Reality is not a Norman Rockwell painting - it is not all hot chocolate, mistletoe and gift wrapping. Reality involves the #1 cause of divorce, money.

If you are fighting about money, the best way to handle it is to grab all your financial statements (bank, credit cards, etc.) and head to your accountant and ask them to come up with a plan to pay down the debt based on your income and to determine a reasonable monthly budget - and even a holiday spending budget

However, if one spouse is used to a certain lifestyle and not willing to change, this will put additional stress on the spouse willing to change and the marriage itself. When this happens, fights happen and the marriage begins to break down - being around the holidays makes it even harder as people think they must ‘overspend’.

If you are considering divorce and it is the holiday time, you have to ensure that, if you have children, you make sure it does not affect their celebrations. You must consider the best interests of the children. If you are upset about money or gifts or traditions, stop and ask yourself how fighting about this will impact the future memories you had hoped to create for your children. Should you actually go through a divorce, the court will always admonish that you must keep their best interests in mind - therefore, by doing so during a tumultuous holiday season, you can begin to practice for when your divorce is in full swing.

In the months immediately after the holidays, we receive a tremendous influx of calls. This is not a coincidence as most couples who are thinking of splitting usually do not want to start a divorce during the period between Halloween and New Year’s. Being served divorce papers while passing the stuffing at Thanksgiving dinner is not everyone’s idea of the perfect holiday. As a result, once January hits, the divorce rate goes through the roof.

If you are considering divorce around the holidays, make sure you make the right decision and contact The Kepanis Law Firm, P.C. immediately.

The Kepanis Law Firm's founder, Douglas Kepanis was out at PACHA in New York City last night to support the North Shore Animal League.  Beth Ostrosky, Howard Stern's wife, hosted the event, which raised mucho dinero for the animals in need.

Photo of Doug Kepanis and Beth Ostrosky

Douglas Kepanis '94 is no stranger to bad relationships. As founder of The Kepanis Law Firm, a divorce and family law firm on Long Island and in Manhattan, Kepanis has been exposed to the dark side of love.
    
"I must admit I am a bit cynical when it comes to relationships and the prospect of them lasting beyond the newlywed phase," says Kepanis. "However, I think, at heart, I am a hopeless romantic who believes in love. The question is whether or not love believes in me."

Kepanis posed this question to Patti Stanger, host of the hit Bravo show Millionare Matchmaker, when he taped an episode for the show's fourth season in New York. The episode will hit TV screens Tuesday, Dec. 7.
    
On the show, Stanger and her staff attempt to match single wealthy people with potential spouses. Stanger also provides contestants with dating advice.
    
Back in February, Kepanis received an e-mail titled "Casting for Millionaire Matchmaker," and, after almost mistaking it for spam, read it and decided to give the casting agent a call.
    
"I am single and, as I am 38 years old, I have been thinking more seriously about meeting a woman I can share my life with," says Kepanis.
    
The casting agent asked Kepanis if he would be available to shoot an interview to send to Bravo.
    
"I thought it was an amazing opportunity and scheduled to meet with them the next day," he says.
    
After filming the interview, the agent told Kepanis he had a good chance of making the show.
    
"With that, I put it out of my mind until May, when I received a call from the production company telling me they loved my taped interview and invited me to film an episode of the show for the new season," says Kepanis.
    
On the show he had to face Stanger, who has been called the "Simon Cowell of dating" because of her direct and sometimes in-your-face comments.
    
"Patti definitely has a way with getting her point across, and with me, she did not hold back," says Kepanis. "She cautioned me that I need to spend more time getting to know someone before deciding they are no good for me. She said I was too quick to move on to a bigger, better deal when the person I am getting to know could be the one."
    
Did her advice and matchmaking work? You'll have to watch the episode to find out. No spoilers here!
    
Kepanis, born in Queens and raised on Long Island, majored in political science at Binghamton and became fascinated in international law after a class taught by Otto Ulc, professor emeritus of political science.
    
"My favorite part of Binghamton was the good times I had with friends there, whom I am still friends with to this day," says Kepanis.
    
After attending Binghamton University, Kepanis moved to San Diego to attend law school, but left after a semester to pursue his dream of becoming a guitarist in a rock band.
    
"I was in a band for five years and, upon the band disbanding, I decided I would go back to law school," says Kepanis. "I graduated in two and a half years cum laude from California Western School of Law and served as editor of the Law Review and International Law Journal."
    
From there, he earned his LLM in international and comparative law at Georgetown University. After practicing with a Garden City, N.Y., matrimonial and family law firm, Kepanis started his own firm.
    
While Stanger provided Kepanis with advice on how to find love, Kepanis has his own set of advice for how to become wealthy.
    
He lists "persistence, a positive attitude, being gracious to the people in your life who are there for you no matter what, education, long hours and a little bit of luck," as ways to succeed in any profession.

Celebrities get divorced all the time - but how often is there a celebrity offspring caught in between.  Billy Ray Cyrus, of Achey-Breaky heart fame, and his wife Leticia, have filed for divorce in Tennessee.  Caught in the middle is teen sensation Miley Cyrus of "Hannah Montana" fame.  While vowing to "not take side" in her parent's divorce is quite noble, her coping mechanism of "partying" away the emotional pain is definitely ignoble.  I would hope that her parents, while going through their divorce, can still behave as parents and reign in their celebrity daughter before she goes over the edge.  Coping with fame at such a young age, mixed with the emotional hurricane that a divorce causes, will be a tough road to travel.  Keep an eye out here for future updates.

The Huffington Post is launching a Divorce section on Monday, November 8, 2010. The Kepanis Law Firm is proud to announce that attorney Douglas S. Kepanis, LL.M. has been named a contributing writer therefor. The new Divorce vertical will be captained by famed writer Nora Ephron and edited by journalist Willow Bay. The Kepanis Law Firm is proud of Douglas's accomplishment and we welcome your comments.

Douglas S. Kepanis, LL.M.  recently appeared on the FOX News Channel's Happening Now show to discuss the reality show "Sister Wives" and the legalities of polygamy in Utah:

The Kepanis Law Firm's founder, Douglas S. Kepanis, appearing on the television show GOOD DAY NY:

There never seems to be a shortage of scandals in the sports world.  Whether it involves guns, drugs, or women, trouble always seems to find athletes.  Mets pitcher, Johan Santana, recently found himself in hot water when a woman accused him of sexually assaulting her in October 2009.  Santana denied any wrongdoing and was never charged.  He did admit the two had a consensual physical relationship.  Last week, the woman filed papers alleging imprisonment and rape.  She is seeking upwards of $15,000 in damages. 

Santana has been married for years and he and his wife have known each other since they were nine years old.  The two also have three children together.  While it is not shocking to hear another story about an athlete gone astray, it certainly does not feel that way to the parties personally effected by the infidelity.  The athlete lifestyle undeniably exposes sports figures to temptations.  Some have managed to overcome them, while others cannot seem to help but give in.  In the end, the ones who truly suffer are the athlete's wives and children.  If more men were honest with themselves and did not enter into committed relationships or start families before they were ready to give up the single life I think everyone involved would be better off.

 A New York appellate court recently handed down a controversial decision when it ruled that a same-sex partner could be held liable for child support.  The case of H.M. v. E.T. involved a same-sex couple that chose to conceive a child through artificial insemination.  After the child's birth, E.T. wanted out of the relationship. H.M. sued alleging she had relied on E.T.'s promise that she would be around to help raise the child. The court agreed and ordered E.T. to pay support.

Some argue that this ruling unfairly punished E.T. for leaving the unfulfilling relationship especially because she had no involvement in the child's life.  The court viewed things differently.  Because the couple made the decision to have a child together, the court reasoned that both parents should be responsible for the care and upbringing of the child.  Similar rulings are handed down rather frequently in family court.  Often times, fathers are required to pay support even if their relationship with the mother ends early on in the child's life. 

On the other hand, this ruling could be viewed as a positive step for same-sex couples.  The distinctions between the treatment of heterosexual and same-sex couples are gradually dissolving, which supports the argument for same-sex marriage.  If the law treats heterosexual and same-sex couples the same with regard to child support, then it certainly should with regard to marriage. 

Going through a divorce is one of the most difficult experiences one can face.  It is often emotionally draining, time consuming, and costly.  Divorce becomes even more challenging when children are involved and issues over custody arise.

There are several factors a court must weigh before deciding custody.  Some of these include determining whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, who the primary care taker is, and who currently has physical custody of the child.  The court must also consider the wishes of the child (if the child is old enough) as well as the impact a separation or change in custody will have on siblings.  Courts will also evaluate each parent's history and background, home stability, and the financial standing of each parent.  Contrary to popular belief, mothers no longer have a preferred right to custody. 

Custody can be divided in a variety of ways.  In New York, parents can be granted sole custody, joint legal custody, or shared custody.  Sole custody gives one parent the authority to make legal decisions for the children.  The non-custodial parent is then granted visitation.  Joint custody affords both parents legal custody and the authority to make major decisions such as medical treatment, schooling, and religious education.  When joint custody is granted, one parent typically becomes the primary residential caretaker.  Shared custody allows both parents to split legal custody and enjoy specific periods of responsibility.  This gives both parents the right to make major decisions on an equal basis for their children.  Ultimately, the court will base its final decision on what is in the best interest of the child. 

Although it may be difficult, it is imperative that parents do their best to remain mature and amicable while custody is being decided.  Doing so will not only lead to a more favorable outcome; more importantly, it will make this difficult time in a child's life a bit more manageable. 

Money is a common source of conflict in many relationships and is often the cause of divorce.  One would think that difficult economic times would increase quarrels over finances and ultimately lead to heightened divorce rates.  In fact, the opposite is true.  An article written by the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia indicated that from 2007 to 2008, divorce rates dropped from17.5 per 1,000 married women to 16.9 per 1,000 married women.

So why the slow-down?  It seems that when money gets tights, people try to hold on to what they have and look to their spouses for support.  When there is less money to spend couples tend to cut back on vacations, going to the movies, shopping, and eating out.  With fewer distractions they are able to spend more quality time at home and reconnect with one another.   

Another explanation for the lowered divorce rates is that couples simply do not want to take on another expense by initiating a divorce when money is tight.  Some predict that once the economy recovers divorce rates will spike as more couples have the means to enter into litigation that is often time consuming and costly. 

Although the short term effects of the recession seem to have stabilized many marriages, the future may not be so bright.  An article written by a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Iowa noted that 75% of the job loss has impacted men.  In many cases, men have been forced to rely on their spouse's income, which leads to relationship strains.  This is especially true for the poor and working class who have been hit particularly hard by the economic crisis.  Unfortunately, this means the stability and quality of married life among lower-income couples is being threatened as men's economic contributions to their families becomes less significant. 

Despite some positive effects of the current recession, the economic downturn has also placed added pressures on many marriages.  The situation is scary because no one really knows what the long term impact will be.  It seems that couples will just have to do the best that they can while they wait for circumstances to improve.    

The wedding business is a multi-billion dollar industry with the average wedding costing tens of thousands of dollars.  What couples don't consider when they take the plunge is that they may wind up spending as much, if not more, on their divorce.  Annual divorce costs in the U.S. exceed $30 billion dollars with the average divorce costing around $20,000.  This figure may be much higher or lower depending on the state you are in and whether the matter is contested or mediated.  Contested divorces tend to cost more especially when child support and custody must be decided, assets must be divided, and alimony must be determined.

If you hire an attorney to handle your divorce, which is always a good idea when dealing with difficult legal matters, there will be additional costs.  Attorneys may either charge a flat fee or an hourly rate.  Most attorneys request a retainer that is then deducted from the total cost. 

There may be other costs in addition to legal fees such as filing fees, copies, mileage, faxing, service of papers, postage, etc.  If the matter is contested and goes to trial there will also be added fees for temporary orders, discovery, witnesses, investigators, and experts.  These costs can add several thousand more dollars to the total cost of a divorce depending on the circumstances of the particular dispute. 

 Bottom line, divorce ain't cheap.  It can be both financially and emotionally draining.  Your best bet is to preserve your marriage.  If the time comes when divorce is the only option, strive for an amicable separation.  This is the ideal scenario and it is rare.  If you find yourself facing a messy divorce be strong, be patient, and find an attorney you trust who will earnestly fight on your behalf. 

Marriage and divorce in the United States have undergone several changes over the past 50 years.  The country has shifted from a period when women were expected to marry and bare children, men were to be the bread winners, and divorce was taboo.  Times have certainly changed since then and we now find ourselves in a unique moment in history where society's views on marriage and relationships have dramatically shifted. 

An article discussing these changes suggested that marriage is no longer about long-term commitment and sacrifice for the sake of family; rather, it is more about self fulfillment where the primary focus is on one's personal feelings of happiness and satisfaction.  This shift from a traditional view of marriage to what the article refers to as the "soul-mate model" ultimately leads to more divorces because people want to escape situations they do not find 100% fulfilling. 

Historian Robert L. Griswold points out  that the 1960's marked a particularly high point in the number of divorces due in part to the sexual revolution, a resurgence of feminism, more wives entering the workplace, the implementation of no-fault divorce, and an overall higher expectation of marriage.  Statistics indicate that from 1960 to 1980 the divorce rate surged from 9.2% to 22.6%.  By 1996 the number of divorced persons in the U.S. had reached 18.3 million as compared to 4.3 million back in 1970. 

The divorce rate remains high today, but it is on a slight decline due to society's changing views on relationships and marriage.  This shift has primarily resulted in couples waiting longer before they tie the knot due in part to their jaded views on the traditional definition of marriage.  This change was addressed in a report compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, which tracked the trends in relationships, marriage, and divorce from 1970 to 2000.  The impact of people waiting longer to marry is evident in several aspects of society.  There are now a significant number of non-married co-habitating couples.  In 2000, there were approximately 3.8 million households with such an arrangement.  There were also more single parent homes, approximately 12 million to be exact. 

This trend of postponing marriage to the later years has also led to some unforeseen benefits.  Statistics indicate that those who wait to marry have higher education levels than those who marry in their early 20's.  This is particularly true for women.  In 2000, 28% of unmarried women had a higher education level than their partners as compared to 21% of married women.  Those who wait to exchange vows also tend to earn more than couples who marry young.  It will be interesting to see how these figures compare to the 2010 census data.  I would venture to guess that the number of unmarried co-habitations and single parent homes will only increase.

I have experienced first-hand how differently this generation views relationships and marriage.  Most if not all of my girlfriends are more focused on their careers and self-discovery than they are on finding a husband.  It's not that they are entirely opposed to the idea of marriage; it's that they are no longer fooled by the illusion that a spouse, kids, and a house with a white picket fence is the ticket to happiness.  I think this shift in views will enable us all to have more healthy and meaningful relationships that are built on strong foundations because we will actually know who we are before we enter into life-long commitments.    

As society continues to evolve and the way we relate to one another changes I think it will be important for the traditional definitions of marriage to expand in order to accommodate these developments.  If not, marriage itself may eventually become obsolete.

OK - here's the scenario:

1-You meet a wonderful person and fall in love;
2-You get up the nerve to propose;
3-They say "YES!";
4-You put a $100,000.00 7-carat ring on their finger;
5-You get married;
6-You find out they were already married when they married you;
7-You cry foul and demand tha the ring be returned to you;
8-They say "NO!";
9-You file a lawsuit and the trial court orders that you are to receive the ring back;
10-Your "spouse" appeals and the Appellate Court says the ring does not have to be returned;
11-The ring, currently held by a third party, remains in contention.

To read the Appellate Division's decision CLICK HERE.

And you thought you had it rough!!!

Contact The Kepanis Law Firm today to help avoid this situation in your life.

As the state of New York awaits Governor Patterson's vote on the no-fault divorce bill, some questions have been raised about the impact this legislation will have on individuals undergoing a divorce.  Some argue that no-fault divorce laws may have an adverse impact on women.  There is fear that women, who still tend to earn less than their husbands, will suffer financially.  Because no-fault divorce laws allow a spouse to file for divorce for any reason, or no reason at all, the party seeking to dissolve the marriage tends to have the upper hand and more bargaining power.  If that person is also the primary bread winner, it could put the other spouse in a vulnerable position. 

While these are legitimate concerns that should not be taken lightly, it is important to understand what is motivating much of this criticism.  Those opposed to no-fault divorce laws seem to have antiquated views of marriage and the roles of women.  Some complain that no-fault divorce laws oversimplify the divorce process and prevent couples from working through their issues.  A recent article discussing the problems with marriage today offered several policies communities can implement to help preserve more unions.  Some of these include six months of premarital counseling, marriage enrichment events, and a year-long waiting period before a divorce can be granted.  While these are all positive suggestions, they overlook the reality that some relationships should not be preserved.   

No-fault divorce laws provide individuals a way out of dysfunctional marriages without having to engage in lengthy legal disputes that are emotionally and economically draining.  States have been adopting no-fault divorce laws since the early 70's and it is unlikely these laws will change any time soon.  While some are interested in preserving the institution of marriage at all costs, New York is on the verge of adopting a law that should prove to reduce the stress involved in what is already a difficult process. 

There are unavoidable consequences associated with any change.  However, adopting no-fault divorce law in New York is a change that is well worth the risks.

The influx of social networks has connected the world in ways that were previously unimaginable. In recent years we have been inundated with sites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Skype. They have enabled us to stay in touch with friends and family, reach out to those we have lost contact with, and even connect with complete strangers. While social networks provide undeniable benefits, there is a downside to being so exposed. Some users get a bit too carried away and choose to share aspects of their personal lives that can land them in hot water.

As tempting as it is to post photos of a crazy night out with the girls or your best friend's bachelor party, doing so may have unforeseeable consequences. Aside from the potential embarrassment of incriminating photos or information getting into the hands of an employer, evidence gathered on social networks could come into play in a divorce or custody battle. This can be especially dangerous in fault-based states such as New York where it is necessary to prove a fellow spouse engaged in some wrongdoing. Even in no-fault states, unbecoming photos or information could be used to determine spousal support, child support, or parenting time.

A recent article featured in the Orlando Sentinel discussed the increased role social networking sites play in the courtroom. Over the past five years, divorce attorneys throughout the nation reported an 81% increase in the use of evidence gathered from popular social networking sites. I am not advocating deleting all accounts and disconnecting from the world; however, you should be aware of the potential risks involved in making your private life public. Bottom line, be careful what you post…it may just come back to haunt you!

In today's world, prenups are a must!  Marriage is of course about love and devotion to one another, BUT it is also a legal contract.  In any contract there are provisions that provide certain protections in the event one party does not perform.  A marriage contract should be no different.  No one purchases a car or house without insurance, so why would you acquire a spouse without protecting yourself in the event that things do not work out as planned?  It's common sense people!  Everyone enters into marriage with good intentions and faith that both spouses will live happily ever after.  Unfortunately, the numbers tell a different story as approximately 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

Prenuptial agreements are a practical safeguard to the disheartening divorce figures.  While prenups are typically recommended for individuals entering marriage with a significant amount of assets, young couples of equal standing could benefit from them as well.  A recent Wall Street Journal article discussed some important information about prenuptial agreements and indicated that they may include provisions regarding infidelity, intimacy, and child rearing techniques.  These are issues that all couples face, but seldom discuss.  Choosing to draft a prenup with your significant other is not only a good way to protect yourself, but also a way to open the lines of communication about several important topics.  Of course, if you decide to enter into a prenuptial agreement you should do so with the advice and counsel of an attorney. 

Some say prenuptial agreements take the romance out of what is supposed to be the most romantic time in one's life.  I don't know about you, but I would much prefer a tad less romance over the headache and stress of a messy divorce.  So protect yourself and your spouse and prenup it up!

After nearly 7 years of marriage the ladies are calling it quits.  Grammy award winning singer-songwriter Melissa Ethridge officially split from her longtime partner Tammy Lynn Michaels last week.  The couple entered their domestic partnership in California in 2003 because same-sex marriage was, and still is, banned in the state.  As domestic partners, Ethridge and Micheals were not recognized as spouses under state or federal law.

Domestic partnerships provide certain legal protections to people who live together but who are not allowed to marry.  These protections include, but are not limited to, property ownership and division, visitation rights, and support obligations.  Fortunately for Ethridge and Michaels their domestic partnership afforded them the same community property and spousal support rights as any other married couple. 

In New York, domestic partnerships have been available since 1997.  To register for a domestic partnership, both parties must be over the age of 18, unmarried, and not in another domestic partnership.  They also must have lived together for an extended period of time and have a close personal relationship.  Under New York law, domestic partners have the right to hospital visits, the right to serve as the sole beneficiary of a deceased partner's assets, the right to obtain healthcare under a partner, and so on. 

While domestic partnerships have their benefits, they still do not provide the same rights as marriage.  In my opinion, it is unacceptable that marriage is not available to everyone in this day and age.  As progressive as we are as a nation, this is one area where we have not yet evolved.  Same-sex marriage remains a hotly contested issue throughout the U.S. and New York is no exception.  The city does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and a recent poll indicated that New Yorkers were in favor of legislating the institution.  The same-sex marriage debate raises Constitutional, economic, and moral issues all of which must eventually be addressed.  Until that time same-sex couples must settle for domestic partnerships, which provide unequal rights.  Limited rights do not seem to promote equality for all, but until the country resolves this issue I guess we have to work with what we've got. 

It looks like the high-net worth  Tiger Woods has finally been wrangled and is now being forced to pay up.  However, his pockets are not going to be pinched as much as he may have expected.  Initial reports indicated Elin Nordegren was to receive upwards of $700 million in the divorce settlement.  That figure was a bit exaggerated.   Nordegren will in fact walk away with $100 million.  Some may find this figure too low, others too high, and some may think this is an appropriate compromise.

Large divorce settlements always seem to spark heated debate.  The astronomical number given to Juanita Jordan, the ex-wife of Michael Jordan, immediately comes to mind.  Jordan was awarded $168 million when her 17 year marriage to the NBA star ended.  This was one of the highest divorce settlements ever granted.  Some argued that Jordan did not deserve such a staggering amount because she was not the decorated athlete earning the millions.  Others thought that she should have been awarded even more for standing by her husband's side for nearly two decades and later enduring his infidelities.  The same arguments are now being made about Tiger and Elin's split. 

While I am opposed to divorce being a get-rich-quick scheme, I also think that large divorce settlements are appropriate in some cases.  The amount should not necessarily be half of the other spouse's net worth, but a sufficient sum that accounts for the years one spent dedicated to the relationship and leaves both parties comfortable and free to move on with their lives.  Remember, settlements are not solely determined by the assets of the primary bread winner.  Courts may also take into account the other spouse's intangible contributions to the marriage that enabled the primary breadwinner to make a living.  This might include raising the children, keeping the household in order, and being a source of support for one's spouse. 

Whatever your opinion is on Nordegren's large monetary award, it is important to keep in mind what is at the heart of all this juicy gossip.  A relationship that at one time was positive and loving has dissolved, all parties involved have been humiliated, and most importantly, the lives of two innocent children have been changed forever.  Millions or not, divorce is never pleasant nor is it something to be taken lightly.

If you would like to speak with an attorney about your divorce matter, please CONTACT us today. 

The no-fault law would bring much needed changes to the state of New York.  We will be sure to update you as the law progresses.  In the meantime, the Kepanis Law Firm would like to hear your opinions.  Please CONTACT us today!