October 2007 Divorce Stuff

“A girl can wait for the right man to come along but in the meantime that still doesn't mean she can't have a wonderful time with all the wrong ones.” Cher

“You can find women who have never had an affair, but it is hard to find a woman who has had just one.” François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)

"I married beneath me. All women do." Roseanne Barr (1952- )

As expected for this time of year, the Third Department issues precious few decisions. Formal arguments ended June 6 and did not begin again until September 4, so it will take a few weeks for the machinery to start churning out those gems we love to read. In the meantime, they tackle such burning issues as the thickness of the new runway at the Chemung County Airport[1] or the appropriate fine for some MTA director getting a free $150 ticket to a Transit Museum gala[2]. In the latter case, it took over four months for the decision, a millennium in Third Department time, and there was one dissent. So, what are we to do in the meantime? Gossip, of course.
Do you know what a matrimonial lawyer’s dream is? A wealthy client married to a crazy person. That is a trough for extended legal wallowing, as you usually have good results, a happy client and it takes oodles of time to get there. And we all know time is the only commodity we can utilize to generate money. If you don’t believe me, take a gander at Disciplinary Rule 2-106 and 22 NYCRR 1400. I have followed with interest the fortunes of Peter Tauck who is nearing 90 days of hearings in the longest divorce trial in Connecticut history and certainly the most expensive. After all, he is (a) wealthy and (b) married to a crazy person. In this nine year marriage, the mom disappeared with the kids and somewhere along the way may have signed herself into drug rehab. In a tasteless bit of over the top lawyering, one of his attorneys told the press that Ms. Tauck was a "markedly disturbed woman with paranoid features and poor temper control." Not to be outdone, Ms. Tauck falsely accused her husband of sexually molesting the children and cocaine and sexual addictions. All of this aside, I am mostly fascinated by the legal fees generated by this mess. Ms. Tauck hired New York lawyer Judd Burstein[3] at $850 an hour, who was promptly banned from representing her in Connecticut. No matter, Mr. Burstein is a “consultant” and she is seeking to have her hubby pay his fees and her other counsel, currently due about $2.5 million. As for Mr. Tauck, he has paid $70,000 just to house and feed his lawyers during the trial. A helluva guy. He has paid $7 million in legal and expert fees thus far, and the law guardian Gaetano Ferro, God bless him, has pocketed $1.3 million and no one is challenging his fees. It’s a great world, isn’t it? So what did Ms. Tauck get for her $2.5+ millions? She is currently in alcohol rehab in California and she will get only supervised visits after she completes her inpatient program. Hell, I could have gotten her that for $1 million. Oh well.
Speaking of money, remember Attorney at Law Debra Opri? She sued David Hasselhof for $289,000 claiming her retainer with his wife allowed her only to collect from him. Her case was tossed by the trial judge so she’ll have to be content with suing Larry Birkhart for some $600,000 in fees. As for the former Mrs. Halsselhof, she was sued the next day by another matrimonial lawyer for about $40,000. I guess without the Third Department to guide us, there’s a whole lotta suing going on.
Let me ask you something. How would you like to be awarded over a quarter million dollars in legal fees to be paid by a husband in a divorce case only to have the Appellate Division yank it away from you? Not a good day. That’s exactly what happened in Warner v. Houghton[4] where the trial judge stuck it to the husband and the Appellate Division First Department unstuck it. For example, the wife was awarded a lump sum of $188,000 for “lost opportunity earnings” since she relocated with her husband to Singapore. There is no such concept in the Equitable Distribution Law and the Court of Appeals supposedly settled that issue in 1985,[5] so that award was eliminated. In addition the trial court’s decision to award half the appreciation in the defendant’s separate property home was remanded for a determination of any increase due to the wife’s efforts versus market forces. As for the legal fees, the quarter million buckaroos were supposedly based on the husband’s misconduct in discovery and failing to appear. The entire fee award was reversed and the issue remanded to determine only those fees related to the defendant’s noncompliance with court orders or failing to appear at court. Strangely the First Department felt she could well afford to pay the $250,000 on her $160,000 yearly income and $220,000 in savings. I’d like to see who pays their bills. At least she won’t have to pay for housing and feeding her lawyers.
Finally this bit of sad news. Kevin Federline is broke. His income barely pays the bills, so his divorce lawyer is seeking to have poor Britney pay $50,000 in legal fees from her $737,000 monthly income. I’d say he has a shot, unless he lives in the First Department, which of course he doesn’t. Is it any wonder that the divorce rate in Great Britain has hit a 30 year low? Who can afford theses things?
Riposare in pace, Luciano et Leona.

[1] Fahs Roylston Paving Company v. County of Chemung, __ A.D.3d __ (Third Dept., September 6, 2007)
[2] $2,000 in case you care, Matter of Rubenfeld v. NYS Ethics Commission, __ A.D.3d__ (Third Dept., September 6, 2007).
[3] One of Donald Trump’s lawyers in his matter with Ivana, Trump v. Trump, 179 A.D.2d 201 (2nd Dept., 1992)
[4] __ A.D.3rd__ (First Dept., August 30, 2007)
[5] Capiello v. Capiello, 66 NY2d 107 (1985).