Sinead O'Conner files for divorce after 18 days of marriage

Sinead O'Connor Splits With Husband Barry Herridge After 18 Days Of Marriage!Sinead O'Connor Splits With Husband Barry Herridge After 18 Days Of Marriage!

Suddenly, Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage doesn’t seem so bad.  After just 18 days of marriage to husband Barry Herridge, Sinead O'Connor says she’s calling it quits.  The singer, 45, married Herridge December 8 in Las Vegas; she detailed her reasons for the jaw-dropping breakup in a long post on her website Monday.  

"Dear friends, I had for reasons u will all understand, wished to keep this private but have been told today it is to be leaked in the next few days despite my best efforts,” she wrote. “So I must now leak it myself so as the record is straight."

The Nothing Compares 2 U singer, who has four kids, went on to say that "certain people in [Herridge's] life" down-talked the marriage to the groom just three hours after the ceremony was over.   "And also by a bit of a wild ride i took us on looking for a bit of a smoke of weed for me wedding night as I don't drink," she wrote. "My husband was enormously wounded and very badly effected by that experience and also by the attitude of those close to him toward our marriage.

“I truly believe though it is painful to admit, we made a mistake rushing into getting married, for altruistic reasons, and weren't aware or prepared for the consequences on my husband's life and the lives of those close to him.

She continued, "He has been terribly unhappy and I have therefore ended the marriage.”

O'Connor was past married to music producer John Reynolds in 1989, journalist Nicholas Sommerlad in 2001 and musician Steve Cooney in 2010.

  http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/12/sinead-oconnor-split-divorce-barry-herridge

*          *          *

My opinion is that if you get married in Las Vegas on a whim, after three divorces, you need counseling.  It makes you wonder is she is looking for headlines, or a meaningful marriage.

Can the judge order private schools for children in a divorce?

             In the 2010 case of Gelman v. Gelman, 24 So.3d 1281, the Court ruled the Father can't be ordered to pay private insurance without proof he has the ability to pay. 

The trial court directed the Former Husband to pay the minor children's private school tuition. The District Court reversed:

1. "A court may order a non-custodial parent to pay for private educational expenses if it finds that the parent has the ability to pay for private school and the expenses are in accordance with the family's customary standard of living and are in the child's best interest."

2. "Former Husband contends that the trial court improperly ordered him to pay the children's private school tuition because Former Wife did not plead for the award and the trial court failed to make requisite findings of fact…."

3. "Former Wife's counter-petition did not contain a request for payment of private school tuition. Moreover, there is no record evidence establishing that Former Husband agreed to pay the tuition. Finally, the court did not make the requisite findings as to whether Former Husband has the ability to pay the tuition, and whether the private school expenses are in accordance with the family's customary standard of living and are in the children's best interest."  

This case shows that if your pleadings are not filed correctly, you could lose your award on appeal.  It is very important under Florida divorce law to plead very specific items in a divorce.  If you are considering a divorce in Ft. Myers, Florida, call my office for a free consultation.

Can a judge order a person to get life insurance to protect alimony?

In 2010, the Court found in Child v. Child, 34 So.3d 159 that the Husband can't be required to get life insurance to secure alimony without evidence as to the cost, amount and availability.  The Husband was a self-employed marine electronic technician with a reported gross monthly income of $1,759. Although the Husband was unable to testify as to the number of hours he worked per week, he admitted that if he worked 2 hours per day, 5 days per week, he could make $850 per week. The evidence showed that during the pendency of the divorce, the Husband paid the mortgage and expenses for the wife and children; he also paid credit card bills and children's expenses.

            As to the requirement that the Husband obtain life insurance to secure the alimony and child support awards, the District Court held:

          1. "It is within the trial court's authority to order the husband to provide term life insurance to protect the child support and alimony payments. In determining whether to secure support awards, the trial court should consider the need for such insurance, the costs and availability of such insurance, and the financial impact upon the obligor."

2. "Absent special circumstances, however, the trial court may not impose such requirement…. Such special circumstances include a spouse potentially left in dire financial straits after the death of the obligor spouse due to ill health and/or lack of employment skills, minors living at home, and supported spouse with limited earning capacity."

3. "Here, the record clearly indicates the requisite circumstances to support imposition of this requirement, including minor children residing in the home, the wife's disability, her diminished earning capacity, and her dependence on the husband for financial support."

4. "We agree, however, that this requirement may not stand absent evidence or findings as to the cost, amount, or availability of such insurance." 

If you are considering a divorce in Ft. Myers, Florida, call my office for a free consultation.

Can you get your alimony reduced if your ex-wife is living with a man?

In the 2010 case of Overton v. Overton, 34 So.3d 759 the court found that even though the ex-wife had a man living with her, it was not a "supportive relationship" and alimony should not be reduced.

The Court stated:  "A supportive relationship is a relationship that 'takes the financial place of a marriage and necessarily decreases the need of the obligee.' Section 61.14(1)(b) recognizes the economic support that occurs when independent individuals choose to live together. Such support is equivalent to a marriage and requires a reduction in alimony.

Financial support alone, however, does not define a supportive relationship.  In the instant case, the trial court did not make any findings regarding the factors outlined in section 61.14(1)(b). Although the wife admitted that she lived with someone when her children were not visiting her that they drove to work together almost daily, and that they planned to marry in the future, she also testified that he did not provide her with any financial support. They did not hold themselves out as being married and had no joint assets. The parties expressed no intent to pool their assets in the future. The parties did not own or intend to purchase any property jointly and did not have any joint bank accounts. Additionally, they had separate residences.  Here, the evidence suggests that, although the wife is in a relationship which may, in time, rise to the level of a supportive relationship contemplated in 61.14, it fails to reach that point yet. Her relationship does not appear to be a 'de facto' marriage." 

            If you are considering a modification of alimony in Ft. Myers, Florida, call my office for a free consultation.

Downward Modification of Alimony

In the 2010 case of Wilson v. Wilson, 37 So.3d 877, The Second District Court of Appeal reduced the Wife's alimony because the Husband's income decreased.  

The Final Judgment awarded $11,000/month in alimony to the Wife. After a series of employees quit, the Husband was left to man his business alone and shortly thereafter, the Husband sold the practice to Veterinary Clinics of America. The trial court found that the Husband's decision to sell was prudent and necessary and that the Wife's need was not as high as originally calculated. As such, the trial court granted the requested downward modification and the District Court affirmed:

1. "Generally, to justify an alimony modification, the moving party must establish: (1) a substantial change in circumstances; (2) the change was not contemplated at the time of the final judgment of dissolution; and (3) the change is sufficient, material, permanent, and involuntary."

2. "The record supports the trial court's conclusion that business exigencies prompted the sale, the consideration received was reasonable, the sale enabled the Former Husband to continue working as a veterinarian until retirement age, and the sale proceeds ensured long-term security for both the Former Wife and the Former Husband."

3. "Although the Former Husband did not retire, we observe that involuntariness of income loss may no longer be a bright-line requirement for alimony modification . . . . Here, the trial court's finding that the Former Husband's decision to sell his practice was "prudent" satisfies the "reasonable" standard of Pimm and Rahn concerning that voluntary loss of income."

            4. "The trial court did not err in finding a number of the items [contained in the wife's financial affidavit] unnecessary and concluding that the former Wife did not need alimony of $11,000 per month."

Is the Seven Year Itch real?

Is the Seven Year Itch real? 

According to a study, "Median duration of 1st marriages that end in divorce: Males: 7.8 years Females: 7.9 years & Median duration of 2nd marriages that end in divorce: Males: 7.3 years Females: 6.8 years."  http://www.terryreal.com/press/pdfs/marriage_divorce_in_america-FS.pdf

*     *     *

My opinion of this study is that statistics don't lie.  The study shows that the Seven Year Itch is real in both first and second marriages.  I am not a social commentator, so I will not offer any reasons I think this happens.  However, I am a divorce attorney and I think spouses should be aware of these statistics and protect themselves.

Is your spouse making large cash withdrawals from your joint checking account?  Is your spouse taking vacations with their friends rather than you?  Is your spouse pressuring you to co-mingle pre-marital property to buy a bigger house or invest in something in joint names?

I have seen many circumstances in my 22 years of practicing law where one spouse is encouraged to co-mingle property and then the other spouse files for divorce within the year.  If you are uncertain of any financial investment, talk to your accountant or financial advisor for independent advice on the wisdom of any investment.  If you are suspicious of any investment your spouse is insisting you make, you should seek legal advice.  You don't want to be a statistic in the history of the seven year itch.  If you are considering a divorce in Ft. Myers, Florida, call my office for a free consultation.

95 percent of all divorced people eventually remarry

According to a study, “95 percent of all divorced people eventually remarry . . . 76 percent of second marriages fail within five years . . . .87 per cent of third marriages fail and 93 per cent of fourth marriages end in divorce within five years."  http://www.allaboutfamilies.org/00aaf14.html 

*          *          *

My opinion of this study is that people aspire to have a loving marriage that lasts forever, but the day-to-day grind of working, raising kids and dealing with financial challenges causes stress that leads many to divorce.  I don't pretend to know all of the reasons for a divorce, or the reasons some married couples stay happily together.  However, based on these statistics, I think people should be very prudent of their financial affairs when they re-marry.

If pre-marital property is co-mingled with a spouse, it become marital property that is divided between the parties in the event of a divorce.  This is true, regardless of the length of a marriage.  The most common situation where this arises is when one spouse has a home before the marriage and adds the spouse to the deed when they marry.  There are many valid reasons for a newly married couple to do this, however, it is risky for this transaction.

Another situation arises when one spouse inherits money from relatives.  If this inheritance is co-mingled in joint bank accounts or stock accounts, then it becomes marital.  In the event of a divorce, this property will be evenly divided, regardless of the length of time between the co-mingling and the divorce.