Actress Anne Heche claims in court documents that she cannot afford to pay the nearly $15,000-a-month in child support and spousal support she is currently obligated to pay to ex-husband Coleman Laffoon because she is now unemployed. Heche most recently starred in the television series Men In Trees, which was cancelled. Heche has asked the court for a modification of her support obligations going forward.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge suspended Heche’s $14,798 per month support obligation for the month of July, pending a hearing on the matter. The judge also ordered Heche to file updated income and expense disclosures with the court before the next hearing.

Heche claims that she is seeking new work but has no offers and is fearful that the looming Screen Actors Guild strike will put her at a further financial disadvantage.

In a court declaration in support of the requested modification, Heche claimed that she has less than $35,000 in assets and can no longer afford to pay the monthly support, along with private school tuition for their 6-year-old son Homer, the mortgage on her house in Canada where Men In Trees filmed, rent on her Los Angeles home and car and personal expenses. She also noted that she has approximately $364,000 in outstanding debt, resulting largely from the bitter divorce and custody battle with Laffoon.

Child support is almost always modifiable if the parent seeking the modification can prove a substantial change in circumstances which would make the original support amount unreasonable. Certainly, the loss of a job could meet the criteria of a substantial change in circumstances. The court, however, is unlikely to reduce Heche’s support obligation to zero due to her current unemployment. She has a history of regular acting work - including very recent, regular work - therefore, the court will likely impute or assign an income level which would be equal to some historical average of Heche’s wages. The imputed income level would then be used to calculate a reasonable amount of child support. Courts use this imputation method as a dis-incentive for parents to quit their jobs as a means to avoid paying child support.

Heche and Laffoon were married in 2001, shortly after Heche split from her long-term girlfriend, comedienne Ellen DeGeneres. The divorcing couple has only one child, Homer. They split in early 2007 amidst reports that Heche was having an affair with her Men in Trees co-star James Tupper.

The divorce has been pending now for over a year without final resolution. As we noted in a November 2007 post about this case, the couple has battled viciously and publicly over both custody and property. Interestingly, the judge in Heche and Laffoon’s case appointed the same custody evaluator as in the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline custody battle. Heche is represented by the Jaffe & Clemens law firm. Laffoon is represented by Freid & Goldsman.

After three and a half years of marriage, television host Star Jones has filed for divorce from husband Al Reynolds. Jones actually filed almost a month ago in New York Superior Court in Manhattan, but the filing was sealed and not discovered by the media until this week. The case is apparently “uncontested”, suggesting that Reynolds does not dispute the need for divorce. Reynolds has hired high-profile New York divorce attorney Stanford Lotwin, who previously represented Donald Trump, Geraldo Rivera and Howard Stern. The name of Jones’ attorney has not yet been reported.

Jones and Reynolds were married in a highly criticized, lavish wedding in New York City in November 2004. At the time, Jones was a co-host on the television talk show The View and courted corporate sponsors and freebies for the nuptials. Almost immediately, gossip columnists and bloggers began speculating about Reynolds’ sexuality and reporting an imminent split. In July, 2006, it was reported that Reynolds was spotted at Lotwin’s offices in Manhattan - a charge which both denied at the time. (Quite a coincidence that Reynolds would hire Lotwin now but claimed the meeting reports were false back in 2006!) The couple has no children.

It is unknown whether the couple signed a prenuptial agreement before their marriage. New York is not a community property state. Instead, property is handled by equitable distribution. In the absence of a prenuptial agreement or a settlement agreement, a judge will divide the marital property in a fair and just manner. Because the court records have been sealed, we don’t yet know if the divorce has been sought on no-fault grounds or on at-fault grounds. New York allows no-fault divorces only where the parties have lived separately for at least one year. At-fault grounds include adultery, cruelty, abandonment for more than a year or imprisonment of one of the parties for more than three years. Reynolds is possibly living in Florida which may indicate that no-fault divorce is a possibility here.

Although Jones couldn’t stop talking about her wedding and relationship four years ago, she now predictably requests the media give her privacy during the divorce process. Reynolds’ spokesperson claimed that his client would “take the high road” in the divorce. Time will tell.

Sources: etonline, People.com

After almost two and a half years, the divorce of actors David Hasselhoff and Pamela Bach is final. The pair married in 1989 and separated at the end of 2005. They were granted a divorce in August 2006 but the court bifurcated or divided the case and reserved custody, property and support issues for a later date. Hasselhoff and Bach battled publicly over custody of their two teenage daughters, tossing allegations of alcohol and drug abuse at each other. Custody of the kids was resolved last August and now, apparently, the support and property distribution matters have been settled as well.

The judgment entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court this week indicates that the couple signed a prenuptial agreement before their 1989 wedding but that, rather than fight in court over the validity of the agreement, Hasselhoff and Bach reached an agreement to resolve their financial issues. California is a community property state which would result in a 50/50 split of all marital assets. It is unclear if this is what happened in the Hasselhoff divorce or not - but it probably comes pretty close. It does appear that they were each awarded 50% of the interest in their marital home, which will be listed for sale. They divided their household items and likely split their marital bank accounts. Bach was awarded 50% of Hasselhoff’s retirement accounts and pensions, which will be divided by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or QDRO. Bach was also awarded half of the future earnings from Hasselhoff’s memoirs and a few other projects.

Hasselhoff retained the rights to all of his various professional acting and singing endeavors - including rights to the phrases “The Hoff”, “Malibu Dave” and “Don’t Hassle the Hoff.” He will pay his ex-wife $1,000,000 to equalize the division of their marital assets. Hasselhoff also agreed to pay Bach $21,000 per month in spousal support until either of them dies or she remarries. Hasselhoff will pay $4,000 per month in child support (this amount will be reduced to $2,500 when the older daughter turns 18 and presumably graduates from high school next month) and will pay for the private high school tuition of each child. The couple shares joint physical custody of the girls as well as joint legal custody.

Hasselhoff was represented by attorneys Melvin Goldsman and Marci Levine of the Freid and Goldsman firm. Bach went through about five different attorneys or law firms over the course of the litigation.

Johnny Knoxville of MTV’s Jackass (and the movies of the same name) officially got divorced late last week in Los Angeles. Knoxville, whose real name is Philip John Clapp, originally filed for divorce from his wife of 11 years, Melanie Clapp, last summer. The couple has a 12 year old daughter, Madison. Knoxville and his wife have apparently been separated since July, 2006.

Last week’s divorce judgment was the result of a bifurcation of the case. Bifurcation occurs when the entire divorce case is not decided at the same time. Certain matters can be split from the rest of the case and decided at a later date. In the Knoxville case, Knoxville and his wife were granted a divorce only, meaning each is now legally single. However, all matters relating to custody, visitation, child support, spousal support and property distribution are still pending and will be decided later (in other words, all of the difficult matters are still left). In his initial divorce filing, Knoxville sought joint legal custody and joint physical custody of their daughter. He also acknowledged that he would have to pay spousal support. It is unclear exactly why Knoxville and his wife decided to bifurcate their divorce.

In the states that allow it (some states such as New York, Texas and Michigan do not generally allow bifurcation), a case can be bifurcated in several different ways. Probably the most common bifurcation is to separate the actual divorce or change in marital status from the child-related and economic matters. Two of the most common reasons for this type of bifurcation are to allow one or both spouses to remarry and to allow one or both spouses to take advantage of a single tax filing status. Bifurcation can also be used as a psychological tool - granting the divorce itself can help some spouses move on emotionally and facilitate settlement. Sometimes, it is just used because the financial or custody aspects of the case are so complicated that full investigation and trial of the issues will take many months or even years.

A case could also be bifurcated in situations where the husband and wife agree on custody, visitation and support but not property distribution - or vice versa. The divorce can be granted and visitation ordered and then a trial can be held later to decide on property division and support.

Knoxville is represented by Laura Wasser at Wasser, Cooperman and Carter, a high-profile family law firm in Los Angeles. Laura Wasser and the Wasser firm have represented many Hollywood celebrities in their divorce and custody cases. Most recently. Laura Wasser was one of Britney Spears’ attorneys in her pending custody case. Wasser and Spears parted company last fall.

Britney Spears’ and Kevin Federline’s attorneys were at it again last week. The lawyers appeared before Commissioner Scott Gordon in Los Angeles to argue over legal fees. Today, Spears was ordered to pay $375,000 of Federline’s attorney’s fees in the custody modification battle that has been heated for months. While Federline receives child support from Spears for their two young sons and presumably makes some sort of income for his intermittent acting gigs and public appearances, he is clearly not in the same financial position as Spears, who reportedly makes at least $700,000 per month. Federline apparently owes nearly $500,000 to his attorney Mark Vincent Kaplan. Stacy Phillips, Spears’ newest attorney, claims that Spears has already spent over $1 million on the custody case.

Phillips argued that Federline has plenty of money available to pay his own fees, pointing out a $2,000 tip Federline left on a $365 restaurant check recently and also argued that Kaplan’s fees were unreasonable. Kaplan countered by arguing that he was in court on the case eight times between September and January alone due solely to Spears’ behavior and bad judgment and in support of Federline’s attempts to protect the welfare of the children. Several additional court appearances were necessary after Spears’ two involuntary psychiatric commitments in January and February of this year. Continue reading "Britney Ordered to Pay K-Fed’s Legal Fees"

Football great, Jerry Rice and his wife of 20 years, Jacqueline, are divorcing. In June 2007, Jacqueline filed for divorce in San Mateo county, California. She is represented by Lindy Barocchi, and Jerry is represented by Stephen Montavlo. Both attorneys are certified family law specialists, which means they have extensive expereience praticing family law in the San Francisco Bay Area.*

According to media reports, Jerry had extramarital affairs throughout the marriage - and in 2002, he was involved in a paternity suit filed in Arizona. But since California is a no fault divorce state, however, whether or not Jerry had extramarital affairs will have no impact on the court’s rulings in his divorce from Jacqueline.

It has been published that Jerry and Jacqueline had no premarital agreement (pre-nup). This is likely accurate, given the fact that the two married twenty years ago - when premarital agreements were not nearly as prevalant as they are today. If there is no pre-nup, the ruling will probably be straight forward: Jacqueline will be entitled to half of the marital estate. Since the size of Rice marital estate is significant (the parties are selling the family residence in Atherton, California, for example, which is reportedly listed at $22 million), Jacqueline will likely not be awarderd spousal support (alimony). Chances are the courts will find that she will have sufficient income from the assets she is awarded to meet her needs, which effectively eliminates her eligibility for alimony.

*Legal Specialization (also called certification) in the area of family law is a designation that, in states where it is offered, tells of an attorney’s practice’s emphasis on the area of family law. Interestingly, even celebrities who can afford most any lawyer they want sometimes choose to be represented by lawyers who are not certified family law specialists, perhaps based on those lawyers’ experience in handling other types of celebrity cases.

When celebrities are getting divorced, involved in a paternity suit or are seeking a prenup they often turn to what are recognized as the biggest celebrity divorce attorneys in Los Angeles.

The majority of big divorce, paternity, and child custody cases are kept under the radar. But when a case goes public, the high powered family lawyers handling celebrity cases can get nearly as much press as their famous clients. High net worth individuals, and celebrities in particular, need an attorney who is not only an expert in the field of family law, but who is familiar with the judges in the Los Angeles Superior Court, and who can keep their divorce out of the tabloids and as low key as possible.

What follows is a list of the top celebrity divorce attorneys in Los Angeles and some of their more famous clients:

Continue reading "Top Celebrity Divorce Lawyers in Los Angeles"

In February 2007, actress Anne Heche and her husband Coleman Laffoon (a freelance cameraman), filed for divorce. The parties have a five year old son, Homer. The two have been engaged in a heated custody battle in the Los Angeles Superior Court. It has been reported that Laffoon has attacked Heche’s parenting skills, and Heche has accoused Laffoon of being addicted to pornography and online poker.

Despite the bitter accusations, it has been reported that Anne and Coleman may have made some progress during the most recent court hearing in September. According to the Associated Press, Heche said that she had “a good day in court” on September 26. Laffoon implied similar satisfaction. The progress could well be attributed the negotiating skills of the high powered attorneys handling the case.

Heche is represente by Dan Jaffe of the well known Beverly Hills law firm, Jaffe and Clemens. Laffoon is represented by Jon Summers, a partner at the Los Angeles law firm of Freid and Goldsman. The firms serve as divorce attorneys to the stars. Freid and Goldsman also represents David Hasseloff in his high profile custody battles.

Recently, there was another hearing in Britney and Kevin’s ongoing custody battle over Sean Preston and Jayden James. At the hearing, Commissioner Gordon decided not to reinstate Britney’s 50% custody with the children. His decision was based upon the court appointed parenting coach’s report to the court, which suggested that Britney have less visitation with the children. Britney will continue to have three visits per week, including one overnight visit, and she will continue to be required to submit to random drug testing.

When Can a Court Order Random Drug Testing?

Pursuant to California Family Code section 3041.5, the court can order a parent seeking custody/visitation to submit to random drug testing if there is a “judicial determination based upon a preponderance of evidence that there is the habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances or the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol.” In other words, since Commissioner Gordon found that Britney was frequently and illegally using controlled substances or alcohol, she must now submit to drug testing so that the court can help ensure that the children are safe while in her care.

Can Britney Ever Regain Custody?

If Britney can show the court that she is a fit parent she will likely regain 50% custody of the children. Of course, part of the challenge is proving that she does not use drugs or abuse alcohol. The court will usually base its decision upon a declaration submitted by Britney making these statements under penalty of perjury, and may want to hear oral testimony from her. The court’s decision will likely be based largely on the conclusions of a custody evaluation or the report of a parenting coach and the drug test results. We should expect another custody hearing soon which will either be a status hearing (basically an update requested by the judge) or a motion brought by Britney’s attorney requesting more visitation.

Who is Commissioner Scott Gordon?

Scott Gordon was a former Santa Monica police officer. He attended Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles and joined the District Attorney’s office in 1985, where he was assigned to criminal cases. While a District Attorney Scott Gordon also taught criminal law classes at Southwestern Law School. I was fortunate to have Scott Gordon as a professor at Southwestern - he was an excellent teacher and well liked by students.

In 2002, Scott Gordon was elected a Superior Court commissioner and served in the criminal courts. Around 2004, he was assigned to the family law courts. As a family lawyer I had the opportunity to have cases in his court room, and in my experience, Commissioner Gordon is a fair judge; he understands family law and makes well-reasoned and thoughtful decisions. He is considered among the best family law judges in Los Angeles county.

What is the Difference Between a Commissioner and a Judge?

A commissioner is a lawyer who is elected to the judicial position. A commissioner has the same powers as a judge, but parties to the action (i.e.: plaintiff and defendant) must agree or stipulate to have their case heard by a commissioner instead of a judge. If one of the parties doesn’t agree to the commissioner the case will be moved to a courtroom in which a judge presides.

Commissioner Scott Gordon’s Most Recent Orders

At the last Spears Federline hearing, Commissioner Gordon ordered that Britney have monitored visitation with a parenting coach present. Commissioner Gordon also ordered Spears to undergo random drug testing.