideout, whose attorney knew that upon his exodus, Mrs. Rideout would be applying to the court for exclusive possession of the luxurious matrimonial home and for ongoing spousal support. This would create a bad precedent and Mr. Rideout’s attorney, an experienced and astute adversary, was well aware of it.
So the Rideouts remained miserably together in the matrimonial home with Mr. Rideout going undiapered and unpowdered. Mrs. Rideout, nervous about Mr. Rideout’s accusations, forfeited her enjoyable Pilate’s sessions, which were one of the things that made her life worthwhile.
It had to end and it did.
After two hours of mutual recriminations during a five- hour meeting, a settlement was reached. Once the parties got down to business, they found mutual grounds for an agreement, with which neither party was happy. Usually that means it was a fair agreement.
Mrs. Rideout received ongoing support but the amount was to be revisited after a five-year period. The home was to be sold and the proceeds divided. Mrs. Rideout was to get additional money from Mr. Rideout’s share to compensate her for the increase in value of Mr. Rideout’s insurance brokerage since the date of marriage. The business had obviously been much more successful than the Rideout marriage.
There were other concessions but these were the most important to Mrs. Rideout. The divorce petition, with its noxious description of Mr. Rideout’s propensities toward infantile pleasuring was to be withdrawn and the allegations were never to be reinstated in any future petition.
Did the use of these allegations advance the settlement efforts and actually enhance the results for Mrs. Rideout? To an extent they probably did, but only at the price of considerable animosity and caustic negotiation even though the matter never did get past the initial serving of the petition. One thing is certain; any hope of even remote civility between the parties was forever eradicated. Luckily no children were involved.
Was dishing the dirt a good idea in this particular case? I did not think so and believed that the matter would have settled in any event. But Mrs. Rideout would not be convinced. Her goal was to embarrass and then collect as a result, ignoring the fact that for eight years she had been a willing participant in the sexual conduct she finally found so repelling.
A waste of time, I suggest, that initiated the most antagonistic feelings from Mr. Rideout.
* * * * * * *
My second insurance wife was not nearly as attractive as Mrs. Rideout, who, although in her early forties, could pass for someone in her late twenties, and who still caused a commotion every time she passed a construction site.
Mrs. Perry, on the other hand, was over fifty and looked every year of it. Her hair, much too golden, and cupid mouth, much too red, seemed inappropriate for this slightly plump, post menopausal female, whose only interesting feature were black boots with very high heels. It had been a second marriage for both but it had lasted for twenty-five years.
Mr. Perry had left her. She handed me the letter from Mr. Perry’s attorney, who was subsequently appointed to the bench and turned out to be one of the most respected judges in the matrimonial field.
The letter was not encouraging. It spoke of Mrs. Perry’s ability to re-establish herself within a limited time period and reminded the reader that Mr. Perry possessed substantial assets prior to the twenty-five year marriage. The letter went on to state that the marriage ended because of the unhappy differences resulting from Mrs. Perry’s mother moving into the marital home during the previous year.
Mrs. Perry assured me that her only work experience had been behind the men’s accessories counter at Eaton’s Department Store twenty-five years ago where she had served Mr. Perry. She further added that under no circumstances would she ever be capable of obtaining employment again, because varicose veins made it impossible for her to stand for longer than twenty minutes at a time.
“You’ll notice,” she said, her scarlet Cupid’s bow lips curling with annoyance, “he doesn’t say what these unhappy differences are. He’s just blaming my mother, not because of anything she does...it’s just that her presence interferes with some of his pleasures.”
“I’m not sure I understand,” I replied.
She explained that among his pleasures was a robust sex life that invariably followed a torture session which would put the Marquis de Sade to shame. Mr. Perry, it seems, liked to eat his dinner from a saucer while on all fours wearing a leather dog collar with a leash held by Mrs. Perry. There were spankings galore and whippings with a collection of thirty whips of various sizes and colors. In the basement was a contraption from which Mr. Perry was hung by his wrists and another device which held him motionless except for his protruding buttocks.
Mrs. Perry took an active role in all of this. She insisted she was not an enthusiastic participant, but knew that without these preliminaries there would be no sex life at all. So she complied with all requests, even initiating some of them, knowing it would please Mr. Perry and that what would follow would be pleasing to both of them. All of this occurred before the creation of Viagra or Cialis, although I’m not sure they would have made much difference in this particular case.
I suppose this could have gone on indefinitely until Mr. Perry ran out of testosterone or suffered a stroke as a result of all this sexual excitement, but something occurred that stopped everything in its tracks.
Mrs. Perry lost her father and insisted upon moving her mother into the Perry household. Her presence totally curtailed all of the sexual hi-jinks that were so dear to Mr. Perry’s heart. Mrs. Perry refused to descend to their torture chamber in the basement for fear that her mother, who was still mobile and not one to retire early, would stand on the basement stairs and view one of their torture pageants.
Certainly, Mr. Perry could no longer eat his dinner from his dog dish while Mrs. Perry pulled on his leash and spanked him gently with his favorite whip. The romance, if you could call it that, totally died with the entrance of Mrs. Perry’s mother into the household and was not likely to return until Mrs. Perry’s mother followed her departed husband.
Mrs. Perry assured me that this was the sole cause of Mr. Perry’s departure and the subsequent break-up of the marriage.
“It was all so very unfair,” she whined, “that after all of the years spent in exciting him, he would cast me aside for God knows who—possibly some paid for dominatrix—just so he could enjoy his twisted sex life.”
She conceded she had been a willing partner, but surely not an equal one. In fact, had Mr. Perry not initiated it all, she would have never even have thought of such things. Such behavior had not occurred during her first marriage and the entire fault rested at the doorstep of Mr. Perry because of his nutty demands.
Unlike the Rideout situation, none of Mr. Perry’s S & M proclivities ever made it into a divorce petition. The fact was that Mrs. Perry, pudgy and whiney as she was, was a realist at heart. As a willing participant, she knew it would now look ridiculous for her to complain. However, if push came to shove, as a last resort, she would not hesitate to press the issue—it had, after all, been a twenty-five year marriage. Mrs. Perry was not, and never would be, in any shape to re-establish herself.
She quite emphatically informed me she did not want to run up legal fees. Not surprisingly, she had borrowed the retainer from her mother, a fact I found oddly appropriate.
After an exchange of financial statements and a formal appraisal of Mr. Perry’s insurance brokerage, a private meeting between Mr. Perry’s attorney and me was arranged. Scheduling the meeting turned out to be more difficult than the meeting itself. Every time I visited Mr. Perry’s attorney he was inexplicably not there, even though the date and time of the meetings had painstakingly been agreed upon with his secretary.
I had the distinct impression that Mr. Perry’s attorney was avoiding me. I finally cornered him after he returned from what I guessed to be a two-martini lunch. We chatted in an amiable fashion and I mentioned Mr. Perry’s whip collection, torture chamber and dog collar in passing.
The attorney, a broad-minded chap with a pronounced sense of humor, laughed with me. “One never knows about people,” he said shrugging.
The matter was settled shortly thereafter, but not, I believe, as a result of the S & M revelations. It had been a twenty-five year marriage and one only had to speak to Mrs. Perry for a brief period to conclude that there was no way that she would ever again find remunerative employment.
The break-up of the marriage placed her at a substantial financial disadvantage; and Mr. Perry’s successful business afforded him the ability to pay. He agreed to pay ongoing support in a reasonable amount and even permitted Mrs. Perry and her mother to remain in the home for a two-year period which was quite generous under the circumstances.
When the house sold, Mrs. Perry was to receive a payment from Mr. Perry’s one-half of the proceeds in compensation for his ever-growing insurance business, which did not really grow and prosper until after they were married.
I believe that the matter would have settled regardless of Mrs. Perry’s sexual revelations. I also suspect, however, that Mr. Perry, as a community leader and church elder would not wish his sexual peccadillo’s to be exposed in a public document—and they never were.
Lesson to be learned: If you’ve been married for endless years, have never worked or even if you have at only a modest employment and your husband or your husband’s company has prospered, then you are going to receive appropriate support—most likely according to the Spousal Guidelines that prevail in your State.5
Some states only have guidelines for interim, but not permanent support. This leaves the parties at the mercy of the judge’s discretion, which may or may not be a good thing depending upon your unique financial circumstances and the judge’s level of generosity on that particular day.
If it’s your husband’s company, as in this case, then you will benefit from the increase in value. If you do not live in a Community Property State you will still benefit although not as directly. There may be no set rules but the court will look at a variety of guidelines among them relative earnings, length of marriage, and the value of a stay-at-home wife.
This is the law and there is no reason to muddy the waters by descriptions of whips and torture chambers. Mrs. Perry had a satisfactory result and modest legal fees.
I question if she had avidly pursued her S&M revelations, whether the results would have been better―in fact, they may well have been considerably worse!
* * * * * * *
Whip thin, with blonde bangs, blue eyes, and a wide smile, Mary White was one of my very few clients who entered marriage a virgin—and she was twenty-seven at the time.
“I didn’t know that there were any left,” I commented.
“It was religion and sports,” she answered. “I was a good Catholic but when I wasn’t praying, I was high jumping. In fact, I’m still jumping and attend meets all over the world.”
The elementary school where she taught allowed her time off to pursue her successful sports activities. They were so proud of her success that a large picture of her flying through the air was on display outside the school auditorium.
She was one of my most pleasant, wholesome and undemanding clients, who laughed easily, although her situation left little to laugh about.
She doted on her three-year-old son, who had the same tousled blonde hair, blue eyes and wide smile.
When it came to husbands, however, she had really blown it.
It should have been an easy case. The parties had purchased a home in joint tenancy just a few blocks away from her elementary school and her son’s preschool. Both regularly walked to school. Her husband worked at a local stock brokerage which was about fifteen minutes away by car. Her family lived close by. They were friendly with their neighbors with whom they shared barbecues, a social life and mutual babysitting. It was an ideal home for her and her son.
There were a few disturbing aspects to the case which made things difficult. Her husband had left Mary for a divorced co-worker, who seemed to have unwarranted hostility toward her. Mary was baffled, considering the circumstances and the fact that they had never met.
Shortly after the marriage, Mary discovered she had contacted genital herpes. This embarrassed her and she instructed me not to mention it under any circumstances. There had only been one outbreak but this had been relatively severe.
“You do realize,” I cautioned, “that this could cut down your chance of remarriage. It’s a gift that keeps on giving.”
She shrugged. She still didn’t want it mentioned.
I commented that to have been a virgin and then be infected with herpes by one’s husband was jarring, to say the least.
After the split, her brother had offered to lend her the money to purchase the husband’s interest in their home. There were no other contentious issues, as her school pension was roughly equivalent to his IRA. He was a successful stock-broker to a large extent because she had encouraged all her friends and fellow teachers to use his services.
It was one of those cases which should have been wrapped up in a couple of weeks by a separation agreement after an exchange of financial disclosure. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way.
She made the child available on weekends but he fussed upon leaving and did not relate well to Daddy’s girlfriend. She suggested to the husband, that he might just spend an afternoon with his son by himself.
He refused, became hostile and decided he would not see the child at all. This upset her. He also refused to let her purchase his interest in the home, demanding an immediate sale. He was being counseled by one of the most litigious, highly priced attorneys in the nearby city.
“How in the world can he afford him?” I asked with real curiosity.
“Family money” she answered. “His brother also used him, but he’s a lot richer.”
After a brief exchange of correspondence, the husband initiated an unexpected divorce petition. Part of the relief asked for an immediate sale of the matrimonial home. Other relief requested was joint custody, consisting of alternate weekends and every Wednesday night from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. This seemed an unfortunate claim for a three year old who screamed when he left his mother and whose bedtime was seven p.m.
For once, the wide smile had disappeared and Mary’s perplexity turned to anger. We counter-applied for child support based on an estimated $100,000.00 a year taxable income. We sought exclusive possession of the home or the right to purchase the husband’s equitable interest based upon a value determined by an agreed appraiser or the average value based upon the opinions of three real estate agents.
His negative response was accompanied by a financial statement showing his taxable income to be $137 a month.
“This is preposterous,” I told her. “He has claimed deductions on everything but his left foot!”
She agreed. “There is no way he makes that little money. He leases a brand new Lexus and lives in an apartment building where the rent is not one cent less than $3,000.00 a month. There’s simply no way.”
The Judge agreed with us. He estimated the husband’s income at $70,000 a year; still much less than the actual amount, but a far cry from the $137 a month put forward. However, he ordered a sale of the home. Since neither party had prevailed in all of their claims, there was no order as to costs. Considering all the circumstances, my client and I were both annoyed by the outcome.
“Guess what,” she informed me, rolling her eyes and shifting uncomfortably in her chair. “Sitting in that courtroom, listening to all that blather from his attorney, really stressed me out. I’ve developed the worst outbreak of herpes.”
Our eyes locked, and before she could protest, I told her what I recommended.
The husband’s attorney had asked for an expedited trial, which was ridiculous. Money was flying out the door and there was only so much she could borrow from her brother. Her husband was giving Mary all the consideration usually reserved for a serial killer.
“We should amend the counter petition and ask for $500,000 in damages as a result of his giving you herpes. As I warned, it’s a gift that keeps on giving. You told me your doctor would substantiate this. It’s going to have a financial impact in restricting your future choice of partners and it’s damned uncomfortable. Besides, how much more must you take?”
His attorney accepted service of the amended petition. Usually, his MO was to let opposing counsel wait weeks for the honor of a phone call, but his reply came the very next day. It appeared Mr. White was very upset and wished to settle although, his attorney assured me, he had advised him against it.
So insistent was Mr. White that a meeting was scheduled within a week and Minutes of Settlement were signed. Mary White purchased Mr. White’s interest in the matrimonial home courtesy of her brother and the claims for access to the three year old became reasonable. It was conceded that his income was at least $100,000 a year and, as such, child support was also reasonable. The buy-out of the home was reduced to compensate Mary for her legal fees—a very satisfactory conclusion. Mary withdrew her $500,000 claim for damages resulting from being infected with the herpes virus.
Were there any regrets about initiating the damage claim arising from the transmitting of the herpes virus? Hardly—Mary was sorry that she hadn`t done it sooner. The man was impossible.
I have never understood the preliminary viciousness unless it was the result of the urging of the hostile girlfriend or the husband’s attorney who was known for running up costs.
The story, however, has a happy ending. Every Christmas I receive a card from Mary usually with her son, both wearing wide smiles. Last year, it included a great looking fellow she referred to as her future husband. She had met him at a jumping competition.
Lesson to be learned: There are times when embarrassing issues should be exposed, but only when they are relevant to your financial wellbeing. There was fortunately a happy ending in this particular case, but an early revelation would have saved a lot of grief and legal expense.
* * * * * * *
What some people want in their divorce proceedings has always perplexed me. One woman actually produced a picture of her husband’s penis, fully erect, but with a decided curve. She had retrieved it from one of those skin magazines her husband was prone to reading, where individuals exchanged photos of various parts of their anatomy. She would, she told me with excitement, know it anywhere.
Surely, I told her, there must be other curved penises. In any event, what was the point of describing it in a divorce petition? Other than proving he was the type of individual who wished to promote his crooked penis, it hardly had any financial relevance.
Since my retirement, I have noticed that divorce petitions are becoming sparser and the format discourages detailed pleadings. Most judges wish to discourage allegations as to non-financial conduct altogether, no doubt becoming jaded from reading descriptions of conduct which lacked relevancy. Sometimes pleadings can be struck on the grounds of being irrelevant, verbose and inflammatory.
Often aspects of a party’s conduct are included merely to incite the judge. Many judges have been through their own divorces and are not as easily upset as some clients would wish. In fact, many judges are rightfully annoyed by these deliberate efforts to curry favor by maligning the opposition.
Some instances of questionable conduct, however, are clearly relevant as they go to the financial core of the parties’ assets. One wife of a client was a compulsive gambler. She had emptied joint bank accounts, run up half a dozen joint credit cards to their maximum and had emptied her spousal IRA.
My client wondered why he should have to equally divide property with his wife under the circumstances. Why indeed?
Such reckless depletion of property could be termed unconscionable which means “grossly unfair,” justifying an unequal division of family property. My client therefore claimed an unequal division in his divorce petition. One of the saner attorneys advised the wife against further wasting even more of her husband’s money by challenging the husband’s claim. My client ended up with both the house and children.
Unfortunately, he was still on the hook for spousal support. His wife had lost her employment because of her gambling habit, but her need of support was not diminished even though she was receiving counseling from an addiction center and was trying to re-establish herself.
“It was all totally unfair,” he complained.
Some judges are all for redemption, especially if you’re female. I suspect this signifies some sort of reverse discrimination.
* * * * * * *
The angriest clients I’ve ever had are those whose husbands are alcoholic. Some are driven literally mad. One very attractive woman informed me that after ninety minutes of intercourse in which her husband was unable to reach a climax, a failure which she attributed to his heavy drinking, she heard a screaming voice and only later realized it was her own. This represents an interesting type of disassociation, surely.
There are also the urinary and bowel accidents, which take place in the matrimonial bed after years of dedicated drinking.
Strangely, many of these men are able to continue working and take exception to their wives’ accusations. They state that if they drank that much they would not have their exemplary job attendance record. While one does not question their work record, surely their efficiency must be as impaired as their sexual performances.
These cases are often fraught with problems, especially when the alcoholic partner demands weekend access to the children and the wife worries that they may be in danger.
There was one exceptionally horrible case, which fortunately was not mine, but that of a fellow attorney. The judge did not believe the wife’s allegations of alcoholism against the husband and awarded him generous access to their three-year-old. Both husband and child were subsequently burned to death while staying at a summer cabin.
For those who are justifiably concerned, I would suggest not releasing a child to a parent who appears to have been drinking and to obtain a court order that the parent will abstain from alcohol during visitation. The problem is the enforceability of this order, which although readily granted, is not so readily enforced.
I did have a client who telephoned the nearest police precinct after her husband insisted on taking the two children for his access period and she believed he had been drinking. He was subsequently stopped by the police and charged. The whole procedure was distressing for the children but not as distressing as a future accident may have been. On the basis of the charge and subsequent conviction, access was restricted to the presence of a third party, who would monitor the husband’s drinking. All of this led to a high degree of animosity between the parties, but still better than endangering the children.
My client Doris had a horrible drinking problem. Efficient and hardworking, she had helped her husband build a portfolio of many acres of farmland located all around the large town where they resided. She managed the abattoir in their cattle operation. She was an outstanding helpmate when she was sober. During her drunken periods she was an irrational hellion. She trashed her teenaged son’s antique Thunderbird, which he had spent months remodeling, and was abusive to her daughter, who, in spite of it, headed for university. Her children disliked her. She was an irritant and an embarrassment.
Her husband had previously been elected Mayor, but the resulting social activity had been her undoing. Doris left the matrimonial home and moved in with Louise, a retired government worker and quintessential old maid, who became her confidant. Louise had accompanied her to my office and whispered in Doris’ defense, “In the early years he had encouraged her drinking, believing it would loosen her up sexually.”
Her husband had grown to detest her uncontrolled drunken aggression and resulting escapades, and eventually, Doris herself. She had been forced to have three fingers amputated after passing out in a field one frosty December night. Forgotten were the years of service and running the farms while he attended to his municipal duties. Not forgotten was her drunken behavior that had angered him so much he allegedly had pushed her down the stairs, together with her friend Louise, before her exodus.
Her husband advised the first of his five subsequent attorneys, “She does not deserve one damn cent.”
The matter was eventually settled, but not in the amount which would normally be paid. The husband resented giving Doris anything, but that in itself was not an impediment. The courts will award alcoholic spouses maintenance. The ugly truth was that you could not be sure that Doris would turn up at court should a trial ensue, so there was little choice but to settle.
Should you dish the dirt when it comes to your partner’s alcoholism? Absolutely, if it has had a financial impact on the spouse’s ability to earn a living, or if it endangers your children.
Although judges are sometimes reluctant to award an unequal division of property, most will believe it to be less than fair and equitable to equally divide family money to certain individuals—individuals who have spent most of their lives in a drunken stupor while their spouses carried the burden of all the expenses. Self induced lack of employment and resulting future inability to pay child support all encourage a lump sum payment of support or an unequal division of property.
Dish the dirt by all means. But, a warning to husbands—you may have to support your alcoholic wife. The judge will take the sophisticated view that alcoholism is an illness and after a long term marriage you may have driven her to drink.
I know that it’s unfair. But sometimes life is—isn’t it?
<> <> <> <>
I have come to the conclusion that ninety percent of individuals running a cash business cheat on their income tax. This happens as well when there are joint husband and wife businesses. No one ever dreams of disclosing this welcome source of undisclosed cash until one party starts to cheat on or abuse the other resulting in legal proceedings. Then suddenly, one of the parties decides it should be a matter for the I.R.S.
“Don’t do it,” I begged, my new client, Pina. “You’ve benefited from this as much as he did. If an audit is ordered you’ll both be the losers.”
In this particular case the husband carried on a furniture business with his brothers. It seems that every month they had an auction of items in their inventory, many of which were paid for in cash that never found its way into the books. The amounts were considerable, and if reported would triple the income shown on the husband’s income tax return.
“His brothers are scared to death and want to break up the company now that we’re breakin’ up. It’s really shakin’ everyone up—and it’s all his fault. That’s what he gets for screwing around on me with some gum chewin’ scumbag who answers the phones at his office,” she said smugly, snapping her own gum.
“Hell, even birds don’t soil their own nests,” she continued. “His brothers knew all about the affair…they could have fired the girl.”
Of course, now the girlfriend was leaving, but that didn’t help matters.
The husband refused to obtain his own attorney and she begged me to see him. I reluctantly consented on the condition that he would obtain independent legal advice before signing any separation agreement.
Her husband was a heavy, dark haired man with a slight Calabrian accent. He leaned forward in his chair and in a husky concerned voice gave me the straight goods.
“Your client’s a crazy broad! She’s so crazy that my brothers all want to break up our great cash cow for fear she’ll blow the whistle and start a tax audit—and they’re pissed with me for starting this. I love my kids and I know this whole thing has been one huge mistake.”
But it was too late for any of that and he just wanted to settle things so he could get her and his brothers off his back and be fair.
I told him, not unkindly, as he was a likeable enough guy, “Being fair is to pay her and the kids support using your actual income figures and not those you report to the Income Revenue Service.”
He eagerly nodded his agreement. Also, I suggested, when obtaining an appraisal of the business it would be necessary to consider the additional income from the monthly auctions, which, of course, were not shown on financial statements. This was more reluctantly agreed upon. He feared his brothers wouldn’t like it.
The matter was resolved in a satisfactory manner. The worth of the business had already been appraised for buy-out purposes by the brothers and the appraisal was generous, factoring in, I suspected the extra revenue. His share of the business went against his one-half equity in the home which resulted in Pina emerging as the sole owner. Support was paid for her and the children according to his actual income. Custody of the three boys was shared, although Pina received support as if the majority of the children’s time was spent with her.
This, incidentally, is always a good thing, as I always told my male clients. If you really want to see a lot of your kids, but your wife fears that that will mean a reduction in child support, simply pay her according to the guidelines just as if she were the main custodial parent. It’s stupid to let a little thing like money prevent you from having a great relationship and lots of time with your kids.