The parties got divorced in 2007 by entering into a separation agreement. The agreement contained a merger clause stating there were no outstanding issues between the parties other than those set forth in the dissolution agreement.

The plaintiff then brought suit against the defendant in New York for a claim that was 10 years old. The New York court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as “meritless” “outrageous” and “designed to harass”.

The Plaintiff should have spent less time in court and more time listening to the Beatles:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I hope that you had a Happy New Year. I had a festive weekend. In between celebrating the new year and a family member’s new job – I attended a wedding on Saturday. The wedding was very nice.

The bride and groom couldn’t have bought better weather for a winter wedding. Their pictures will look like they got married in a snow globe.

While I was watching the beautiful bride and happy groom exchange vows, I started thinking of the legal requirements of the ceremony. Romantic, I know. Anyone thinking of taking the LSAT should reread the two previous sentences.

What are the requirements for a valid marriage ceremony in Connecticut?

1. The physical presence of the parties before an official licensed to perform a marriage ceremony in Connecticut; and

2. A third party official must witness or officiate at a ceremony wherein the parties each presently consent to marriage. Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588 (1972).

That’s all that is required by law. No need to kiss the bride.

For better or for worse continues to go to the dogs.

Dog’s are expensive. Especially, sick dogs.

Any dog owner understands that pet medical bills can be no small expense.

Under Connecticut law, pets are personal property. There is little legal difference between a dog and a car.

Recently, a Connecticut Superior Court in the case of Geiger v. Geiger was confronted with the issue of post divorce pet medical bills.

The court ordered that the husband and the wife are to equally divide the costs of medical treatment for dogs.

The court treated the dogs as if they were marital debt. Think about that the next time you think of buying a pet. Pets are not just personal property. They’re marital debt.

Pets = A pain in the asset.

Jon: “I don’t hate Kate BUT….”

I hear “it was nice BUT all the time.” For example, it was a great restaurant BUT the service was horrible or it was a great movie BUT it was too long.

The truth is great restaurants have great service and great movies end too soon.

I used to say it.

When I was in college I served as President of the Student Government Association. One time, I was speaking with my advisor, Angeline. I pulled a “I really like So and So” and then I dropped the BUT bomb and proceeded to run of a list of faults.

Everyone needs an Angeline in their life. She’s a great teacher. Being a great teacher she called me on it. She said you don’t like  ”So and So.” It wasn’t the reaction I expected.

Angeline told me I said BUT. You see she said “when you say BUT you negate what comes before BUT. If you’re honest, you cut to what’s after the BUT.”

Angeline was right.

If credibility is king than BUT has no place in a lawyer’s vocabulary.

What Jon said is “I don’t hate Kate BUT” what if he was being upfront he would have cut to the chase and said “I don’t like Kate”.

Counseling clients in a divorce is a little like being an airline pilot.

Clients are a lot like airline passengers and the process of divorce is a lot like a flying on a commercial aircraft. For starters, passengers know their final destination……getting a divorce.

I often think divorce cases follow the arc of a flight. It’s always bumpy on take off. Always.

On take off, a plane goes from 0 mph in a state of rest on the ground to 500 mph and 35,000 feet in the air in a little under 15 minutes. A person’s marriage is right before filing for divorce is a lot like that sitting plane because once it starts moving lots of things in a person’s life become up in the air.

In the early part of a divorce, I commonly see clients stress over often sudden and rapid changes that start happening in their lives. There’s always friction with the spouse as new rules get put into place.

Once the parties reach cruising altitude things are relatively calm for a period of a few months. Sometimes, there are a few bumps along the way but for the most part tray tables are down and you are free to move about the cabin.

Then comes landing. I almost always see bumps at the very end of a divorce. I think there are a number of reasons for it: dislike, anger, and trouble letting go being the most frequent cause of bumpy landings. But there’s usually one last marital spat prior to the court ordering a divorce.

There’s a post for another day about flights that experience constant turbulence but those are the exception.

From my point of view, as a passenger, I appreciate when the pilot informs the cabin that the flight may experience some turbulence. I think the same holds true for the relationship between an attorney handling a divorce and a client – it’s best to let a client know in advance where and when turbulence can be expected.

If you’ve never been, the building is mostly one giant hallway.  Even on slow days, the building feels like a crowded subway car. Too many people, too few seats. Sometimes it’s hot. Sometimes, like a subway car people don’t shower before entering.

On most days, the scene in the hallways would make for great reality TV. People are complaining about this or that, airing their dirty laundry, and are generally on edge.

Yesterday was no different.

Well, no different if you exclude the camera crews, “journalists”, armies of lawyers, a Swedish Countess, and people looking for “cheap” entertainment on someone else’s dime.

I walked into court just ahead of the countess’ lawyers who chatted it up with the cameramen paparazzi from what appeared to be what’s left of the Hartford Courant.

When I cleared security, I saw the Countess.

She’s hard to miss: very tall, blonde and Swedish. She’s pretty.

Like many others in the hallway she was waiting for court to open to have her case heard. When the doors to the court opened at about 10:00, I thought for a second that a black hole had been created in Hartford Family Court as all of the sudden the armies of lawyers, “journalists”, and voyeurs were sucked into a small court room.

Really, I don’t get it. In part it’s charming that Hartford seems fixated on this divorce. It shows that we’re still a small town. In NY or LA, this trial would get the attention it deserves – none.  Please suspend reality and ignore the fact that I’m giving this case attention.

In looking at the Countess’ financial affidavit. It lists her weekly legal expenses as “unknown”.  I get a kick out of this. Judging by how many lawyers she has, it wouldn’t surprise me if this trial is costing her $5,000.00 an hour. I could be wrong but that number could also be low.

In what world is a 100 million dollars (plus $130,000 a month in alimony) for a 7 year marriage “a fair and equitable” division of marital assets?

From what I read, Mr. David has offered 43 million dollars to settle the case.  In what world is that not fair and equitable? That’s generous!

I think I’m a great husband but there’s no way my wife should have to pay me 43 million dollars if she wanted to divorce me. None. In the unlikely event that I get divorced, my wife’s lawyer should feel free to use this post against me as an “admission by a party opponent.”

Hell, this winter, AL MVP Dustin Pedroia, signed a 6 year contract with the Red Sox for 40.5 million dollars!

Pedroia > Countess.

We’re in upside down world here in Connecticut.

Just because I think she’s being greedy (I’m usually not this mean):

News to wealthy men, a 100 million dollars or even 43 million dollars doesn’t go as far as it used to (I write this soley based on my own opinion which is solely derived from standing 5 feet away from said Countess).

Two Ladies in Waiting takes a fascinating  and fresh look at same-sex marriage, constitutional rights, federalism, civil unions through the lens of their honeymoon. Really good stuff. This is one of the best blog entries that I’ve read in a long time.

For the record, my wife and I also drove to Quebec for our honeymoon. We remained married the whole time.

“Halloween. For the next five years, Halloween is probably fun but then it’s going to become a pain in the neck to you.” Henderson v. Henderson, 2003 WL 23177463 (Munro, J.)

A few thoughts here:

Pompey-O-Lantern

First, the five years are up for the Hendersons. I hope they enjoy their last “probably fun” Halloween on Friday.

Second, is it possible to have an un-fun Halloween party at any age?

Third, how does Halloween become a pain in the neck? Is it handing out the candy?  Did someone “trick” Judge Munro?

So many questions and so little standing to file a motion for articulation.