|
| John C. Mayoue practices in family law matters, specializing in complex and difficult cases. |
|
|
Monday, February 27, 2006
Brad and Jen and "The Celebrity Effect"
Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston have cut the asking price of their Beverly Hills house; possibly due to a phenomenon I like to call the "celebrity effect."
The now-divorced Hollywood stars had been asking $28 million for their five-bedroom, nine-guest-suite and three guest-cottage spread. Surprisingly, however, there just hasn't been any interest in that price, even in Hollywood, so now the asking price is $24.95 million. A steal.
Considering the fact that Brad and Jen only paid $13 million for the house - and even allowing for the renovations made on the 80-year-old "fixer upper" - you might think the house is still overpriced. Local real estate experts agree with that assessment, but I would expect the couple will get very close to what they want. That is, they will as long as they remain popular.
The reason? The "celebrity effect." As I have found, an actor is essentially - and for business purposes - a money-making machine. He or she makes money for himself or herself, of course, but he or she also makes money for whatever studio produces their projects. The presence of a Brad Pitt on a movie guarantees a larger audience than might be true if a lesser-star were on the film. The fact that some stars are more sought after than others makes them, in essence, a financial asset, albeit ones who must be courted and wooed by those producers who want the revenues they will generate. Such actors employ huge staffs, all of whom are dedicated to enhancing the profit-making potentential of the star by making sure they appear in good (e.g. money-making) films, endorsements, etc.
The "celebrity effect" is what drives this entire process, because without it the star would have no money-generating power at all. And the "celebrity effect" is due entirely on public perception and appeal.
In no other business is profit based on so ephemeral a basis. Microsoft's empire is built (for better or worse) on the ubiquity of its PC operating system; Brad Pitt's financial worth, by contrast, is based entirely on how much we, the audience, likes him. A lot of people don't like Microsoft for a lot of reasons - yet they still buy Microsoft products because they need them; for most people, Microsoft makes the only software available for the hardware in which they are heavily invested. But if we don't like Brad Pitt, we don't have to see his movies - and that means that Brad Pitt, Inc., is more at the mercy of film audiences than Microsoft is to its customers.
So if you like Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, then it is worth it to spend $24 million for a house in which they lived for only two years. The popularity of the people give such a house an intrinsic value that is independent from other houses, where buyers are more interested in such quotidian factors as distances to school and proximity to bus stops.
When a celebrity couple decide to split, I have found, their decision affects their potential value as money-machines because of how the public may react to the divorce. Even divorced, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston remain at the top of their earning-making potential because each of them have retained their appeal to their respective audiences.
That's the "celebrity effect." Based on their current audience appeal, if Brad and Jen want to price a doghouse at $1 million, someone will be willing to pay it.
|
|
|
Monday, February 20, 2006
Why every couple needs a pre-nuptial agreement
I was interviewed this week by a columnist for The Baltimore Sun on the importance of a pre-nuptial agreement for any couple who are considering marriage. The article was distributed by the Washington Post and also appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
The subject is one that I enjoy talking about, because there are so many misconceptions about pre-nuptial agreements. Most people think they are only for the rich; but they aren't. As I say in the article, more and more couples are waiting until later in life to get married, and that means they each bring more personal property into the marriage than younger couples. These assets may not be in the seven-figures, but they include such things as retirement savings, personal inheritances and business ownerships that, without a pre-nuptial agreement, would be massed together with the marital estate - making your personal property vulnerable in any number of ways.
The article quotes the situation of a young businessman that vividly illustrates this point:
Eric Brotman, a financial planner ... is in the process of drawing up a prenup with his fiancee. It's his second marriage, her first. Brotman says the prenup will exclude his business from the marital pot. That way his business won't be at risk of being liquidated if the marriage collapses. "My clients and employees and all their families could suffer by my having marital problems," the 34-year-old says. "I can't let that happen."
Let's face it - marriage may well be a union of the hearts, but it is also a union of bank accounts. When couples marry, they create a legal relationship between one another. There are many financial advantages to marrying - this is how the government encourages people to marry instead of just living with one another - but if those marriages end, by divorce or even death, the legal relationship you have with your spouse may create unplanned financial fallout.
Who needs such fallout when you are going through the emotional trauma of a divorce, or mourning the death of a spouse? In many respects, a pre-nup is the practical way of avoiding at least some of the unpleasant realities. Couples who get a pre-nup, in my opinion, are doing the responsible thing - helping the person they love most by removing some aspects of the thing couples argue about most: money.
This is not to say, of course, that negotiating a pre-nup is part of the romancing process. It isn't, of course, a very romantic topic. But couples who realize that their decision to marry is also a financial and property decision, show themselves to be the kinds of practical and level-headed people whose marriages will withstand the various storms married life may bring.
In other words, far from being proof that a pre-nup anticipates the dissolution of a marriage, couples who get one may, in fact, never need it.
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Take the "Divorce Test"
Can a simple test really predict whether a marriage is in trouble?
In a package distributed this week to several local television stations, including WHDH-TV in Boston. Dr. Oren Hernandez, a marriage counselor and a director at the Counseling and Psychological Center of Coral Springs, Fla., talked about just such a test he had developed, consisting of eight, multiple choice questions.
Hernandez says the test is "pretty accurate," but that its real value comes when couples start working through the questions, which raise core issues at the heart of every marriage. By truthfully confronting their personal feelings about these issues, Hernandez says, the couples may get an idea about the long-term survivability of their relationship.
Well, maybe. For what it's worth, here's the test:
Money is the number one cause of arguments?
A) Never
B) Sometimes
C) Always
Do you believe arguing is healthy?
A) Sometimes
B) Always
C) Never
We have trouble communicating?
A) Never
B) Sometimes
C) Always
I'm satisfied with our sex life?
A) Always
B) Sometimes
C) Never
I trust spouse completely?
A) Always
B) Sometimes
C) Never
Taking time for myself in a marriage is important?
A) Always
B) Sometimes
C) Never
I worry my spouse could be unfaithful?
A) Never
B) Sometimes
C) Always
Spirituality is important in our relationship?
A) Always
B) Sometimes
C) Never
To score, count the number of 'A's' you have as answers. A perfect score is all A's.
If you scored between six and eight A's: "That means your relationship is in pretty good shape," says Dr. Hernandez.
A score between four and six. "Then we're talking about something you might want to look at," said Dr. Hernandez.
And four or below: "Definitely question your spouse," says Dr. Hernandez.
|
|
|
Monday, February 13, 2006
Child custody case raises privacy questions
There was a very interesting ruling last week by a panel of the Colorado Supreme Court on the rights of divorced parents who lose the right to make decisions about their children's religious upbringing. I think the ruling has some very serious implications on our ever-eroding right to privacy, and I will have more thoughts about this soon.
The case concerns Rebekah and Joseph McSoud, who divorced in 2001. In 2004, a court gave Joseph McSoud the responsibility to make decisions regarding the religious upbringing of their sole child, a boy who is now 7 years old. The couple would share decision-making responsibilities for all other issues.
The boy had been baptized Catholic and the father wanted him raised in that religion. Rebekah McSoud, who is Protestant, challenged the constitutionality of several provisions in the ruling that she said improperly limited how far her religion might influence the child.
This was the first time a Colorado court had been asked to decide this issue. A three-judge panel of the appellate court agreed with the former Mrs. McSoud and overturned the provision in the district court's order that restricted her right to take the boy to her church unless she agreed to allow him to participate in Catholic activities during her parenting time. The case was remanded to the district court to resolve other issues.
Many states are wrestling with child custody cases in which one parent insists that their religion take precedence over that of the ex-spouse. This is a very thorny issue and parents can quickly come to an impasse.
But I am concerned whenever a court - or a government body for that matter - starts to intrude on fundamental issues of privacy, and certainly there is no matter more private than a person's religious beliefs and a couple's right to infuse their child with their beliefs.
We need to give some serious thought on where our rights to privacy are going in this nation.
It seems to me that people are fine with invasions of privacy when it comes to issues of national security; at least the polls show that people are not overly concerned with any extralegal means the Bush Administration has used to eavesdrop on potential terrorists. But even some Republican leaders are starting to realize that 'acceptable' invasions of privacy set precedent for other invasions that many people are unwilling to accept.
In that same way, incremental invasions of our privacy in child-rearing decisions may seem acceptable on a case-by-case basis, but they set precedent which in the aggregate may cause some concern.
I'm going to ponder this issue further and post again on this subject.
|
|
|
Divorce course bill green-lighted in Utah
Late last week, a Utah legislative committee narrowly approved a bill that would require couples planning to divorce in the state to enroll in a mandatory divorce orientation course.
The bill's sponsor said the legislation is necessary because of the economic impact of divorce on the state. She hopes that if couples understand those consequences they may not get divorced. According to a 2003 study by Utah State University, there were 9,517 divorces in Utah, which cost the state and federal government about $197 million in child support, food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare.
Well, there's no doubt that these kinds of expenses are incurred by a state - but I am not really sure that a couple are going to consider the impact of their divorce on other taxpayers. They are more likely to be concerned with their own hurt feelings, or whatever trauma has occurred that compels them to split from one another.
Divorce orientation is fairly standard in all states, but one has to be concerned if the legislative intent behind these courses assumes moral reasons. A good divorce orientation course is one that teaches spouses how to treat each other amicably after the divorce, particularly when it comes to issues involving their children. But if the purpose of the course is to encourage the couple not to divorce at all, that ignores the fact that some marriages should not survive - for example, relationships in which a spouse abuses another or the children.
I don't know if there is such a hidden purpose behind the Utah legislation, but it does seem to rely on at least making the divorcing couple feel guilty about the tax burden their divorce would cause.
Generally speaking, I think our politicians should avoid moralizing on the reasons why couples shouldn't divorce and accept the fact that some marriages should (and sometimes must) end.
If they are concerned about how tax dollars are spent as a result of divorce, then perhaps they should invest more money in social programs that are already being starved of funds due to an ideological agenda.
|
|
|
Internet affairs destroy all kinds of marriages - even celebrity ones
It's unfortunate but true - the most common kind of romantic affairs these days take place over the internet. But when a celebrity wife discovers that her celebrity husband is having an internet affair, the husband may just get ambushed on live radio with news that his marriage is over.
That's just what happened between Heather Locklear and her husband Richie Sambora. According to People magazine, the couple had clashed a year ago over their personal assistant, Stephanie Heaton. Ms. Locklear had thought Ms. Heaton had become too close to the couple, particularly when it came to their children, and insisted Ms. Heaton be fired.
The magazine reports that Ms. Locklear had never thought there had been a relationship between Ms. Heaton and her husband - until, that is, she ran across some e-mail correspondence between Ms. Heaton had sent Sambora, in which Ms. Heaton had sent some photos of herself wearing the kind of clothes associated with another profession than personal assistant.
So, on Feb. 2 Sambora, on tour with his band, Bon Jovi, was doing a radio interview in Washington, D.C., when the interviewer told him that news had just come over the wire that Ms. Locklear had filed for divorce in California just 120 minutes earlier. Sambora was floored – he protested that it wasn't true; in fact he planned on being with Ms. Locklear for Valentine's Day.
We feel for Ms. Locklear, but we also are sympathetic to the thousands of other women who each year make a similar discovery about their husbands. Internet affairs are every bit as devastating as other types of affairs. In fact, they may be worse because the proof is in writing - often very explicit writing.
|
|
|
Thursday, February 02, 2006
"Secret divorce" doesn't count - but how about the pre-nup?
You can't get a "secret divorce" in Florida - at least that's what one Florida judge says.
Sally A. Erickson, 61, sued her ex-husband, Renzie Davidson, 62, in
state circuit court in December, alleging he had defrauded her by secretly
getting a divorce. According to her suit, Davidson filed for divorce in 2001, then
told her he had dropped the case and wanted to be her husband forever.Court
records, though, show that Davidson went back to court and had the divorce
finalized Feb. 19, 2003. Erickson never appeared and filed no paperwork in the
case.
The court ruled last week that the couple had, in fact, never been divorced, since Ms. Erickson never knew about it. So the couple is, once again, legaly wed. Which calls into question the couple's very unusual pre-nup: Signed the day they were married, July 3, 2001, it laid down several rules by
which they would live: She would cook breakfast at least four mornings a week;
he would give her neck rubs at least four times a week; if she used the "F
word," she would have to do an hour of yardwork. The couple now live in separate cities - so is the pre-nup still in force?
|
|
|
Ohio no-fault divorce faces challenge
A woman who was divorced from her husband under Ohio's no-fault divorce law is attacking the constitutionality of the statute, saying that it discriminated against her religious beliefs.
The case involves the marriage of Marie "Bai" MacFarlane and
her husband, Bud MacFarlane, Jr. Mr. MacFarlane abandoned his
wife and their four children in 2003 and began no-fault divorce proceedings.
Mrs. MacFarlane is a stay-at-home mother and devout Roman Catholic who
homeschooled her children until 2004. The divorce was granted against her
objections, and he was given permanent custody of the children. The court cited
Mrs. MacFarlane's opinions about the Catholic Church's teachings on the sanctity
of marriage in its decision to grant custody to her husband, and to forbid her
to continue homeschooling the children In many states "no-fault" divorce is under attack by conservative religious groups, who see the procedure as making it easier for couples to cut-and-run from a bad relationship, instead of sticking it out and making it work. The end result of easy divorce, these critics seem to say, is that it trivializes marriage, which is supposed to be a sacred union. The challenge is being mounted by a public-interest law firm that specializes in such appeals.
In this case, Mrs. MacFarlane says the Ohio law disregards her faith, which, by her interpretation, says that marriages are for life - and, if any trouble arises, those differences should be mediated according to principles already set out by the Roman Catholic church. Those procedures include church-sponsored mediation, which was not allowed in this case, although the state does allow similar church mediations in other faiths.
|
|
|
Sheen-Richards divorce is getting testier
People Magazine is reporting that the ongoing divorce proceedings between actor Charlie Sheen and model/actress Denise Richards is getting uglier; in fact, the couple have stopped talking to one another:
After months of trying to reconcile, the couple requested on Jan. 4 that their
divorce proceed with a private arbitrator. A source close to the actress told
the magazine, "It's gotten very ugly."
"They aren't talking to each
other at all."A friend of the actor said, "His only concern is for the kids."
Sources familiar with the couple say the relationship fizzled quickly and noted
that reconcilation is out of the question at this point. The source of the problem, it seems - at least from Ms. Richards' viewpoint - is that Mr. Sheen has not yet issued a public apology for some of his actions. Mr. Sheen did comment on those actions during an appearance on the Dave Letterman show, but Ms. Richards seems to feel those remarks were not an actual apology.
This is a typical situation in many divorce situations; the couple eventually reach a point where they stop talking to one another. This situation is even worse, however, because we are dealing with celebrity couples and their public image is their main asset. That image defines their audience appeal - and, of course, audience appeal is what producers consider when it comes to casting an actor for a particular role. It may be that Sheen's bad-boy image may suffer if he issues an apology; maybe he just thinks it will.
Hopefully, couples who are not celebrities but are still going through a divorce as rancorous as the Sheen-Richards split may learn something from this, especially if children are involved. If Mr. Sheen thinks he is protecting his image by hanging tough, then he isn't doing a very good job teaching his children how to be a man.
|
|
|
