Singer, Adele, has filed for divorce from her husband, Simon Konecki. She plans to co-parent their son, Angelo, age 6. This is a major child custody issue that is the forefront of their divorce.
The singer, who filed for divorce from her estranged husband in Los Angeles, cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for the split.
Spousal support, as well as the separation of their assets and properties, will be determined in mediation, according to the documents. Support can be long term financial concern for parties during a long term marriage so hopefully that part of the divorce can be settled during the mediation process
According to several media outlets, it is believed that she and Konecki did not sign a Prenuptial Agreement prior to the marriage. This could mean any property acquired by the parties during the marriage will be divided through community property laws. One of the benefits of signing a Prenuptial Agreement prior to getting married is to protect your separate property assets. Another benefit is that if you plan to be married for a long time, you have the ability to set limitations on how much spousal support or alimony will be paid out depending on the length of the marriage. Usually people that have been successful will have a prenuptial agreement written prior to the marriage to ensure her long term royalties do not become split among the parties. Even so Adele could have attempted to draft a post nuptial agreement is she so wished to protected what she had made thus far from her lucrative career and protect all the royalties that she made and would make in the future.
According to California law, in the event of a divorce, in a marriage of ten years or less, the recipient of spousal support is entitled to spousal support for one-half of the length of the marriage. So, for instance, if a couple marries and divorces after 8 years of marriage, the recipient of spousal support will only be entitled to spousal support for a period of only 4 years.
Another interesting issue that has come up in Adele’s divorce filing is that she chose to file for divorce in California. Adele also is a British citizen so going back to England to file a divorce would not be out of the question. She could make things really difficult with custody issues as well by dividing the child between the two countries. However she did not do this. Apparently, the former couple own property in California and Konecki’s business is based out of California. This brings up residency issues. You cannot simply file a divorce petition based on the fact that you own property in that State. In order to obtain residence in California, you must have been a resident of the state for at least 6 months and in the county where you intend to for for at least 3 months. I believe Adele lives somewhere in Beverly Hills so if that is the case, she could file her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in California and in Los Angeles County provided she meets the residency requirements.
Bachelor’ creator Mike Fleiss’ divorce is final; ex-wife drops assault allegations
The most contentious business issue in many divorce proceedings is the value of the business that must be divided as part of the divorce settlement. Valuation is an inexact science, and the divorcing couple can easily spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on expert and legal fees battling it out over the value of one or more private companies included in the marital estate. This challenging issue is not subject to any easy fix. But there are some options the couple may want to consider before engaging in an expensive and time-consuming valuation battle.
Marital settlement agreements are common documents used to mitigate problems with divorce litigation. While a pre-nup is more common, couples can also agree to enter into a post-nup that details a property division and removes any conflict regarding the valuation of specific assets. Texas statutes set forth strict requirements to follow for marital agreements be enforceable.
News of Adele’s impending divorce from her husband Simon Konecki was a surprise to many, and many more were surprised that the star and her husband had not signed a pre-nuptial agreement. Under California law, Konecki may be entitled to up to half of the singer’s earnings from the time they were married. If they choose to file in California, where they own significant property and Konecki has an office for his company, the pair might have to split everything evenly. Adele has already gifted Konecki a property worth over $600,000, which some see as an indication that the split may be amicable. Adele herself said in a Vanity Fair interview that money is “not that important a part of my life.”
The lack of a pre-nup may seem unusual in the cynical climate of Hollywood’s almost contractual atmosphere surrounding relationships and even marriage. There is a perception that pre-nups are a fact of life, and that all wealthy people have them. In fact, only around 5% of married couples have pre-nups, and only 15% of divorcees say they regret not having had one. There are obvious caveats – Steven Spielberg found out the hard way that pre-nuptial agreements need to be an actual legal document, a literal back-of-the-napkin mistake that cost him a $100 million settlement. Both sides need appropriate counsel and a thorough accounting of their assets, which can make the cost of a pre-nup financially impractical for some.
The other side of the debate over pre-nups is emotional, grounded in a perception that such a document, or even the desire to sign one, is inviting the relationship to fail, tempting fate, or making it easier to get out of. It can even be seen as an indication that there is no trust in the relationship. The reality is, a pre-nup is an important legal tool, one which can be used to protect family assets, ease transitions, and hold individuals accountable. In a climate where up to 50% of marriages end in divorce, a pre-nup can be invaluable.
Social media influences everything these days, from pop-culture to even divorce. To elucidate this point, simply try to find one person in your family, or among your friends, or peers at work that does not have a Facebook account. It is everywhere, unavoidable, and ineluctable. The courtroom is not immune to its presence either. When divorce is involved, the question of electronic evidence, and social media evidence, in particular, comes into play in various ways. Modern relationships fall hazard to the sometimes illicit goings-on of spouses that end up publicized for all the world to see.
Attorneys have to account for these modern times and the Facebook or Instagram posts. Instagram has become the new forerunner of posts into the personal lives of parties. People must become aware that once a divorce opens up on Court the social media accounts become public record. That is to say that they provide an instant insight into happenings of the parties real personal lives and their true feelings about one another and what they are hiding from the divorce proceedings and the court.
The numbers don’t lie here. Social media is affecting relationships and being brought to bear on divorce litigation in serious and important ways. For a lawyer to effectively use (or defend against) social media evidence in a divorce case, he or she needs to understand both the ramifications of admitting such evidence and the legal precedent therein.
Many people feel that if they are going to get divorced they need to find a least adversarial way in order to resolve all the issues of the divorces such as Spousal support, Child support, and property division. And thus recently there has been a push by many divorcees to go the that way. However, issues have arisen that might be an impediment to an easy mediation, divorce free conflict amongst litigants going through a divorce. Everyone believes and rightfully so that everything during the mediation process remains confidential and thus all agreements are set in stone. However, such is not the case.
A recent article from The National Law Review cited a recent case where the confidentiality provision of the medation agreement did not get signed. Therefore the alleged agreement between the parties was not proven to be an agreement in the Court of Law. As a result all the hard work and time and and effort put into paying a mediator and getting a divorce agreement done out of court was for nought. This kind of situation can occur more likely than not if your mediator or the parties are not experienced at doing the mediation process. In the case cited above the alleged agreement between the parties could not be show in the court of law because the parties never signed a waiver of confidentiality clause. Therefore the agreement could not hold weight nor was admissible in the Court of law.
In order for the mediation agreement to be a part of the Divorce proceedings the parties would have needed to sign a waiver of confidentiality which would then let the mediation document become admissible in a court of law. Normally all mediations are confidential and therefore cannot be brought into the legal setting without a waiver of confidentiality signed by both parties.
Dennis Quaid is divorced again and this time he has to divide much more than he did with his prior famous wife Meghan Ryan . This new wife is no famous nor did she have the income that his prior famous wife had. Apparently there is as lot of property and children to divide and since he is the bread winner he will have to fork up way more money to her than she to him. When you are a movie star you make movies and wives or husbands that are married or famous celebrity movie stars can make a very good investment for their future.
A movie is like putting money way in the bank for the celebrities and their exes. Because movies have something called residuals. Residuals pay out into the future and are determined by how well the movie does in future years. So if a party was married for a number of years to their movie star spouse and then divorce they can claim residuals for the movies that were made during the life of the marriage. Its pretty cool I would say. So Kimberly Quaid will be receiving a portion of Dennis Quaid’s residuals for her entire life as long as the movie that was made during her marriage makes money down the road.
As many of you remember Dennis Quaid had a pair of twins boys who are 10 years old. The boys were the subject of lawsuit against Cedar Sinai Hospital when they were born because the hospital accidentally gave them Heparin and they almost died. Apparently the couple will share joint custody of the boys. There are two types of custody the family court recognizes. Legal custody is where both parents will decide the best schools and medical care for the child. physical custody is how the time share will be distributed. Dennis Quaid is said to have gotten 25% of the timeshare and Kimberly Quaid got 75%.
Married at First Sight” star Nate Duhon last week filed to divorce Sheila Downs, whom he met and married last year at the Palmer House Hilton as cameras rolled for the Lifetime network series. What is not stated about divorces is that getting married can be very easy and without any complications. However, getting divorced can be very complicated and very difficult. The fun out of the married and whats next a divorce. This is what is sounds like occurred to the couple on the Chicago season of Married at First Sight. Im not sure how well the contestants knew each other before they got married. But from the looks of it they probably did not know each other very well
Duhon, 26, cited irreconcilable differences in his Nov. 14 filing in Cook County court. Downs lives in Arlington Heights, while Duhon has moved back to his home state of Michigan, court records show. Downs and Duhon, who both did not respond to a Tribune request for comment, are the second “Married at First Sight” couple from Season 5 to split.
A proposed dramatic change to the tax rules of divorce in the House Republicans’ tax reform bill (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) would undoubtedly create additional burdens to couples getting divorced if it becomes law.
The bill would eliminate the tax deduction for alimony and make alimony income tax-free to the recipient for divorce decrees executed after December 31, 2017; it wouldn’t affect existing divorces. The Senate Republicans’ tax reform bill does not change the alimony rules.
Under current law, ex-spouses who pay alimony can deduct the expense from their federal income taxes; ex-spouses receiving alimony payments have to claim the money as taxable income. (The bill’s alimony provision is projected to raise about $8 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.)