Posts

Kelsey and Camille Grammer settle divorce dispute

In January, we wrote that Kelsey Grammer was having difficulties finalizing his divorce. According to celebrity news outlet TMZ, Kelsey Grammer’s divorce from his wife Camille Grammer is currently being finalized. The news comes only days after reports that the two had struck a preliminary deal ending their marriage.

Although the precise details of the deal have yet to be revealed, it is widely believed that Kelsey and Camille’s disagreements regarding the divorce were mainly related to property division. Camille reportedly demanded $50 million, and Kelsey originally offered $30 million. The pair had not signed a prenuptial agreement when they were first married.

Kelsey and Camille Grammer’s divorce has been heavily publicized for months, primarily through interviews, released court documents and Camille’s appearances on the reality TV show “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” During these appearances, Camille revealed that the pair had had difficulties with intimacy and that she begged Kelsey not to leave.

As for the divorcing couple’s future plans, Camille has announced that she never plans to remarry. Kelsey, however, will only be single for two weeks. He plans to marry Kayte Walsh, a former flight attendant, on February 25 in New York City in a lavish wedding celebration. Camille was invited to the wedding but she has declined to attend. Kayte and Camille met previously in a situation that Camille described as “uncomfortable.”

Kelsey Grammer is best known for his starring role as Frasier Crane in the hit show “Frasier,” as well as his appearances as the same character in a supporting role on “Cheers.”

Source: Huffington Post, “Kelsey, Camille Grammer Divorced,” 2/10/2011

/by

McCourts continue to work on Dodgers divorce settlement

Opening day has come and gone in Milwaukee, as one of the Brewer’s National League Rivals begins a new baseball season with its ownership in doubt because of a prolonged divorce. Although many couples struggle to properly divide their assets during a divorce, few need to worry about an asset as valuable as a professional baseball team during the property division settlement proceedings. However, Jamie and Frank McCourt, joint owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers, are doing exactly that as the Dodgers themselves enter a second season without settled ownership.

Requests from both Jamie and Frank’s attorneys resulted in the postponement of a hearing originally scheduled for April 11. Jamie McCourt is asking that Frank be required to provide her with all of the Dodgers’ financial documentation regarding the teams’ business operations.

The new hearing date is scheduled one month later on May 11. The change will give Frank and Jamie additional time to negotiate the complex property division agreement that could finally end their divorce proceedings, which began in late 2009.

In December, Judge Scott Gordon of the Los Angeles Superior Court threw out an agreement that would have given sole team ownership to Frank McCourt. Jamie McCourt took this decision to mean that she was a half-owner of the team.

At that point, Frank McCourt’s attorneys said that he would pursue a second trial to make the Dodgers his separate property, while Jamie McCourt’s attorneys said that she’d create an investment group to purchase Frank’s interest in the Dodgers. As of the present date, neither party has followed through with these stated intentions, and their attorneys have declined to comment on the negotiations since March 2 when the pair met to discuss the settlement.

Source: Los Angeles Times, “Frank and Jamie McCourt working quietly on a settlement,” Bill Shaikin, 3/29/2011

/by

Credit Suisse chief executive pegged with bloated interest bill

In a high asset divorce, the financial stakes are enormous and a few words in a settlement agreement can have a large impact. Recently, news broke that a forgetful moment coupled with a few words in a settlement agreement will cost Credit Suisse’s chief executive more than $750,000.

Brady W. Dougan, of the Swiss financial services company, missed the deadline for a divorce settlement payment by 12 days in 2006. An appeals court has now ruled that he will have to pay a whopping $750,000 in interest for being 12 days late. How did a 12-day late payment result in $750,000 in interest?

As part of Dougan’s 2005 divorce, Dougan needed to pay his ex-wife, Tomoko Hamada Dougan, a total of about $15.3 in two installments. Although Dougan made the first payment on time, he was late on the second $7.5 million payment by 12 days. Their divorce settlement agreement called for interest on any late payments, but the Dougans did not agree on the length of time the interest accrued.

Dougan and his legal team argued that he should only have tallied 12 days worth of interest, which equals the length of time he was late on the payment. After reviewing the exact language of the divorce settlement, the court determined Dougan was responsible for interest accumulated from the date of the settlement, not the date the second payment was due.

Because of the court’s ruling, Dougan is on the hook for one year and 12 days worth of interest, which came out just over the $750,000 mark. The court did not go easy on Dougan, who has degrees from the University of Chicago, saying that both he and his team were financially savvy enough to have recognized the consequences of a late payment.

Source: DealBook, “Credit Suisse Chief Penalized $750,000 in Divorce Case,” Kevin Roose, 27 June 2011

/by

Milwaukee woman entitled to interest from ex-husband’s benefits

A Wisconsin court recently decided that the ex-wife of a former Milwaukee fireman is entitled to 40 percent of his retirement pension beginning in 2001. The couple divorced after 24 years of marriage back in 1993. During that time, they worked with family law attorneys to draft a marriage settlement agreement. The agreement determined that the ex-wife would receive 40 percent of her former husband’s pension that he would begin to receive in 2001 when he turned 57.

Instead of receiving his pension in 2001 as planned, the fireman decided to join litigation concerning the duty disability benefits he had been receiving since 1985. The results of the litigation determined that the fireman would receive nontaxable disability benefits for life instead of the pension. He did not inform his ex-wife that he decided to take the disability option instead of the pension. When his wife learned through a family friend of this decision in 2009, she assumed that he had done this hoping that she would receive not receive any spousal support because of his decision.

The ex-wife decided to dispute her ex-husband’s decision, and a circuit court ruled in her favor. The former firefighter was ordered to pay his ex-wife the past-due payments that she should have received back in 2001 plus 3 percent interest. Her ex-husband was ordered to pay more than $160,000. The court also ruled that if he did not pay the past-due amount within one month and two weeks from the judgement, he would have to pay 12 percent interest on the amount owed. The ex-husband tried to appeal the decision, but the appeals court upheld the circuit court’s decision. Family law attorneys can be valuable advocates for people struggling with family law issues.

Source: State Bar of Wisconsin, “Court Sides With Ex-Wife in Pension Fight, Applies New Judgment Interest Rule,” Joe Forward, Sept. 13, 2012

/by