Personal finance expert Suze Orman recently wrote a piece for women in the middle of a divorce, outlining some of the critical steps for women in this part of their lives.

One of the hardest decisions of life is the one to end your marriage. Both spouses are in the same situation the settlement process isn't easy for either party — except women generally face a more difficult economic challenge. Women must be extra careful in protecting themselves, especially when they have left money management to their husband.

Here's a mini check list for women to consider in making an appropriate settlement:

1. Gather recent financial statements of banking, CD's, investments, credit cards and loans.

2. Check into your spouse's retirement benefits, 401K and IRA accounts and bonuses.

3. Credit card debts should be paid off prior to the divorce. If not possible, the agreement should indicate who will be responsible for which debt. Both spouses are liable for joint and individual debt.

4. Get an appraisal of the family home. Determine the equity amount and whether either party will remain in the home. Should it be sold? If one party is to stay in the home, insist that they refinance the mortgage to remove the name of the other so both parties are not liable.

5. Create a projected budget, anticipating income and expenses as a guide to post-divorce money needs. Can you get a job or will you need some retraining? This will help determine a request for spousal support for a limited time.

6. Can you afford the upkeep of the family home considering your potential income?

7. Determine the value of personal property, investments, and automobiles for decisions about their division.

read more »

"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce," says, Joyce Kauffman, a lawyer who handles same-sex divorce in Massachusetts. She has made some incisive observations about what gay and lesbian married couples go through to achieve a divorce. When these couples split up, they run into barriers of institutional discrimination not experienced by heterosexual couples or in any other area of the law.

Yesterday, we talked about custody issues. Child support in a lesbian divorce action becomes a problem in situations where the former wife has not adopted the children of the biological mother. Without a legal or biological connection, the custodial parent was unable to collect child support. Kauffman strongly advises each party to adopt each other's children so gay couples would be in a similar legal position as straight couples in seeking child support.

Alimony is another area where same-sex couples are treated differently. In Massachusetts, there is equality in marriage for all, but those laws are not applicable in other states, nor at the federal level. Under IRS rules, alimony paid by a heterosexual to an ex-spouse is tax deductible, but the same rules do not apply to same-sex couples, even though they were legally married.

To me, this is unfair and discriminatory. Why should the federal government, the tax office no less, determine that gay alimony is different from straight alimony? This amounts to government sanctioned discrimination rationalized on the basis that their marriages are not recognized by the feds. As divorce attorney David Epperly put it, "federal law looks at gay divorcées as strangers."

read more »

In November, I wrote about a divorceés appeal to prevent her ex-husband's bankruptcy trustee from seizing her share of their marital home. Wendy Haines won her appeal to the British Appeals Court, which ruled that she wouldn't have to give up her share of the proceeds from the sale of the family home.

After their divorce, David Haines petitioned for bankruptcy. The trustee claimed that the transfer of the sale proceeds of the marital home defrauded David's creditors and was void. I'd written that I thought the High Court judge was wrong in awarding the trustee Wendy's share. If this decision was allowed to stand, it would place all property settlements in jeopardy where an ex-spouse files for bankruptcy.

Wendy does not have to help payoff her ex-husband's creditors by relinquishing part of her divorce settlement. The Court of Appeals reversal of the High Court's decision assures that divorce court settlement agreements could not be undone because one spouse becomes bankrupt. I rooted for Wendy, who now can enjoy a "clean-break divorce."

Vindictive spouses, by deliberately creating huge debts, can defeat a divorce property settlement agreement. In this case, with a 10-year-old child, Wendy needed a financial settlement after divorce which could not later be nullified by a bankruptcy trustee. Divorce actions need some closure and predictability.

The trustee is appealing to the House of Lords, the British court of last resort. I hope the Lords refuse to accept the case, or if they do, will affirm the Appeals Court holding.

Click here for more.

I just read the Washington State Supreme Court holding that indigent persons have no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney in divorce and custody cases. I am outraged at a legal system which victimizes poor people.

After 10 years of marriage, Michael King sued Brenda for divorce and also sought custody of their three children. Brenda had no funds to pay for attorney representation at the trial despite applying to legal aid societies which could not find a pro bono attorney.

Brenda, a ninth-grade drop out, attempted to act as her own attorney but had difficulty presenting her version of disputed facts. She found herself enmeshed in a legal maze which she didn't comprehend and was not equipped to challenge Michael's seasoned attorney.

The outcome was inevitable. The family court awarded primary custody to Michael who could make all decisions regarding the children. I was even more offended by the judge granting Brenda non-supervised visitation on alternating weekends, four weeks each summer and school spring break in odd-numbered years.

After an outpouring of criticism, pro bono attorneys appeared and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, asking for a new trial, claiming denial of due process of law. Unfortunately in the U.S. there is no constitutional right to a state-appointed attorney for indigents in non-criminal cases.

I'm trying to understand why the father was granted primary custody since there was no evidence that Brenda was an unfit mother. There was evidence that Michael's employer ordered him to take anger management classes because of threats he had made.

read more »

I wonder why multimillion dollar men often refuse to pay their former spouses maintenance and child support ordered following a divorce. Some guys become so vindictive that they are determined to make the life of their ex hell, just because they can afford to do so.

I read in The Guardian that for over eight years, Iqbal Mubarik, owner of a world- wide jewelry enterprise, has been able to thwart numerous court orders for a lump sum payment nearly £5 million (around $10 million) to his former wife. Mubarik's wealth is tied up in trusts, making it difficult to enforce the court orders.

It's puzzling to me that the British family court is unable to enforce their divorce orders. Instead of bringing finality, they are peppered by continuous court filings and appeals. Mubarik has spent £2 million (around $4.5 million) attempting to avoid paying his former wife.

Because of the legal complications, the British government is paying over £30,000 ($65,000) in legal aid to protect his two minor children's interest in the family trust. It's ludicrous that public money is used to protect children of millionaires. The wife, to date, has collected only £266,000 (about $450,000) due to the forced sale of some of the ex's property. He's also in arrears in paying £14,000 a month (around $30,000) for maintenance and legal fees.

The judges have taken notice of this protracted case and the attendant costs. They noted that Mubarik, with world-wide interests, is able to escape paying British taxes. I can't believe the court does not have the requisite tools to bring this charade to an end. This case is making a mockery of the British family justice system. This is a form of legal aid for the rich.

I think that U.S. courts would take more decisive action. What do you think?

Click here for more.

I could hardly believe the recent ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court that a divorced man must continue to pay his ex spousal support, even though he's now disabled. Upon further exploration, I found the reasoning for this extraordinary decision. Arizona law disallows changes to court approved divorce decrees "which say changes can't be made later."

Why would anybody freely agree to a clause which precludes any changes in alimony? Did he not have an attorney to protect his interests? Should he not have thought about what would happen if his income was diminished or if he became incapacitated so that he couldn't work? We don't know the payment amount nor the duration of the alimony payments.

Even lower Arizona courts were ambivalent about the issue. The trial judge refused to end the spousal support, but the Court of Appeals said changes could be made because of extraordinary circumstances. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court which proclaimed, "no changes means no changes." I was unsuccessful in checking the background of the parties and wonder how the court could enforce payment if he had little income.

Most states allow modification for either child or spousal support orders if there are financial changes of either party. Arizona would normally allow modification unless there is a specific prohibition on modification in the divorce decree order.

I would like to know more about the background and condition of this disabled man. I will continue to search. Please standby.

Click here for more.

In October, I wrote about divorce mediation as an alternative to court determination . Mediation requires a face to face meeting with a professional mediator, usually a lawyer.

Resolution Online, in Australia, provides divorce mediation via the internet, avoiding a face to face meeting of the parties. This procedure allows separating spouses to sit at their computer and participate in a private chat room moderated by an accredited family dispute resolution practitioner.

This resolution system feeds into new Australian family law which requires separating parents to attend a dispute resolution meeting with a registered mediator before they can have a court hearing. This internet process is touted as a viable substitute for those who want to avoid an in-person transaction.

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Separating spouses with children need direct contact over visitation, vacation, and education issues. Speaking in a chat room will not be as satisfactory as direct communication. Australia may be different since the only ground for divorce is "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage shown by a separation of 12 months with no prospect of reconciliation."

The computer model may work well if it avoids rancor and a shouting match, and it may be faster and more economical in time and costs. Participants will set out the issues each wants to resolve and the practitioner will lead them through each issue until an agreement is reached. The agreement is written to be presented to the court. Legal advice is not given and an attorney should be consulted for legal information and advice.

read more »

I was shocked to read about a recent divorce situation in Ireland. There is no finality to a divorce in Ireland, where courts may re-open and re-negotiate divorce financial settlements if the assets of the bread winner increases after the divorce.

In this case, the wife was ordered to pay a lump sum of over ₤2 million — around $4 million — to her ex-husband, despite their full and final settlement of divorce six years ago. The court said the husband was not properly provided for since her business assets skyrocketed to more than ₤15 million, or $30 million.

Final settlement agreements have no effect when one of the parties acquires wealth, even years after the settlement or divorce. In an earlier case this year, a husband who divorced in 2000 must pay his former wife an additional ₤2 million, representing monetary gains from the recent sale of his business. "Ex-partners have an obligation to support their spouses for life," said the judge.

Irish divorce laws differ from those in Britain and the US. Divorce only became legal after a 1995 referendum amending their Constitution which recognizes the "family as the basis of social order, possessing rights and guarantees of protection by the state." Former family bread winners can expect court orders increasing maintenance or the division of property.

I find a problem that these agreements are never final. This is an unjust imposition on the former breadwinner who cannot move on or establish a new family. US courts do allow for modification of support orders based on job loss, health problems, or increased income of the support recipient. I do not feel comfortable ordering the supporting spouse to pay additional monies due to increased value of their business, years after a final separation or divorce agreement.

read more »

After 31 years of marriage, the wife of the pastor of the Grace Christian Church in Brooklyn filed for divorce. She's seeking church property to be included in her divorce settlement. This is a first in New York state.

The pastor used $50,000 of the couple's money to start the church, and then co-mingled their personal finances with those of the church. All of the funds, including tithes, were under the exclusive control of the pastor who paid himself whatever amount he desired. It is alleged that he paid a mistress $750 per week or month from church funds. He also operated a catering and banquet hall business inside the building itself.

The judge has agreed to hear arguments as to whether the church should be considered a marital asset and ordered an appraisal of the property.

I don't think she can take church property even if she can trace the use of the $50,000. She implicitly agreed that the money, which was a charitable contribution, should be used in the creation of the church. If the pastor's name is on the deed, then the wife might have some claim. We would think that the church is a charitable organization under IRS rules and any tithes to the church belong to the non-profit corporation.

Profits from the catering business belong to the church and the pastor's wife has no legal right to the proceeds. The wife's attorney is pursuing a unique theory that the pastor invested in the church just like any other business. I don't agree.

The judge is holding a hearing to see if any of the church's assets belong to the pastor, making them eligible for inclusion in the divorce settlement. Just because the pastor controls its income and expenditures, that doesn't necessarily mean church assets are personal property. The wife won't succeed in this one, but the case isn't over. Stay tuned.

Click here for more.

Wendy Haines, a British divorcee, was awarded the marital home in her February 2006 divorce. Unfortunately her ex-husband David filed for bankruptcy and in December, the trustee made claim to 50 percent of the interest in the house. It looks like Wendy is going to lose half of the house already awarded to her by the court.

The challenge was based on the presumption that David fraudulently disposed of assets in order to defeat his creditors. Although this was likely not the case, the Appeals court ordered Wendy to turn over half of the funds from the sale of the house, which was sold to pay for the current litigation.

The trial court, in awarding Wendy the house, noted that the Haines family had an extravagant life style in buying the home, farm, horses, cars and living beyond their means. Wendy has appealed to the High Court of Appeals.

If this decision is allowed to stand, bankruptcy trustees will have a field day overturning final divorce decisions in which the debtor's property has been transferred to the former spouse within a potential timeframe of up to five years.

This common law is also followed in the US. Trustees can set aside property settlement orders of divorce courts where a spouse has incurred substantial debt. Often, disgruntled exes will go off on spending sprees to deliberately defeat the division of matrimonial property. In the US, property transfers made within one year of the bankruptcy filing can be recovered by trustees. Any property transferred for less than assumed fair value may be challenged for up to six years.

read more »