Let’s cast the movie in our minds. Shirley MacLaine could play Rebecca Willis, the dirty dancing granny. No, MacLaine is too old. Meryl Streep?

Rebecca Willis was back in the news last week after being awarded $275,000 in a settlement with the town of Marshall, North Carolina. That comes some seven years after being banned from the town community center for dancing in a "sexually provocative manner — gyrating and simulating sexual intercourse with her partner.”

She was suggestive. She was lewd.

She wore short skirts.

She exposed her panties, or worse!

The townspeople (the population is 831) said their children would be scarred for life. They didn’t just ban Mrs. Willis, they banned her “for life.”

Why? Because Rebecca Willis was a 56 year old divorced woman. And when the townsfolk asked her to tone it down, she just danced some more.

For her, it was a matter of freedom of speech. At least that’s what her lawyer, Jon Sasser, argued, after she found him through the ACLU. So the case was argued, appealed, argued, appealed. Up and down the courts for five years, during which time the dancing divorcee got married again.

Now 64, she gave a little dance of joy after the settlement (out of which she will have to pay her lawyer). She considers it a victory, even though she had to promise not to dance in the town center again. “It just tickles me to death,” she said.

The most recent decision came after her lawyer asked the town to prove she wasn’t being singled out. Jon Sasser told First Wives World that much of the town’s attention seemed focused on the fact that Mrs. Willis was divorced.

“Some witnesses testified that she was fine when she was married, but became wilder after her divorce,” he said. “There was definitely an undertone of jealousy.”

“I’ve been trying to sell this house for two years,” Chris Wealty said. He dropped the price from $850,000 to $599,000; still no interest. The house sits empty, once home to a married couple. They are trying to divorce, but settling the financial terms depends on selling this house in College Park, a neighborhood north of Orlando, Florida.

So he decided to advertise. On a large (and not very attractive) sign in the front yard, he wrote “3,400 sqft Lake View House: $599,000. Helping me get divorced: $ priceless $. 407 592 4964 (Husband)”

As he told the Orlando television station WESH, he and his wife had been married for 17 years, and had been in negotiations for several years over a divorce settlement. The house is in one of the nicer areas, former orange groves surrounded by lakes near the well-known Winter Park. It is not far from the modest bungalow where Jack Kerouac wrote Dharma Bums, a home that is now a writer’s colony.

But a nice four-bedroom, three bath house, a pretty view, a good neighborhood have not been enough. Housing prices in Orlando, which went up 34 percent from 2004 to 2005, have now dropped by 20 percent. One leading real estate expert, Robert Schiller, says Orlando prices will drop another 30 percent this year.

Thus Wealty’s desperation. If he doesn’t sell the house soon, he said, he faces foreclosure. One of his neighbors opined that putting up a sign airing dirty laundry was kind of “white trashy,” so the experiment hasn’t endeared him to the community. But his life, and his wife’s life, have moved on.

When asked what his soon-to-be-ex wife thought of the sign, Wealthy answered: “Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not real sure. We don't talk much these days except through lawyers.”

No kidding.

This story involves an old dog, and one new trick.

On Monday, a court in Naples was supposed to hear a plea for the dissolution of a marriage of 19 years. The husband had been a widower when they met. He hired the woman to pick potatoes on his farm. What could be more romantic?

They married, even though he was 30 years older, and worked together, earning enough money to build a deluxe hotel in Barano d’Ischia, a popular mountain town above Maronti Beach. Barano, population 10,000, is on the island of Ischia, just outside the Bay of Naples. That hotel was so successful they eventually had a small chain of hotels.

For the last week or so, leading up to the court hearing, the case has been the talk of Barano.

Why?

Because the man asking for a divorce is 91 years old. And although the wife, 60, agreed to give him a divorce, she was unhappy about her settlement, saying that she wouldn’t have enough to eat, and that she had been evicted from their home. In explaining why she deserved more of his social security money, as well as the house, she countersued, saying that he had a lover. (“Hai un’amante.”)

That’s when things got nasty. He counter-complained: She was the one who had taken a lover.

The case was due in court on Monday, but the 91 year old sent in a note saying he was sick. So the court adjourned the case until March.

That was certainly not going to stop Italian newspapers, blogs, and television stations from mulling over the meaning of the case. One TV crew went to Barano to get some local reactions. I don’t speak Italian, but it’s worth watching the video just to see the man at the end. His gestures can only mean, “I just hope I can do that when I’m 91.”

A 50 year longitudinal study of 17,000 people in Great Britain, the National Child Development Study, has concluded once again that children of divorce are more likely to struggle academically and have emotional problems, are usually less well educated, and are more likely to divorce themselves.

But as Tolstoy said, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” And unhappy families, whether they divorce or not, have unhappy children.

Consider what life was like in one Italian family that is now facing divorce.

The mother and father face five years in prison for completely refusing to consider the effects of their incessant arguing on their 12 year old son as they pursued a divorce. Italian privacy laws have withheld the names of the parents, but not their behavior. Prosecutors in Milan have asked the judge, Cesare Tacconi, to charge the mother and father with mistreating a minor.

The child, prosecutors say, had a "syndrome of anxiety and depression" that prevented him from concentrating in school. When a court-appointed health worker visited the home, the report said the son seemed “disturbed,” had fallen behind in school, and believed, with some evidence, that his parents hated each other.

The prosecutors said, "Each blamed the other for shortcoming and educational errors in bringing up the child."

The parents, the report said, used the child as a psychological punching bag in their battle. It is the first such charge in a European court. Judge Tacconi will decide in December whether or not the case should go to trial.

No word on whether mom and dad have managed to get a divorce yet.

The British comic John Cleese has felt, three times, that it was time for something completely different in his personal life. He is divorcing wife No. 3, the psychotherapist Alyce Faye Eichelberger Cleese, after 15 years of marriage. In a recent interview with The Times of London, he had some bitter things to say about divorce, and some funny things to say about marriage.

This marriage was his longest. His marriage to Connie Booth lasted from 1968 to 1978, and the one to Barbara Trentham lasted from 1981 to 1990; both included a daughter.

That is Gripe No. 1 in this divorce. “I'm paying more than £1 million a year right now,” he told the newspaper. That’s $1.6 million at today’s exchange rate. He said, “And we never had children.”

He has also given her $10 million in marital property, which is presumed to include their $1.5 million apartment in New York. But he would hardly be left homeless. Cleese has four homes in California, three in London and a villa in Jamaica.

He has said that if the weather in California could be dragged to London, he would never leave London. But, alas, London is dreary so he spends much of his time in California, or Jamaica.

Gripe No. 2: He is 68, and he’s going to have to keep working to pay spousal support. But keep in mind, work for him is doing voice-overs for animated films, playing Chief Inspector Dreyfus in "Pink Panther 2", due out next year, and doing other films; making various television shows, and appearing in comic but inspirational business training videos.

The population of Costa Rica is 76 percent Catholic, and it has showed in its laws, which forced couples to stay married for three years before they could get a divorce. (Chris Kattan would have been sunk.) The country almost reached Sharia levels when it allowed men to remarry right after divorce, but forced women to wait 300 days, or have a pregnancy test.

Costa Rican law protects life “from the moment of conception,” and interprets this so strictly it will not even allow the “morning after” pill to be advertised there, since it prevents implantation in the womb.

A pregnant woman, it seemed, had to wait 10 months after divorce to make sure that one man’s children wasn’t going to be raised as another’s. Thus the ban for women on remarriage within 300 days of divorce.

All that changed earlier this year, when the 300-day waiting period for women was eliminated by the Sala Constitucional (Constitutional Court), making women and men equal.

Earlier this month the Constitutional Court ruled unanimously that the requirement to wait three years after marriage before filing for divorce “violated the rights of an individual” and “deprived a person of his or her liberty to rebuild their lives.”

From now on, a couple in Costa Rica can marry one day, realize their mistake, and divorce the next. It won’t be easy, of course. It’s never easy.

But it will be easier than miserably staying married while living apart.

Back in 1979, mothers almost always got custody; joint custody was so rare it was almost unheard of. But one Minneapolis husband and wife pushed the courts (it helped that the husband was a lawyer) to consider their wishes to share parenting. In an interview with the father and daughter 30 years later (the mother died of cancer in 1994) Minnesota Public Radio revealed how beneficial joint custody can be.

John Bujan and his wife, Nancy Stein, decided when their daughter was 4 that their marriage wasn’t working. Molly Brom, that daughter, now 36, remembers riding in the car with her parents when they told her they were separating.

Her first question: Would her father still come to her birthday party? He did.

They separated for a year, during which time Molly went to kindergarten and spent three nights a week at her father’s home and four nights at her mother’s. The parents felt the situation was working beautifully, and said that to the referee when they filed for divorce.

The referee, on the other hand, discouraged them. “Why do you want joint custody?,” he said. “These things just don't work out.”

In the 1970s, with the divorce rate hitting an all-time high, the conventional wisdom was that children of divorce would end up delinquents, or misfits who would never make a lasting connection to another person. But Molly’s parents fought for and won joint custody.

It was so revolutionary then that The Minneapolis Tribune ran a story about the family in 1979 with the headline “After Marriage Break-up, Children Can Still Live with Two Parents.” It seemed almost an answer to the bitter divorce portrayed in that year’s Kramer V. Kramer.

Few women at the age of 47 are up for posing in the December issue of Playboy. But then Carol Alt was not only the Face, but the Body, a star on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue back in 1982. And since she’s a raw food fan, she still looks great.

But life has not always been kind to Carol Alt. She married the hockey player Ron Greschner in 1983, right after the Sports Illustrated cover. But, she now says, in court papers filed in September, that she “could not conceive” because she had cervical and uterine cancer, and “because Greschner strongly desired children.”

The divorce was amicable, he remarried, and as Grechner notes in court documents: "I have since remarried and have five children.”

They legally separated in 1997, but lived together for two more years. It was all, court papers say, “very amicable.” And the divorce was final in 2001.

So why are Alt and Gretchner filing court papers today? She says she has questions about a business deal from 1997 that should have paid her $980,000 plus interest.

Gretchner says his entire profit on the deal was $800,000 and the separation agreement clearly awards that money to him. Gretchner says, “I believe that she continues to harbor resentment towards me and the desire to have information about me."

In a 1997 divorce in New York, Linda Graev was awarded a $2.5 million settlement, with her husband, Lawrence, paying her maintenance of $120,000 a year. The payments would continue for 12 years — as long as she did not remarry, or cohabit with someone for “60 substantially consecutive days.”

That larger number ($120,000 a year) should have made it easy to keep the smaller number (60 days) firmly in mind. But her husband, Lawrence Graev, a lawyer and, since 2000, the head of a private equity fund, claimed that in 2004 she and a boyfriend lived together for more than 60 days.

He argued that he, therefore, should no longer have to pay her maintenance.

The New York State Supreme Court cited New York case law, or precedent, saying that cohabiting involves not just living with someone but “sharing finances,” thus melding a couple’s lives together. The court decided, therefore, that Linda Graev did not cohabit.

Her husband appealed.

Earlier this week the New York Court of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that the term “cohabiting” means many “physical, emotional, and material factors ... depending on the parties' intent.” Because the term was “ambiguous,” they said, the case should go back to state supreme court to determine what the couple’s divorce agreement meant by “cohabitation.”

The dissenting opinion was even tougher for the wife. The three dissenting judges said that she and her partner, who lived nearby, may have not commingled their finances, but they had “spent virtually every day and night together for over 60 days from June through August 2004” in her summer home. The dissenting judges held that her husband, therefore, should stop paying spousal support.

Guys, won’t you learn from experience? Tim Mahoney won his US Congressional seat after Mark Foley, the previous representative from the district in Florida, resigned. Why? The bachelor Foley had sent sexually explicit emails to congressional pages, teenage boys. Sex scandal!

Now Mahoney, 52, who came to office two years ago with the campaign slogan “Restoring America’s values begins at home,” has admitted to sexual affairs (plural), and a payoff to a former mistress.

Mahoney, who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, is, unlike Foley, married. And, although his wife, Terry, stood by him a week ago as he admitted that he had created “pain” in his marriage, she now, no surprise, wants a divorce.

Mahoney admitted paying a campaign worker and former mistress, Patricia Allen, and her lawyer $121,903 to prevent a lawsuit over sexual harassment. A second relationship was also charged: Mahoney had an affair with a Florida woman who came to Washington to get FEMA aid for a 2004 hurricane. She got a $3.4 million federal grant.

Since Tim and Terry Mahoney have been married for 22 years, and he was a wealthy venture capitalist and computer marketer before he was a Congressman, and they have a daughter, Bailey, in college, and he has already admitted to adultery, and she campaigned hard for him when he sought election, Terry would presumably get a generous settlement.

For one thing, her court papers say, obviously referring to the $121,903 payoff, Tim Mahoney “recently sold jointly owned real property,” put the proceeds into his own account, and “dissipated funds from said account.”

Those were marital assets. Her divorce petition says that she is “in need of temporary, lump sum, rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony, which the husband is well able to provide for.”

Rep. Mahoney lists his net worth as between $3 million and $12.7 million.