HOUSTON—With the national divorce rate estimated at about 50 percent, it’s likely that every American will, either directly or indirectly, experience the dissolution of a marriage at some point in their lives. Dealing with divorce is a difficult process, both emotionally and financially, and decisions made during the process can have long-term effects on many areas of your life. For this reason, selecting the right lawyer may be the most important decision that you make.
Choosing a lawyer to represent you in your divorce is an intricate process. It means establishing a close and sensitive relationship with someone that will continue for months and perhaps even years. It is important to find and hire someone whose philosophy of the proceedings aligns with yours, and as such, you must be prepared to ask questions that reflect your specific concerns.
The first step in selecting a divorce lawyer is to gather names of potential counsel in your area:
From other professionals: Lawyers, accountants, members of the clergy and other professionals meet and work with divorce lawyers in the course of their work and are often good sources of referrals. Ask them for the names of family law specialists with good credentials and reputations and whose qualifications are most appropriate to your case.
From organizations: Your state bar may be able to provide a recommendation for certified family law specialists in your area. To be certified in the field of family law usually requires a certain proven level of experience, study and interest, and specialists must pass an examination in this area of the law.
From your employer: The Employee Assistance (EAP) program provided by your employer may be able to provide confidential referrals to attorneys, and often affords a discount on the services performed. Your employer may also offer access to sponsored legal services, either by subsidizing all or a portion of your legal fees if you use specified legal providers, or by providing the opportunity to join a legal services program in which you pay a set premium in order to receive a certain level of legal services throughout the year.
From friends or relatives: You may know someone personally who has gone through a divorce. They can be a good source of information about lawyers, with two qualifications: First, every client and every case is different, so it is difficult to evaluate the performance of a lawyer in someone else’s case. And second, the lawyer-client relationship is highly personal. So while the impressions of a former client about a lawyer are useful, you should meet the lawyer and make your own judgment.
The second step in the selection process is to interview potential candidates. Most lawyers will offer an initial consultation, and you should use this opportunity to outline your case and ask relevant questions. Listen carefully to the answers given and write them down. This will help you compare your options and determine which lawyer will best be able to represent you.
Some questions you may wish to ask include the following:
How long have you been a lawyer?
What is your primary area of practice?
Do you practice in any other areas?
What percentage of your caseload is dedicated to divorce?
Have you handled cases in the past with issues similar to mine?
What kind of approach do you think is appropriate (aggressive, cooperative, etc.) and why?
What obstacles or issues are likely in a case like mine?
What are my options for resolving these issues?
How long will it take to settle my case?
What costs can I expect?
What are your rates and how often will I be billed?
What other legal fees might I incur?
How will you keep me informed on the progress in my case?
Who else in the office will be assigned to my case and what is their rate?
Are there any steps I can take to reduce my legal fees?
After you have chosen an attorney, it is important to establish ground rules and make sure that you are both on the same page. Take time to discuss your specific objectives and highlight the issues that are important to you. Together you may then outline a plan to resolve those issues.
You should also discuss avenues of communication and determine how best to stay in touch. A common complaint about lawyers is that they are often unavailable and fail to return calls in a timely manner. Perhaps your attorney will suggest contacting his secretary or legal assistant to schedule a telephone conference at a time that is convenient for you both. By setting an appointment, you will be assured of reaching your lawyer at a designated time.
Lastly, be honest with your attorney. Do not withhold pertinent information, even if it seems embarrassing. Your lawyer cannot properly represent you with only a portion of the facts. Nothing has the potential to harm your case more than being surprised at trial by unexpected revelations.
Divorce is an extremely difficult process, and while you may not want the added stress of choosing the right lawyer, in the end it could be the most important decision you make. Above all, you need to find an attorney with experience, for they will not only be able to handle the intricacies of the divorce proceedings, but will also be able to explain the law as it pertains to your case and help you explore your options. At Sullo & Sullo, LLP, we understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. If you or someone you know is dealing with the dissolution of a marriage, and would like a consultation, contact the experienced professionals at Sullo & Sullo, LLP at 713-839-9026.
Product Defects, Accident and Injury law, Criminal Defense, Traffic Tickets, Family Law at Sullo & Sullo, LLP!
The Legal Battle Over Gay Marriage In California
HOUSTON—The majority of U.S. states have Defense of Marriage Acts, which define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But across America, gay rights activists are challenging state bans on same-sex marriage, arguing that such laws violate equal-protection guarantees in state constitutions. These arguments first proved persuasive in Massachusetts in 2003, and they have since had success in other state courts.
The battle over gay marriage has been raging in California since the beginning of 2000, when the state first started registering domestic partners and affording same-sex couples the benefits of hospital visitation and health insurance coverage for the dependents of government employees covered by CalPERS, the state’s retirement system. While groundbreaking, the law was not nearly enough to satisfy gay rights activists hoping to win the right to marry. Here is timeline from 2000 to present on the fight for same sex marriage in California:
March 7, 2000: More than 61% of Californians vote "yes" to Proposition 22, a ballot measure declaring that marriage should remain reserved for couples of the opposite sex.
October 14, 2001: Gov. Gray Davis signs a bill that expands the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner, use of sick leave to care for an ill or incapacitated partner, and to relocate with a partner without losing unemployment benefits, among others.
September 19, 2003: Gov. Davis signs a bill that gives state-registered domestic partners many of the legal rights and obligations of married couples in matters involving children, money and property. While the law does not go so far as to recognize gay marriage, it does give a partner the right to financial support and child custody following the dissolution of a partnership, and a survivor the right to collect his or her partner’s government benefits in the event of death.
February 12, 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructs city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first action of its kind in the nation. Dozens of couples are married, as city offices stay open late to accommodate long lines.
March 3, 2004: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council pass resolutions opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
March 11, 2004: The California Supreme Court unanimously orders San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and says it will rule on the legality of the city’s actions within the next few months.
August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules unanimously that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. By a 5 to 2 vote, the court also declares the roughly 4,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples that had been sanctioned by the city "void from their inception and a legal nullity."
December 21, 2004: A San Francisco judge hears arguments on same-sex marriages. At the heart of the consolidated lawsuits, brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay and lesbian couples, is the contention that current law defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" violates the state Constitution by denying homosexuals the "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choosing.
June 29, 2005: The California Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to the state's domestic partners benefits law. Critics of the law thought such benefits would be prohibited by Proposition 22.
August 22, 2005: The California Supreme Court rules that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents; the first such ruling in the nation.
September 29, 2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill after it passes the Senate and Assembly. Schwarzenegger says the bill would wrongly reverse Proposition 22, which declares that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
June 5, 2007: A measure to legalize marriage for gay couples easily passes the California Assembly after a respectful debate. As he did in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected to veto the measure.
September 19, 2007:San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reverses his public opposition to same-sex marriage. In an emotional statement, Sanders says he realizes that he cannot tell his daughter Lisa, who is gay, that her relationship with a partner is not as important as that of a straight couple.
October 12, 2007: Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes a bill approved by state lawmakers that would legalize gay marriage. He says the courts need to rule on the legality of Proposition 22, the gay marriage ban passed by voters.
March 4, 2008: The California Supreme Court considers four lawsuits brought by same-sex couples after San Francisco issued marriage licenses in 2004. Three of the court's seven justices indicate they will uphold state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ruling expected within 90 days.
May 15, 2008: The California Supreme Court rules that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argue that it is up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should marry.
June 2, 2008: More than one million signatures are submitted for a ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" and undo the California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.
June 16, 2008: County registrars and clerks in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Sonoma and Yolo counties keep offices open to allow at least two dozen same-sex couples the distinction of being among the first to wed. Seven Southern California Roman Catholic bishops, including L.A. Cardinal Roger Mahony, publically reaffirm their opposition to same-sex marriage. Read more .....
The battle over gay marriage has been raging in California since the beginning of 2000, when the state first started registering domestic partners and affording same-sex couples the benefits of hospital visitation and health insurance coverage for the dependents of government employees covered by CalPERS, the state’s retirement system. While groundbreaking, the law was not nearly enough to satisfy gay rights activists hoping to win the right to marry. Here is timeline from 2000 to present on the fight for same sex marriage in California:
March 7, 2000: More than 61% of Californians vote "yes" to Proposition 22, a ballot measure declaring that marriage should remain reserved for couples of the opposite sex.
October 14, 2001: Gov. Gray Davis signs a bill that expands the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner, use of sick leave to care for an ill or incapacitated partner, and to relocate with a partner without losing unemployment benefits, among others.
September 19, 2003: Gov. Davis signs a bill that gives state-registered domestic partners many of the legal rights and obligations of married couples in matters involving children, money and property. While the law does not go so far as to recognize gay marriage, it does give a partner the right to financial support and child custody following the dissolution of a partnership, and a survivor the right to collect his or her partner’s government benefits in the event of death.
February 12, 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructs city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first action of its kind in the nation. Dozens of couples are married, as city offices stay open late to accommodate long lines.
March 3, 2004: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council pass resolutions opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
March 11, 2004: The California Supreme Court unanimously orders San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and says it will rule on the legality of the city’s actions within the next few months.
August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules unanimously that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. By a 5 to 2 vote, the court also declares the roughly 4,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples that had been sanctioned by the city "void from their inception and a legal nullity."
December 21, 2004: A San Francisco judge hears arguments on same-sex marriages. At the heart of the consolidated lawsuits, brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay and lesbian couples, is the contention that current law defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" violates the state Constitution by denying homosexuals the "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choosing.
June 29, 2005: The California Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to the state's domestic partners benefits law. Critics of the law thought such benefits would be prohibited by Proposition 22.
August 22, 2005: The California Supreme Court rules that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents; the first such ruling in the nation.
September 29, 2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill after it passes the Senate and Assembly. Schwarzenegger says the bill would wrongly reverse Proposition 22, which declares that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
June 5, 2007: A measure to legalize marriage for gay couples easily passes the California Assembly after a respectful debate. As he did in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected to veto the measure.
September 19, 2007:San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reverses his public opposition to same-sex marriage. In an emotional statement, Sanders says he realizes that he cannot tell his daughter Lisa, who is gay, that her relationship with a partner is not as important as that of a straight couple.
October 12, 2007: Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes a bill approved by state lawmakers that would legalize gay marriage. He says the courts need to rule on the legality of Proposition 22, the gay marriage ban passed by voters.
March 4, 2008: The California Supreme Court considers four lawsuits brought by same-sex couples after San Francisco issued marriage licenses in 2004. Three of the court's seven justices indicate they will uphold state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ruling expected within 90 days.
May 15, 2008: The California Supreme Court rules that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argue that it is up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should marry.
June 2, 2008: More than one million signatures are submitted for a ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" and undo the California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.
June 16, 2008: County registrars and clerks in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Sonoma and Yolo counties keep offices open to allow at least two dozen same-sex couples the distinction of being among the first to wed. Seven Southern California Roman Catholic bishops, including L.A. Cardinal Roger Mahony, publically reaffirm their opposition to same-sex marriage. Read more .....
Television Stars Call It Quits After Eight-Month Marriage
HOUSTON—Apparently, "Till death do us part," was merely a suggestion for two of television’s most visible stars, who have elected to divorce after eight short months of matrimony.
Mad Men actress Elizabeth Moss—who plays Peggy in the popular AMC series—filed for divorce from Saturday Night Live comedian Fred Armisen in Los Angeles on Monday, September 20. However, Entertainment Tonight reported that Moss listed June 26 as the date of the couple’s separation, only eight months after they were married in an intimate ceremony in Long Island City.
Moss cited irreconcilable differences in her petition. According to Star magazine, she wants to prevent Armisen from getting spousal support. Sources close to the couple said Moss’s ties to the controversial Church of Scientology were behind the split. Us Weekly Magazine quoted one insider as having said, "Her religion was as important to her as their marriage, if not more. [Armisen] could not get with it."
Others have speculated that their busy schedules were problematic, and they couldn’t make their long-distance relationship work. Whatever the reason for divorce, neither spouse seems to be wasting any time moving on. Armisen is reportedly dating SNL castmate Abby Elliot, 23, while Moss has been linked to Bosnian actor Edin Gail.
Moss and Armisen met in October 2008, when she was a guest star on SNL, along with Mad Men co-star Jon Hamm. They became engaged the following January and were married last October 25. Armisen was previously married to British singer-songwriter Sally Timms.
Before being cast in Mad Men, Moss had a small role in the drama series The West Wing, appeared briefly in the medical drama Grey’s Anatomy, and appeared alongside Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie in the movie Girl, Interrupted. She was nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for her work on Mad Men in 2009.
Fred Armisen joined the cast of SNL in 2002, and has also appeared on 30 Rock and The Sarah Silverman Program, among other popular shows. He has a cameo in the comedic movie Easy A, and will play Brainy in the Smurfs movie scheduled for release next year.
The dissolution of a marriage, regardless of the length of your union, is never easy. If you or someone you know is facing a split, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The experienced lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 for a free legal consultation today.
Mad Men actress Elizabeth Moss—who plays Peggy in the popular AMC series—filed for divorce from Saturday Night Live comedian Fred Armisen in Los Angeles on Monday, September 20. However, Entertainment Tonight reported that Moss listed June 26 as the date of the couple’s separation, only eight months after they were married in an intimate ceremony in Long Island City.
Moss cited irreconcilable differences in her petition. According to Star magazine, she wants to prevent Armisen from getting spousal support. Sources close to the couple said Moss’s ties to the controversial Church of Scientology were behind the split. Us Weekly Magazine quoted one insider as having said, "Her religion was as important to her as their marriage, if not more. [Armisen] could not get with it."
Others have speculated that their busy schedules were problematic, and they couldn’t make their long-distance relationship work. Whatever the reason for divorce, neither spouse seems to be wasting any time moving on. Armisen is reportedly dating SNL castmate Abby Elliot, 23, while Moss has been linked to Bosnian actor Edin Gail.
Moss and Armisen met in October 2008, when she was a guest star on SNL, along with Mad Men co-star Jon Hamm. They became engaged the following January and were married last October 25. Armisen was previously married to British singer-songwriter Sally Timms.
Before being cast in Mad Men, Moss had a small role in the drama series The West Wing, appeared briefly in the medical drama Grey’s Anatomy, and appeared alongside Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie in the movie Girl, Interrupted. She was nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for her work on Mad Men in 2009.
Fred Armisen joined the cast of SNL in 2002, and has also appeared on 30 Rock and The Sarah Silverman Program, among other popular shows. He has a cameo in the comedic movie Easy A, and will play Brainy in the Smurfs movie scheduled for release next year.
The dissolution of a marriage, regardless of the length of your union, is never easy. If you or someone you know is facing a split, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The experienced lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 for a free legal consultation today.
High-Profile Divorces
HOUSTON—We’ve all heard the sobering statistics about divorce rates in the United States, where the cost of dissolving a marriage is relatively low and the process simple. But for high-profile couples with piles of cash and material assets, parting ways can be a costly and complicated affair.
Anyone with cable or Internet access knows the sordid details of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren’s split, which is rumored will soon be settled for a staggering $100 million. Amazingly, theirs will not be the most expensive A-list divorce to date. Here is a look some of the costliest celebrity divorces:
1. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall.Estimated settlement: $15 to 25 million.
The Rolling Stones’ front man and sexy supermodel met in 1977 and had two children together before tying the knot in a traditional Hindi wedding ceremony in Bali, Indonesia in 1990. Hall filed for divorce in 1999 after learning that Jagger had fathered a child with another woman. Jagger, worth an estimated $325 million at the time, successfully challenged the legality of the Balinese wedding and was granted an annulment. Hall walked away with only a fraction of his estate.
2. Michael and Diandra Douglas.Estimated settlement: $45 million.
The couple met in 1977 at a Jimmy Carter inauguration party and wed six weeks later. During the course of their marriage, Michael became one of Hollywood’s top earning actors, starring in box office hits like Fatal Attraction, Wall Street and Basic Instinct. Amid rumors of the actor’s infidelities and alcohol abuse, the couple separated in 1998. Diandra was awarded an estimated $45 million in 2000, plus homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca.
In June 2010, the couple returned to court to dispute Diandra’s claim to a portion of the proceeds from Michael’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. If the film is ruled to be a spin-off of the original Wall Street, which Michael filmed while they were together, Diandra will be entitled to a share of his earnings per their divorce settlement.
3. James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The famed director wed the star of his first two Terminator movies in July 1997. Though their marriage lasted a mere 18 months, they conceived a daughter together during that time. Their divorce settled shortly after Titanic was released, and Cameron was forced to give Hamilton more than half of the film’s revenues.
4. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The Beatles rocker married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, with McCartney reportedly shunning Mills’ offer of a prenuptial agreement. In 2006, the pair began bitter divorce proceedings, which garnered a great deal of press and were not resolved until March of 2008. They have a daughter together who, in addition to Mills’ nearly $50 million settlement, will receive over $44,000 per year until her 18th birthday.
5. Madonna and Guy Ritchie.Estimated settlement: $76 million.
The Material Girl wed the British film director in 2000, two years after they met at a dinner party hosted by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler. The pair have two children together, Rocco, 8, and David, 3, who was adopted from Malawi. They share custody of the kids, and Madonna shared a large chunk of her estimated $450 million net worth with Ritchie when they settled their divorce for $76 million in 2008.
6. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving.Estimated settlement: $100 million.
Famed director Spielberg and up-and-coming actress Irving met in 1979, had a son, and later married in 1985. But by 1989 the passion between them had fizzled and the amicably parted ways, with Spielberg giving Irving a $100 million settlement to show there were no hard feelings.
7. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey.Estimated settlement: $150 million.
Neil Diamond has known international signing success since the ‘60s, and during his career has sold more than one million records worldwide. When he met the woman who would share his life for 25 years, he was already married to his first wife.
Apparently Diamond went out for cigarettes in November 1969 and never returned. Three weeks later he had divorced and married TV producer Marcia Murphey. In 1994, following rumors of extramarital affairs on Diamond’s part, Murphey filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences”. Their settlement was for $150 million, half his fortune, which the singer claims he gave her cheerfully. “She’s worth every penny,” he said.
8. Rupert and Anna Murdoch.Estimated settlement: $1.7 billion.
One of the richest men in the world, Rupert Murdoch developed his worldwide media empire when he inherited his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952. He married Anna in the early ‘60s and they remained together for 32 years and had three children.
The pair split on good terms in 1998 but when Rupert forced Anna off the board of News Corporation, things turned ugly. Rupert finally agreed to give his wife $1.7 billion worth of his assets, $110 million of it in cash. 17 days later, Rupert married Wendi Dang, one of his employees.
As you can see, the higher the net-worth of the individuals involved, the messier the divorce proceedings may be. If you or someone you know is faced with the dissolution of a marriage, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026.
Anyone with cable or Internet access knows the sordid details of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren’s split, which is rumored will soon be settled for a staggering $100 million. Amazingly, theirs will not be the most expensive A-list divorce to date. Here is a look some of the costliest celebrity divorces:
1. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall.Estimated settlement: $15 to 25 million.
The Rolling Stones’ front man and sexy supermodel met in 1977 and had two children together before tying the knot in a traditional Hindi wedding ceremony in Bali, Indonesia in 1990. Hall filed for divorce in 1999 after learning that Jagger had fathered a child with another woman. Jagger, worth an estimated $325 million at the time, successfully challenged the legality of the Balinese wedding and was granted an annulment. Hall walked away with only a fraction of his estate.
2. Michael and Diandra Douglas.Estimated settlement: $45 million.
The couple met in 1977 at a Jimmy Carter inauguration party and wed six weeks later. During the course of their marriage, Michael became one of Hollywood’s top earning actors, starring in box office hits like Fatal Attraction, Wall Street and Basic Instinct. Amid rumors of the actor’s infidelities and alcohol abuse, the couple separated in 1998. Diandra was awarded an estimated $45 million in 2000, plus homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca.
In June 2010, the couple returned to court to dispute Diandra’s claim to a portion of the proceeds from Michael’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. If the film is ruled to be a spin-off of the original Wall Street, which Michael filmed while they were together, Diandra will be entitled to a share of his earnings per their divorce settlement.
3. James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The famed director wed the star of his first two Terminator movies in July 1997. Though their marriage lasted a mere 18 months, they conceived a daughter together during that time. Their divorce settled shortly after Titanic was released, and Cameron was forced to give Hamilton more than half of the film’s revenues.
4. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The Beatles rocker married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, with McCartney reportedly shunning Mills’ offer of a prenuptial agreement. In 2006, the pair began bitter divorce proceedings, which garnered a great deal of press and were not resolved until March of 2008. They have a daughter together who, in addition to Mills’ nearly $50 million settlement, will receive over $44,000 per year until her 18th birthday.
5. Madonna and Guy Ritchie.Estimated settlement: $76 million.
The Material Girl wed the British film director in 2000, two years after they met at a dinner party hosted by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler. The pair have two children together, Rocco, 8, and David, 3, who was adopted from Malawi. They share custody of the kids, and Madonna shared a large chunk of her estimated $450 million net worth with Ritchie when they settled their divorce for $76 million in 2008.
6. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving.Estimated settlement: $100 million.
Famed director Spielberg and up-and-coming actress Irving met in 1979, had a son, and later married in 1985. But by 1989 the passion between them had fizzled and the amicably parted ways, with Spielberg giving Irving a $100 million settlement to show there were no hard feelings.
7. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey.Estimated settlement: $150 million.
Neil Diamond has known international signing success since the ‘60s, and during his career has sold more than one million records worldwide. When he met the woman who would share his life for 25 years, he was already married to his first wife.
Apparently Diamond went out for cigarettes in November 1969 and never returned. Three weeks later he had divorced and married TV producer Marcia Murphey. In 1994, following rumors of extramarital affairs on Diamond’s part, Murphey filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences”. Their settlement was for $150 million, half his fortune, which the singer claims he gave her cheerfully. “She’s worth every penny,” he said.
8. Rupert and Anna Murdoch.Estimated settlement: $1.7 billion.
One of the richest men in the world, Rupert Murdoch developed his worldwide media empire when he inherited his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952. He married Anna in the early ‘60s and they remained together for 32 years and had three children.
The pair split on good terms in 1998 but when Rupert forced Anna off the board of News Corporation, things turned ugly. Rupert finally agreed to give his wife $1.7 billion worth of his assets, $110 million of it in cash. 17 days later, Rupert married Wendi Dang, one of his employees.
As you can see, the higher the net-worth of the individuals involved, the messier the divorce proceedings may be. If you or someone you know is faced with the dissolution of a marriage, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026.
Paris Hilton Drug Problem Follow Her Overseas
HOUSTON—Stars in the United States have long enjoyed our nation’s brand of "celebrity justice", but overseas their status is often overlooked. Case in point: The Japanese government’s recent refusal to allow Paris Hilton into the country after pleading guilty to misdemeanor drug charges in Las Vegas.
Hilton joined the ranks of such pop icons as Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones when she was delayed by immigration authorities at Narita International Airport and officially denied entry into Japan. Her trip came just two days after she plead guilty to drug possession and obstructing an officer; and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $2,000 fine, 200 hours of community service and completion of a substance-abuse program. Japan has strict immigration laws that bar entry to those convicted of drug offenses, although exceptions are occasionally granted.
The 29-year-old celebrity socialite was supposed to promote her fashion and fragrance lines at a news conference on the morning of Wednesday, September 22, in Tokyo. She arrived Tuesday evening but was stopped at the airport and spent the night at a hotel there after being questioned by officials.
Tokyo was the first stop on Hilton’s planned Asia tour, during which she was to visit Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and open a new retail store in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was forced to cancel all of her appearances, which she has said she will make up at a later date.
Hilton’s trip was scheduled before her arrest last month in Las Vegas, when an officer found a small amount of cocaine in her purse. She was given a one-year suspended sentence, the terms of which stipulate that if she is arrested for anything besides a minor traffic violation in Vegas within the next year, she will have to serve a full year in prison. The conditions did not, however, restrict her travel overseas.
Japan has taken a hard line with famous figures in the past, including rock legends, The Rolling Stones, who struggled for years to gain entry to the country because of drug convictions among the group’s members. Former Beatle Paul McCartney was also deported in January 1980, when he was arrested at Narita airport for marijuana possession while touring with his band, Wings.
Kazuo Kashihara, an immigration official at Narita International Airport, said if Hilton had applied for an entry permit in advance of her arrival, there might have been a chance for Japan’s minister to consider an exception in her case. Instead, "She just showed up the day after [pleading guilty]," he said.
According to a statement issued by Hilton’s publicist, Dawn Miller, "Paris is very disappointed and fought hard to keep her business commitments and see her fans, but she is forced to postpone her commitments in Asia. Paris understands and respects the rules and laws of the immigration authorities in Japan and fully wishes to cooperate with them."
Hilton joined the ranks of such pop icons as Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones when she was delayed by immigration authorities at Narita International Airport and officially denied entry into Japan. Her trip came just two days after she plead guilty to drug possession and obstructing an officer; and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $2,000 fine, 200 hours of community service and completion of a substance-abuse program. Japan has strict immigration laws that bar entry to those convicted of drug offenses, although exceptions are occasionally granted.
The 29-year-old celebrity socialite was supposed to promote her fashion and fragrance lines at a news conference on the morning of Wednesday, September 22, in Tokyo. She arrived Tuesday evening but was stopped at the airport and spent the night at a hotel there after being questioned by officials.
Tokyo was the first stop on Hilton’s planned Asia tour, during which she was to visit Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and open a new retail store in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was forced to cancel all of her appearances, which she has said she will make up at a later date.
Hilton’s trip was scheduled before her arrest last month in Las Vegas, when an officer found a small amount of cocaine in her purse. She was given a one-year suspended sentence, the terms of which stipulate that if she is arrested for anything besides a minor traffic violation in Vegas within the next year, she will have to serve a full year in prison. The conditions did not, however, restrict her travel overseas.
Japan has taken a hard line with famous figures in the past, including rock legends, The Rolling Stones, who struggled for years to gain entry to the country because of drug convictions among the group’s members. Former Beatle Paul McCartney was also deported in January 1980, when he was arrested at Narita airport for marijuana possession while touring with his band, Wings.
Kazuo Kashihara, an immigration official at Narita International Airport, said if Hilton had applied for an entry permit in advance of her arrival, there might have been a chance for Japan’s minister to consider an exception in her case. Instead, "She just showed up the day after [pleading guilty]," he said.
According to a statement issued by Hilton’s publicist, Dawn Miller, "Paris is very disappointed and fought hard to keep her business commitments and see her fans, but she is forced to postpone her commitments in Asia. Paris understands and respects the rules and laws of the immigration authorities in Japan and fully wishes to cooperate with them."
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and
What is a Charge of DUI?
· If you are under the age of twenty-one (21) and you are found to have been driving in Texas with any measurable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), then you may be charged with DUI, or Driving Under the Influence;
· It is important to note that Texas is a zero-tolerance state, which means that BAC measurements do not have to meet the 0.08% minimum to result in a minor being charged with DUI. Moreover, if a minor charged with DUI is determined to have a BAC of 0.08% or higher, then he or she may be subject to more severe penalties, described in more detail further below.
· If a minor charged with DUI is under the age of 18, he or she must have a parent or guardian present with him or her at all court appearances, and at any court mandated Alcohol Awareness Program classes.
· If, after a conviction, a minor satisfactorily fulfills all of the court’s requirements, he or she may be able to have his or her record expunged at the age of twenty-one.
What are the Penalties for a Charge of DUI?
A First Offense DUI (any measurable BAC) is considered a “Class C” Misdemeanor, with the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $500;
· A sixty (60) day Driver’s License Suspension;
· A defined period of Community Service;
· Mandatory enrollment in a Program for Alcohol Awareness;
A DUI with a BAC of 0.08% or higher will result in the following, more severe penalties:
· Incarceration for up to 180 days;
· A fine of up to $2000;
· A one year Driver’s License Suspension;
Other Alcohol-Related Charges against Minors:
What is a Charge of MIP?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to be in possession of alcohol, then you may be charged with MIP, or Minor in Possession (of Alcohol);
What is a Charge of MIC?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to have been consuming alcohol, then you may be charged with MIC, or Minor in Consumption (of Alcohol);
Miscellaneous:
It is important to note that with regard to all of these offenses (in spite of what some defense attorneys and/or prosecutors may indicate), there is no guarantee that a conviction for any of these offenses will simply be deleted from the offending minor’s criminal record once they turn twenty-one (21). In fact, it is much more likely that such a conviction will become a permanent part of both the offending minor’s driving record and more importantly, their criminal record as well.
· If you are under the age of twenty-one (21) and you are found to have been driving in Texas with any measurable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), then you may be charged with DUI, or Driving Under the Influence;
· It is important to note that Texas is a zero-tolerance state, which means that BAC measurements do not have to meet the 0.08% minimum to result in a minor being charged with DUI. Moreover, if a minor charged with DUI is determined to have a BAC of 0.08% or higher, then he or she may be subject to more severe penalties, described in more detail further below.
· If a minor charged with DUI is under the age of 18, he or she must have a parent or guardian present with him or her at all court appearances, and at any court mandated Alcohol Awareness Program classes.
· If, after a conviction, a minor satisfactorily fulfills all of the court’s requirements, he or she may be able to have his or her record expunged at the age of twenty-one.
What are the Penalties for a Charge of DUI?
A First Offense DUI (any measurable BAC) is considered a “Class C” Misdemeanor, with the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $500;
· A sixty (60) day Driver’s License Suspension;
· A defined period of Community Service;
· Mandatory enrollment in a Program for Alcohol Awareness;
A DUI with a BAC of 0.08% or higher will result in the following, more severe penalties:
· Incarceration for up to 180 days;
· A fine of up to $2000;
· A one year Driver’s License Suspension;
Other Alcohol-Related Charges against Minors:
What is a Charge of MIP?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to be in possession of alcohol, then you may be charged with MIP, or Minor in Possession (of Alcohol);
What is a Charge of MIC?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to have been consuming alcohol, then you may be charged with MIC, or Minor in Consumption (of Alcohol);
Miscellaneous:
It is important to note that with regard to all of these offenses (in spite of what some defense attorneys and/or prosecutors may indicate), there is no guarantee that a conviction for any of these offenses will simply be deleted from the offending minor’s criminal record once they turn twenty-one (21). In fact, it is much more likely that such a conviction will become a permanent part of both the offending minor’s driving record and more importantly, their criminal record as well.
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI): Definitions and Penalties
What is a Charge of DWI?
· If you possess a regular driver’s license, and you are found to have been driving in Texas with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI, or Driving While Intoxicated;
· It is important to note that the definition of DWI is simply that one’s physical and/or mental faculties were impaired while he or she was driving. As such, the charge of DWI is not limited to only being a charge involving intoxication from alcohol. It can also arise out of intoxication from drugs, including illegal narcotics or even legal prescription drugs.
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.12% or higher, then you may be subject to higher penalties for DWI than if your BAC was only higher than 0.08% (but below 0.12%);
· If you are the holder of a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), and you are found to have been driving any vehicle in Texas, commercial or otherwise, with a BAC of only 0.04% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI. In this case, a conviction will result in an automatic revocation of your CDL;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident resulting in specific injuries, then you may be charged with Intoxication Assault;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you had a child under the age of fifteen in the vehicle with you at the time, you may be charged with a State Jail Felony DWI with a Child Passenger;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident where death occurs, you may be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter;
DWI Penalties:
A First Offense DWI is a “Class B” Misdemeanor that may lead to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $2,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to 180 days;
· Suspension of your driver’s license;
[A qualified attorney may be able to secure an Occupational Driver’s License (a restricted non-commercial license issued to persons whose Class C license has been suspended or revoked for certain offenses) for you depending on the circumstances of your case.]
· Mandatory participation in alcohol education classes;
A Second-Offense DWI is a “Class A” Misdemeanor that may carry to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $4,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to one year;
· A lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· A defined period of community service;
A Third-Offense DWI is a Third Degree Felony that may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
· Installation of Ignition Interlock Device on your vehicle, and the assessment of an initial installation fee and recurring monthly monitoring fees;
· Possible Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment;
· Possible Extended Probation depending on completion of classes on alcohol education with an agreement to undertake a mandatory prescription of Ant-abuse;
Intoxication Assault is a Third Degree Felony that may lead carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
Intoxication Manslaughter is a Second Degree Felony. It may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000
· Incarceration (Jail) for a minimum of two years, up to a maximum 20 years;
· Possible defined period of community service and/or mandatory classes on alcohol education;
· Permanent revocation of your Driver’s License;
· If you possess a regular driver’s license, and you are found to have been driving in Texas with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI, or Driving While Intoxicated;
· It is important to note that the definition of DWI is simply that one’s physical and/or mental faculties were impaired while he or she was driving. As such, the charge of DWI is not limited to only being a charge involving intoxication from alcohol. It can also arise out of intoxication from drugs, including illegal narcotics or even legal prescription drugs.
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.12% or higher, then you may be subject to higher penalties for DWI than if your BAC was only higher than 0.08% (but below 0.12%);
· If you are the holder of a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), and you are found to have been driving any vehicle in Texas, commercial or otherwise, with a BAC of only 0.04% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI. In this case, a conviction will result in an automatic revocation of your CDL;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident resulting in specific injuries, then you may be charged with Intoxication Assault;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you had a child under the age of fifteen in the vehicle with you at the time, you may be charged with a State Jail Felony DWI with a Child Passenger;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident where death occurs, you may be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter;
DWI Penalties:
A First Offense DWI is a “Class B” Misdemeanor that may lead to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $2,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to 180 days;
· Suspension of your driver’s license;
[A qualified attorney may be able to secure an Occupational Driver’s License (a restricted non-commercial license issued to persons whose Class C license has been suspended or revoked for certain offenses) for you depending on the circumstances of your case.]
· Mandatory participation in alcohol education classes;
A Second-Offense DWI is a “Class A” Misdemeanor that may carry to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $4,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to one year;
· A lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· A defined period of community service;
A Third-Offense DWI is a Third Degree Felony that may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
· Installation of Ignition Interlock Device on your vehicle, and the assessment of an initial installation fee and recurring monthly monitoring fees;
· Possible Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment;
· Possible Extended Probation depending on completion of classes on alcohol education with an agreement to undertake a mandatory prescription of Ant-abuse;
Intoxication Assault is a Third Degree Felony that may lead carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
Intoxication Manslaughter is a Second Degree Felony. It may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000
· Incarceration (Jail) for a minimum of two years, up to a maximum 20 years;
· Possible defined period of community service and/or mandatory classes on alcohol education;
· Permanent revocation of your Driver’s License;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)