Los Angeles Divorce and Family Law

First Wives World

This is a great networking site for newly divorced women First wives world

When Bankruptcy Meets Divorce

From Forbes Magazine, Written by Marlene M. Browne Esq.
Link
Just over two years ago, President George W. Bush signed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) of 2005, which became effective Oct. 17, 2005. If you are getting divorced, this new bankruptcy law could concern you. Reason: While you may not realize it, in this country, our high divorce rate and bankruptcy commonly intersect. Here’s how. Until the enactment of the BAPCPA, the bankruptcy process was seen by some, and used by many, as a tool to permanently evade (or, to use bankruptcy terminology, “discharge”) family obligations foisted upon them by agreement or court order after a marital dissolution. Plus, once a person filed a bankruptcy petition--for liquidation under Chapter 7 or reorganization under Chapter 13 (or, less commonly, Chapter 11)--he gained the protection of an “automatic stay,” preventing creditors from taking any actions against him, his income or his property to collect their debts.

If the “debtor’s” income was less than the sum needed to maintain his lifestyle, including debt service, he would generally opt for the Chapter 7 liquidation, taking advantage of whatever homestead and property exemptions his state allowed, thus protecting his assets from creditors. If any nonexempt property existed, the bankruptcy trustee would liquidate it to pay secured creditors first, with unsecured creditors, such as ex spouses (who lacked collateral or guarantees) at the back of the line.

While Chapter 7 liquidation was not a means to avoid a mortgage or shirk taxes secured by liens, it did provide the debtor a clean slate, free from pesky consumer debt--credit cards, loans from friends and family, legal or medical bills--and whatever equitable distribution payments he couldn’t comfortably afford. Plus, if a person happened to live in Florida, Iowa, Kansas Oklahoma, South Dakota or Texas, he could really make out like a bandit because these states had (and still have) limitless homestead--and generous property--exemptions.

Consequently, for the cost of a court filing and the administrative fees of the bankruptcy proceeding (the trustee’s fees, typically a minor percentage of the value of the “estate,” i.e., nonexempt property existing when the petition is filed), one could continue to own and enjoy, post discharge, a multimillion-dollar residence--provided he paid the mortgage.

On the other hand, if a person had sufficient income to pay his debts over time, but needed a breather to call off court actions and collection efforts--or he didn’t want to liquidate his nonexempt property (which, in the Atlantic Coast states, with little to no homestead exemptions, could be substantial)--he could file a Chapter 13 “reorganization” plan, allowing him to pay his debts (or some fraction of them) under a court-approved plan, over a period of three to five years. Once completed, the person emerged debt free, with a fresh start (and a blot on his credit report for 10 years). Still for many, the calculus of the decision made sense.

But that was then, this is now. Since Oct. 17, 2005, to automatically qualify as a Chapter 7 filer, you must make less than the median income in your state, given the number of people in your household. If your income equals or is greater than the median for your state, you still might qualify as a Chapter 7 filer, depending on whether you can afford to pay $100 to $166 per month, over the course of five years, to your unsecured creditors.

If you make too much money to qualify for Chapter 7, and you meet the requirements for a Chapter 13 (you have regular income and your secured debt is less than $922,975, and your unsecured debt is less than $307,675), you can seek relief from your creditors under a reorganization plan. After the specified three or five years of paying under the court-approved plan, you’ll have canceled debts without the typical tax consequences. No matter which Chapter you file under, BAPCPA requires that you obtain credit counseling and participate in special debt management programs.

Perhaps even more important than the means test and mandatory financial management education is the fact that BAPCPA has made it much more difficult for debtors to shirk domestic relations responsibilities. Unlike the old law (BRA) which, as amended in 1984, allowed debtors to discharge nonsecured property settlement obligations to former spouses (think payouts for businesses, professional practices, or other assets distributed in a divorce), the new law forbids this. Now, any domestic support obligation “DSO” becomes a “first priority claim,” ineligible for discharge.

Still, scholars see potential areas of abuse. If you have a property agreement or divorce decree wherein your ex assumes existing marital debt (outstanding credit cards run up during your marriage) and agrees to pay the credit card companies directly--“holding you harmless” in the meantime--beware. That obligation might be subject to discharge or reduced payment under the new bankruptcy law. Why? Payments made to a third party, i.e., someone other than, “a spouse, former spouse or child of the debtor” might not receive protection under the new 11 U.S.C. 523(a) (15). (For an excellent article on the details of this danger, log on here.)

On the other hand, any obligation undertaken in a divorce, owed to a third party and in the nature of support (say, an ongoing mortgage or auto loan) is probably safe from discharge under BAPCPA. Best idea: Insist on having your spouse pay old, nonsecured consumer debt, directly, from his--or her--share of money received from the sale of a house or distribution of other assets at the time of the divorce. A promise to pay is nice, but security (or cash) is king.

BAPCPA also provides “domestic support obligations” first priority status over other nonsecured debt. (But, this fact might not be as useful as it sounds as BAPCPA expands the reach and strength of secured creditors. So, it’s possible less will be left for all unsecured creditors, regardless of priority status.) Furthermore, the automatic stay provisions of the code no longer apply to divorce or support actions filed in state courts. Though you won’t be able to divide the debtor’s property, you will be able to address support, domestic violence and custody matters without having to appear in federal bankruptcy court to “lift” the stay.

Also, under BAPCPA, a bankruptcy filing won’t affect your rights to receive support via wage garnishment or other common collection means. Likewise, pre-filing payments of domestic support obligations to a spouse (so-called “pre-petition transfers”) won’t be “voidable” as preferential payments. Plus, per BAPCPA, no payment plan debtor will receive an order of discharge until he or she confirms that all domestic support obligations are current.

What’s more, BAPCPA requires a debtor to reside in a state more than 40 months before he or she files for bankruptcy protection to take advantage of that state’s exemptions; thus eliminating “forum shopping,” where debtors moved to states like Florida or Texas just before filing bankruptcy petitions, in an effort to convert nonexempt property into an exempt homestead, wiping out their nonsecured debt in the process.

So much for the debtor. As a DSO creditor in the age of BAPCPA, you will receive notice from the trustee of your rights to collect support through federal enforcement agencies. You will also receive the most recent address of the debtor, where he works and details about other affirmed creditors remaining after the bankruptcy action.

While BAPCPA can make life more difficult for those who have suffered from sudden unemployment, sickness or other misfortune, it’s probably the best thing to have happened to unsecured divorce creditors since 1898. Still, BAPCPA is recent law and courts have yet to settle all the issues arising from its new provisions. If your ex files for bankruptcy protection, consult with an expert. Ask how to protect your DSO (domestic support obligation) creditor’s rights by filing any necessary adversary complaints or proofs of claims. For instance, under a Chapter 13 plan, a debtor can still escape paying some, or all, accumulated support arrears, so you must be vigilant.

And, don’t forget to obtain copies of all the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules (disclosing his income, real and personal property, and the like). As BAPCPA provides the possibility of using exempt property to collect what you are owed as a nondischarged creditor, these schedules will be a rich source of useful information. Happy hunting.

Written by Marlene M. Browne Esq.
La-familylaw.com

What Bruce, Demi and her toyboy can teach us all about divorce?

By HELENA FIRTH POWELL - Daily Mail article
There was uproar among my divorced friends last week when Demi Moore was seen canoodling with her new husband Ashton Kutcher in front of her old husband Bruce Willis on a boat.

Most older (and balder) former husbands would have thrown the young whippersnapper off the boat, along with the ex-wife, or, at least, chosen to do a spot of deep-sea fishing with someone they weren't related to by divorce.

"It's outrageous," said a friend who would no sooner go fishing with her former husband than jump in the Thames (actually, I think she'd probably prefer the latter).

"What on earth are they thinking about? They're divorced, why are they hanging out together? They may as well have stayed married."

When I saw the picture, my first thought was: if they're kissing and Bruce is fishing, who's driving the boat?

But after that I thought: good on them. As a child, I watched my mother get divorced acrimoniously three times and, frankly, it's not much fun.

Daisy unmasked... the woman behind Daisy Dooley breaks cover
So are all men just great big babies?

It might stick in the craw for many people to see this threesome so relaxed together, but it's better than a life consumed by bitterness and jealousy.

What couples with children tend to do when they get divorced is focus so much on their mutual loathing that they forget the most important thing: the children. And how much better is it for them if you all get on?

As a result of my mother's divorce from my father, I didn't see him again after they split -when I was three - until I was 14.

When they first split up, there was no communication, apart from a note to my father to tell him that since she'd remarried,

I had stopped looking like him. Needless to say, this didn't go down well, hence the long silence.

Even after I met him when I was 14, our relationship was patchy.

Shortly after my mother left my father, we moved from Rome to Britain, where she took up with an artist who became her second husband.

She came to dread his argumentative character and six years later he left for Morocco and that was the end of that.

After their divorce, he put up more of a fight than my father did to stay in touch with me.

In some ways, this was admirable; I wasn't even his natural daughter. But to be honest, it felt as if they were fighting each other through me, rather than fighting for me.

There was a custody battle and court case. I had to give evidence, aged nine. All I really wanted was for them to stop fighting.

I remember standing in court looking around me and thinking: "How is it possible that these people once loved each other?" I just couldn't believe the hatred flying around.

Not long after, my mother took up with her third husband, but though they were together for years, it was doomed to failure. In the end, she felt she had to get away.

Strangely enough, it was that third divorce that caused the reunion with my mother's first husband. He provided the cash for us to escape.

Perhaps, not unnaturally, having witnessed such divisive and ugly conflict three times over, I vowed never to get divorced. So far, so good.

My husband, though, has been divorced and has two children from his previous marriage.

Rather like my stepfather, I got to know them when they were very little. But unlike my stepfather and mother, my husband and his ex-wife get on well. I get on very well with her, too. In fact, so do my children.

My stepdaughter Julia and I have a lovely relationship; whenever I can, I take her out shopping or to a film. Last year, we went to see the musical Mamma Mia!

After the show, her mother met us to take Julia home. As she drove off, she said: "Thanks for taking her, she had a lovely time." How much better is that than bitterness and acrimony?

The attitude my husband and his ex-wife took when they split up was that for the children's sake, it's not worth falling out.

Of course, that means sacrifices and compromises on both sides, but if children are involved I think parents have an obligation to make them.

How much nicer is it to see your parents get on like Demi and Bruce than to see them fighting like David Hasselhoff and his ex-wife Pamela.

The fact is that when parents fight, it's the children that suffer.

A friend from university lived, until the beginning of this year, in a beautiful big house in Gloucestershire with her husband and two sons.

She was a lawyer until the children were born and he works in insurance. They were well off enough to send their boys

aged nine and 11 to a rather smart prep-school. They almost worse. had nice holidays in France, gave Sunday lunch parties and drove an Audi and BMW respectively.

Then disaster struck. My friend decided she was bored, unfulfilled and miserable. She had an affair with a pub landlord.

Her husband found out and vowed he would never forgive her.

My friend was probably wrong to have an affair, but what they both did next was

They sold the beautiful house because they couldn't agree on who was going to live there.

Once the mortgage was paid off, they ended up with £450,000.

Then they started arguing about who should get the cash. They spent most of the money fighting about it.

Instead of a beautiful farmhouse, my friend now lives with her two sons in a semi-detached house on an estate, which was all she could afford once the court battle was over.

Her former husband lives with his new girlfriend in similarly surroundings. So it's probably just as well the boys have been taken out of the prep school.

They have lost not only the life they knew, but their home and school. For what?

Divorce is never nice. As my stepfather used to say: "Be careful about moving in with anyone. People move in together very easily, but they only ever split up if things get really bad.

"No one can face going through their record collection unless they have to."

I don't remember my mother's marriage to my father, but I remember the other two, and things did get bad before she gave up on the relationships.

Maybe in any divorce there has to be a period of hatred, followed by a cooling off, which can then be followed by a lasting friendship.

If there are children involved, it's crucial to aim for friendship in the long run.

If you don't, the only people you really end up hurting are your children. You may get over your divorce, but will they?

Senate Strikes Down Divorce Bill for Getting a Get

The Senate voted against a bill that sought to remove religious barriers that prevent Orthodox Jewish women from remarrying after getting divorced.

The law would have forced Orthodox Jewish men who are involved in a divorce to grant their wives “gets,” which allow their former wives to remarry as Orthodox Jews.

The bill was the subject of much controversy, as some believed it was seeking to interfere in a purely religious matter, while some believed the matter to be one of women’s rights.

The Bill

Sen. Lisa A Gladden (D-Baltimore), the bill’s sponsor, said that the bill was not about religion, but “about fairness. It’s a women’s rights issue.”

Gladden said she sponsored the bill for the Orthodox Jewish women who claim they are unable to obtain divorces because their husbands won’t grant them gets.

Gladden said it was a matter of fairness and equity. “If you’re coming to the courts, you have to come with clean hands,” she said. “This is [a] women’s rights issue,” she added.

“The rule is a sexist rule” and the women “are in a bad situation,” said Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery. “I feel for them … [but] … it is completely and wholly a religious rule.”

Get?

Under Orthodox Jewish law, a legal divorce does not end a marriage. To officially end it, the husband must give the wife a get. In some cases, a husband will refuse to grant the wife a get, which makes it impossible for her to get remarried as an Orthodox Jew.

The Bill’s Opposition

“We see this as state intrusion on a religious matter,” said Sen. Rhona Kramer, D-Montgomery, quoting from a Jewish newspaper. Kramer, who is Jewish herself, said the bill was well-intentioned, but that “we will be using a civil law to force someone to perform a religious act.”

 

Should I move out of the house?

Source: "Should I Move Out?" by attorney Eric C. Nelson at www.divorcenet.com.   

A question considered by most people contemplating divorce is whether they should move out of the marital home prior to or upon filing for divorce. Generally speaking, if child custody, parenting time, or possession of the home might be an issue in your divorce, I advise against moving out. Instead, try to stay put until the temporary order hearing, which is your first opportunity to legally compel your spouse to move out.

Although no legal precedent is created by your moving out of the marital residence, it will give your spouse's lawyer the opportunity to argue that:

1. Temporary custody of the child(ren)should be awarded to your spouse because he/she is already living in the house which has been the children's home.  Forcing the children to move would only bring more disruption to their lives.

2. Temporary possession of the home should be awarded to your spouse because he/she is already living there.  Since you made the decision to move out, it makes more sense to leave everyone where they now are instead of requiring both spouses to make another move.

These same arguments can be made not only for purposes of the temporary order, but also regarding your permanent divorce decree. And while the arguments may not prevail in the end, they very likely will have some influence on the judge since one of his/her primary motivations is to preserve the status quo.

If you must move out of the home due to an abusive or otherwise insufferable situation for yourself or the children, take the following precautions.

First, if custody is an issue, try to move the children with you if this can be accomplished without too much disruption in their lives.  If you can't move the children with you, try to spend as much time with them in your care as you are requesting in the divorce. Otherwise, the longer you acquiesce to a pattern of parenting time that is less than you desire, the more of an argument the other party will make of it against you. Often arguments like the following are heard:

"Your Honor, the Petitioner moved out four months ago, and since then he has only had the children every other weekend, by his own acquiescence. Now all of a sudden he wants custody (or more parenting time, as the case may be). This is clearly a disingenuous request which should be summarily denied. The schedule the parties have been following has worked well for the children, and for the sake of their sense of stability and continuity, it should continue."

After a period of time has passed, nobody will much care if the reason you only had every other weekend was because the other parent truly wouldn't "let" you have more time. Although that may very well be the case, and although you may have let your spouse control the situation in order to spare the children the trauma of parental conflict, in my experience the courts are more swayed by the pattern of contact rather than by these "excuses."

Second, when you move out, take with you all of the household goods, furnishings, and other items of personal property which you want to keep. And perform an inventory of the items you have taken. The old adage "possession is nine tenths of the law" is very applicable here. Litigating personal property issues is usually prohibitively expensive, because it normally costs more to litigate than the stuff is worth. So if you ever want to see it again, it is much simpler and easier to take it with you when you leave. However, don't get too greedy. If you empty the place out and leave your spouse and children to sleep and eat on a bare concrete floor, you will have become your own worst enemy.  Your reprehensible behavior will give ammunition to your spouse's attorney that will likely cause you to end up in the judge's doghouse, a blunder from which you may never recover.

A question considered by most people contemplating divorce is whether they should move out of the marital home prior to or upon filing for divorce. Generally speaking, if child custody, parenting time, or possession of the home might be an issue in your divorce, I advise against moving out. Instead, try to stay put until the temporary order hearing, which is your first opportunity to legally compel your spouse to move out.

Although no legal precedent is created by your moving out of the marital residence, it will give your spouse's lawyer the opportunity to argue that:

1. Temporary custody of the child(ren)should be awarded to your spouse because he/she is already living in the house which has been the children's home.  Forcing the children to move would only bring more disruption to their lives.

2. Temporary possession of the home should be awarded to your spouse because he/she is already living there.  Since you made the decision to move out, it makes more sense to leave everyone where they now are instead of requiring both spouses to make another move.

These same arguments can be made not only for purposes of the temporary order, but also regarding your permanent divorce decree. And while the arguments may not prevail in the end, they very likely will have some influence on the judge since one of his/her primary motivations is to preserve the status quo.

If you must move out of the home due to an abusive or otherwise insufferable situation for yourself or the children, take the following precautions.

First, if custody is an issue, try to move the children with you if this can be accomplished without too much disruption in their lives.  If you can't move the children with you, try to spend as much time with them in your care as you are requesting in the divorce. Otherwise, the longer you acquiesce to a pattern of parenting time that is less than you desire, the more of an argument the other party will make of it against you. Often arguments like the following are heard:

"Your Honor, the Petitioner moved out four months ago, and since then he has only had the children every other weekend, by his own acquiescence. Now all of a sudden he wants custody (or more parenting time, as the case may be). This is clearly a disingenuous request which should be summarily denied. The schedule the parties have been following has worked well for the children, and for the sake of their sense of stability and continuity, it should continue."

After a period of time has passed, nobody will much care if the reason you only had every other weekend was because the other parent truly wouldn't "let" you have more time. Although that may very well be the case, and although you may have let your spouse control the situation in order to spare the children the trauma of parental conflict, in my experience the courts are more swayed by the pattern of contact rather than by these "excuses."

Second, when you move out, take with you all of the household goods, furnishings, and other items of personal property which you want to keep. And perform an inventory of the items you have taken. The old adage "possession is nine tenths of the law" is very applicable here. Litigating personal property issues is usually prohibitively expensive, because it normally costs more to litigate than the stuff is worth. So if you ever want to see it again, it is much simpler and easier to take it with you when you leave. However, don't get too greedy. If you empty the place out and leave your spouse and children to sleep and eat on a bare concrete floor, you will have become your own worst enemy.  Your reprehensible behavior will give ammunition to your spouse's attorney that will likely cause you to end up in the judge's doghouse, a blunder from which you may never recover.

Jewish women look to courts to obtain traditional divorce decree

SOURCE: Lisa J. Huriash South Florida  SUN SENTINEL

Freedom will come soon, in the form of a handwritten paper with 12 lines of Hebrew and Aramaic. Since Karen Gruber-Colp's marriage came apart a year ago with a divorce filing, her ex-husband has failed to give her a "get," a Jewish divorce document that permits her to remarry.On Valentine's Day, she appealed to Broward Circuit Judge Jack Tuter to force her ex-husband to give her the document. Tuter's order requires him to comply by Thursday."Thank God," Colp said after the hearing. "This was huge. This could have gone on for the rest of my life." The 35-year-old Colp, of Dania Beach, is one of a growing number of observant Jewish women throughout the country turning to the secular civil courts to fix what religious leaders are calling a crisis in the community. For the last year, Colp has been an "agunah," a Hebrew word meaning "a woman chained to a dead marriage." Observant women need their husbands to grant them a divorce. But some Jewish leaders say angry men are keeping their wives in limbo to get a greater share of money or property or just for spite. To help women like Colp, the South Florida chapter of the Women's International Zionist Organization, or WIZO, is proposing legislation that would impact the distribution of assets in a divorce if one spouse imposes "barriers to remarriage" that are either religious or secular. The legislation has one sponsor so far: state Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres. If WIZO finds a House sponsor, the issue could be debated in Tallahassee in March. "This to me is not a religious issue as much as it is a fairness issue," Aronberg said. New York has had what is known as a "Get Law" since the early 1980s. It provides that a civil divorce will not be granted unless all impediments to remarriage have been removed. Legislators in Maryland are considering a similar bill. Others with get laws include Scotland, Canada, England and South Africa. In Israel, where the religious courts have enforcement powers, men who refuse to give a get can lose a driver's license, the ability to hold public office, their credit cards, bank accounts and civil service jobs. They can even be sent to prison. In Israel's most notorious case, a Yemenite Jew spent 35 years in prison until he died, saying he would never give his wife a get. His wife was 65 when he died and she married a month later, said Sharon Shenhav, a Jerusalem-based women's rights lawyer. "The problem exists in every Jewish community in the world," she said. "When you're getting divorced, people aren't usually too happy with each other and there's a lot of anger." She said a man holding out on the get "is sheer blackmail." To help the women, more rabbis are encouraging couples to sign a pre-nuptial agreement containing sanctions for not signing a get, said Rabbi David Lehrfield, of the Young Israel synagogue in North Miami Beach, and some are even refusing to marry couples unless both sign. In addition, some Jewish newspapers publish the names of men who refuse to give their wives a get in an effort to embarrass them into compliance. For example, on Feb. 9 The Jewish Press, a national newspaper, published the names of nine men who had been ordered to give their wives a get dating back to 2002. Also, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance in New York began a telephone support program this past fall, said Batya Levin, the co-chairwoman of the Agunah Task Force. "It's hand holding," said Levin. "Women in this situation get to feel so lonely." And Yehoshua Zev, the executive director of ORA (The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot) in New York, said he organizes "social pressure" to the men "to convince them to fulfill their moral, ethic and religious obligation to free their wives." First ORA appeals to their common sense, Zev said. If that doesn't work, ORA offers to pay the estimated $500 to have a scribe write the get. The next step is supplying names to Jewish newspapers. In a last resort, the group will have men demonstrate in front of his home and work place. A rally this week is being contemplated for the front of one man's house in south Palm Beach County, although ORA declined to release details about the man. "He hasn't given his wife a `get' for 10 years," Zev said. "We worked it out with the police. The goal isn't to harm the person. It's to educate him he has to do the right thing." Colp said her life has been on hold until now. Without a get, "no rabbi will marry you," she said. "And in most religious communities, most observant Jews will not even date you if you don't have a get -- you are considered to be married and you are considered to be committing adultery. So I can't even date."

The Secret to Divorce-Proof Finances

From the Motley FoolMotley fool
By Dayana Yochim

March 1, 2007

Do you trust your significant other with the family checkbook?

Half of those in a committed relationship answered "yes" to that loaded question -- posed in a Harris Interactive survey sponsored by Redbook and Lawyers.com -- and back up their conviction by commingling all of their bank accounts with their better halves.

So, how does your financial union stack up?

Secret shoppers
Even in the best of times, money can be a conversational third rail in a relationship. Most couples, whether married, engaged, or cohabitating, cop to having an occasional tiff about the family finances.

Lots of couples butt heads over their spending priorities. I've been the on-call referee for my coupled pals in many such spats -- I hear things like "You will never guess what he bought!" and "Can you believe what she paid for that?!"

Want to keep the peace about spending? Simply stay mum. At least that's how three out of 10 adults say they deal with this point of contention. (One in 10 admits that a secret retail-therapy excursion exceeded $1,000.)

Oh, but you want your union (financial and otherwise) to last, right? Then it's time to come clean. Your money lies may actually be the most dangerous ones you tell: One-quarter of respondents to the Harris survey said that financial fidelity is more important to them than romantic fidelity. (Me? I insist on "all of the above.")

If your money tete-a-tetes typically result in one of you sleeping on the couch, rest easy. A few simple strategies can strengthen your financial union, starting today.

The most powerful relationship rule of thumb
Want the best result ever for your next money fight? Skip straight to the make-up part -- you know, when tempers have softened and you're committed to coming to a resolution -- before the bad vibes even start brewing.

This pre-emptive "just-in-case" conversation is one of the best ways to divorce-proof your finances. You're calm, cool, rational, and looking really cute to your Sig. O. Scheduling your discussion about a sensitive money issue before it's fodder for a fight allows you to plan a nice meal (and line up a babysitter and a dog-walker). Even better, it sets up you two lovebirds to be partners, not adversaries -- and, another bonus, it will save you many sleepless nights on the couch.

You don't have to take my word for it. This relationship rule of thumb is supported by one of the foremost negotiation experts -- Daniel Shapiro, co-author of Beyond Reason -- with whom I recently talked about handling conflict in ways that will actually improve your relationship.

He and Roger Fisher, of Getting to Yes fame, have found that emotions can be a powerful negotiation tool. Pre-empting conflicts while addressing key emotional triggers is one of the most effective ways to come to more fruitful resolutions. This tactic works not just with politicians, CEOs, and hostage negotiators, but also with everyday folks hashing out money conflicts over dinner. (Check out my interview and a real-life couples negotiation in the February issue of Motley Fool Green Light with this free 30-day trial.)

Pre-fight prep
Not every money issue needs to turn into a formal financial summit. Instead, focus your next money powwow on a few of your biggest and most sensitive financial concerns.

After that, establish some "rules" to prevent everyday money matters from turning into nonstop opportunities for bickering. For example, pick a dollar amount you can both blow each week without having to run your purchases by one another. Set up decision-making buckets in which you agree to consult with each other and come to a spending or saving decision before making a move.

When in doubt, Shapiro advises using "ACBD" as your automatic default. It stands for "Always Consult Before Deciding." (It's not to be confused with the "Act now; apologize later" decision-making approach that may fly a few times but is statistically unlikely to lead to make-up nookie.) And it may be the single rule of thumb that helps keep the peace in your household.

For richer ... or even richer
Managing money as a twosome doesn't have to be a hand-wringing affair. For a host of other relationship rules of thumb and other tips on negotiation tactics you can use with your boss, a store clerk, or your spouse, check out Motley Fool Green Light (here's that one-month free-trial link again). Also in the February issue, my co-advisor and investing counterpart, Shannon Zimmerman, serves up some strategies that will help couples harmoniously merge opposite investing styles within a single nest egg and offers his-and-hers investment ideas in "Venus & Mars Go (Stock) Shopping."

Why hiring an attorney in a divorce is more than just a good idea!

Here's an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled Do-it-yourself divorce doesn't always sever ties.article

When Yanic Chan and Vanessa Van split up in 1995, they couldn't afford a lawyer. So, like thousands of other people without money, they filled out the divorce paperwork themselves, with help from a friend.
    In November 1997, Van went to the Riverside County Courthouse to enter a final judgment. "The clerk put the stamp on it," Van said. "I asked, 'Everything finished?' She said 'Yes.' "
    Chan returned to his native Cambodia and married again. Then, in 2006, he tried to bring his new wife to this country. And that's when Van and Chan got a nasty surprise, one that court officials fear could be awaiting thousands of other former California couples: Their divorce had not been finalized.
    Driven by rising legal fees, a shortage of legal aid lawyers and a do-it-yourself philosophy, about 80% of people in California handle their own divorces, according to court officials.
    Many of them are not quite as divorced as they think they are. Some of them, like Chan, are even accidental bigamists, carrying not only hopes and dreams but also an earlier marriage to their new one.
    Tens of thousands of others have some understanding that their divorces are not done. But stumped by complex paperwork and court procedures, and unable to afford thousands of dollars for attorneys, they simply let their cases languish.
    Court officials across the state say they suspect the problem is vast. In Los Angeles County, Kathleen Dixon, who heads the Superior Court's programs for self-represented people, estimated that a third or more of all divorce petitions filed in the county in the last several years have not been finalized.
    Neither state nor county officials have statistics because they don't monitor cases to make sure they are finished. But the evidence they have worries them.
    One L.A. County Superior Court judge, Mark Juhas, found that about a third of the roughly 3,600 divorce cases filed in 2001 and 2002 and assigned to his courtroom remain open. Some of those couples may have reconciled, but Juhas suspects that many more are stuck or may even think they are divorced when they are not.
    Bonnie Hough is supervising attorney for the Center for Families, Children and the Courts, a division of the state Judicial Council's Administrative Office of the Courts. She noted a study in Placer County in the 1980s that found that 30% of people there who filed for divorce did not complete the process.
    At one legal services center in Van Nuys, officials say they see 20 people a month who incorrectly thought they were divorced.
    "They come in screaming," said Norma Valencia, a paralegal at the center operated by Neighborhood Legal Services. "They say, 'You don't understand my situation. I want a divorce right now.' "
    Others show up weeping: They've remarried without a finalized divorce, and they're afraid to tell their new spouses.
    Many people, Valencia said, think divorce is like a traffic ticket and if they fail to take care of it properly, the court will track them down and notify them.
    But it doesn't work like that. In California, getting divorced takes at least three steps: filing divorce papers, serving them on the spouse and then writing and processing a judgment with the court. The process can be more complicated if there are children or fights over assets. A divorce cannot become final until at least six months after the date the papers are served.
    Increasingly, across California and the nation, people are handling their own civil court matters. In San Diego County, one of the few counties where statistics are available, 46% of people represented themselves in divorces in 1992; by 2000 that figure had climbed to 77%.
    One reason: increasing fees for lawyers combined with decreasing legal aid services for poor people, said Richard Zorza, who coordinates a national network of organizations working on self-representation.
    Also a factor, he said, is a "Home Depot philosophy of people feeling they can do things on their own." But the legal system wasn't organized with a do-it-yourself approach. It's meant to be navigated by lawyers. And people without legal training often make mistakes.
    "People just don't get it done. They don't know how to get it done," said Juhas, the Los Angeles Superior Court judge. "That's troubling. There are legal ramifications to continuing to be married."
    Juhas said the problem was brought home to him a few years ago, when two people appeared in his courtroom on a routine matter. They had filed for a divorce a few years earlier, and both had since remarried. Juhas said he looked down at their file and then back up at the couple. "I said, 'Do you realize your judgment was never entered?' "
    In plain English, that meant they weren't divorced. Luckily for the couple — and their new spouses — Juhas finalized their divorce without invalidating their new marriages.
    But it got him thinking: What about the thousands of other people whose files remain open?
Last spring, the judge, one of more than 40 who handle family law in L.A. County, began calling in about 100 people a month whose divorce cases have languished and asking them if they need help.

About 10% say they have reconciled, and about 30% ignore his summons. But more than half, he said, want to be divorced and just need some help.

Just after 9 a.m. on a recent morning, Juhas hoisted a stack of divorce files onto his desk and began calling names. About a dozen people stared back. Some were alone. Some were with spouses. Some looked fearful. Others glowered. Juhas asked them to stand and follow Janice Shurlow, a lawyer who works with the court helping people representing themselves.

Shurlow led them to a conference room. "If both parties are here and you get along, please feel free to sit together," she said. "If you don't get along, feel free to sit on opposite sides of the room."

For the next two hours, attorneys, some volunteer, others employees of the court's family law resource center, assisted people with paperwork.

A man with tattoos lacing up his neck and down his arms bent over a stack of forms in the front of the room. The man, who said he did not want his name printed because of the personal nature of the matter, said he had filed for divorce in 2002.

"I thought I was divorced," he said. A moment later, he said he knew he wasn't divorced but was uncertain about what to do after his spouse refused to sign papers he gave her.

"Out of sight, out of mind," he said. He looked at the mass of paperwork in front of him and sighed. "It's so easy to get married. Sign your name and say, 'I do,' " he said. "Say I don't. I don't want to be married anymore."

Court officials say they are studying Juhas' approach and may expand it if it proves successful.

At the same time, court officials in L.A. and elsewhere in the state have launched self-help programs so people can get divorced.

But that does little to help the thousands who are stuck in legal limbo now, Chan and Van among them.

After they thought their divorce had become final in 1997, Chan married a second time. He divorced — properly — in 2003, although he later discovered that marriage was not legally valid.

But that was nothing compared with the problem he encountered when he tried to bring his third wife to the U.S.

Earlier this year, he got a notice from the U.S. State Department asking for proof of his divorce from Van. He provided the paperwork the Riverside court had given him in 1997.

"They said everything is not final," Chan said. "I felt very upset. I could not eat for three days."

He found a lawyer, Faith Nouri. She said a judge had asked for additional information about child visitation. But Van and Chan say they had never received any notice from the court.

In 2001, after their case had been dormant for five years, the Riverside court dismissed it. Again, Chan and Van said they were never notified.

But now there is no easy way for a judge to retroactively divorce them.

Nouri said she plans to ask a judge later this month to set aside the dismissal, but she said "it's a long shot." If the judge won't, Nouri said, she doesn't know how Chan can bring his new wife to this country.

"Then he is in a bigamous marriage," she said. "There will be a lot of explaining to do."

Stories help children deal with divorce

The following books can help kids deal with issues and emotions surrounding divorce. Fiction titles include characters coping with similar circumstances that occur when parents divorce.

Fiction

"Dear Mr. Henshaw," by Beverly Cleary. Ten-year-old Leigh shares his thoughts and story through letters to his favorite author. Ages 9 to 11.

"If I Have a Wicked Stepmother, Where's My Prince?," by Melissa Kantor. Lucy reluctantly moves across the country with her stepmother and stepsisters while her father wraps up his work in California. Ages 12 and older.

"The Divorce Express," by Paula Danziger. Phoebe spends much of her time riding a bus between her divorced parents' houses. She tries to fit in each place while figuring out who she really is. Ages 11 and older.

"Southpaw," by Rich Wallace. Jimmy moves to a new town when his parents divorce. He then has to deal with an ultra-competitive dad when he joins the baseball team. Ages 8 and older.

Nonfiction

"Why Me? A Teen Guide to Divorce and Your Feelings," by Rachel Aydt. Advice for middle-school students.

"Family Break-up," by Keeley Bishop and Penny Tripp. Discusses why families break apart.

"My Parents Are Getting Divorced," by Florence Cadier. Written to appeal to teens, this book provides techniques to deal with issues surrounding divorce.

"The Divorce Helpbook for Kids," by Cynthia MacGregor. Includes advice on life after divorce and subsequent emotions and situations.

Big thanks to the THE BLOG OF JEFFERY LALLOWAU BLOG

The following books can help kids deal with issues and emotions surrounding divorce. Fiction titles include characters coping with similar circumstances that occur when parents divorce.

Fiction

"Dear Mr. Henshaw," by Beverly Cleary. Ten-year-old Leigh shares his thoughts and story through letters to his favorite author. Ages 9 to 11.

"If I Have a Wicked Stepmother, Where's My Prince?," by Melissa Kantor. Lucy reluctantly moves across the country with her stepmother and stepsisters while her father wraps up his work in California. Ages 12 and older.

"The Divorce Express," by Paula Danziger. Phoebe spends much of her time riding a bus between her divorced parents' houses. She tries to fit in each place while figuring out who she really is. Ages 11 and older.

"Southpaw," by Rich Wallace. Jimmy moves to a new town when his parents divorce. He then has to deal with an ultra-competitive dad when he joins the baseball team. Ages 8 and older.

Nonfiction

"Why Me? A Teen Guide to Divorce and Your Feelings," by Rachel Aydt. Advice for middle-school students.

"Family Break-up," by Keeley Bishop and Penny Tripp. Discusses why families break apart.

"My Parents Are Getting Divorced," by Florence Cadier. Written to appeal to teens, this book provides techniques to deal with issues surrounding divorce.

"The Divorce Helpbook for Kids," by Cynthia MacGregor. Includes advice on life after divorce and subsequent emotions and situations.

Big thanks to the THE BLOG OF JEFFERY LALLOWAU BLOG

DIVORCE AND GREEN CARDS

FROM ASIAN JOURNAL: Q: I'M PLANNING to get married to an American citizen. However, I got married a long time ago in the Philippines, and the marriage was never annulled. I haven't seen my husband for many years, and I don't think there is any record of my first marriage. Will this cause a problem with getting my green card?

A: It is very likely that your earlier marriage will prevent you from qualifying for a green card.  All previous marriages must be terminated in order for your new marriage to be valid for immigration purposes.

In order to qualify for a green card through marriage, both you and your spouse must demonstrate that all previous marriages have legally ended.  This means that you need to submit proof that the marriage ended in divorce or annulment as declared by a court of law.  The marriage can also legally end if your former spouse passed away, and you will need to submit a copy of the former spouse’s death certificate.

READ MORE