Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements play a key role in divorce proceedings. Devised with divorce in mind, these reviews are especially important abroad.
It’s the agreement itself that’s very likely to dictate the exact court that is to be in charge of divorce proceedings and that can hugely simplify the process. However, the level of significance of the agreement varies depending on the country. While in some countries, the prenuptial and postnuptial agreements carry great weight in determining which court will be responsible for divorce proceedings, others are more reliant on other factors.
The Question of Jurisdiction
A prime example of the upsides of being a part of the European Union, the set of rules that apply to divorce proceedings jurisdiction has made things simple for the EU member states, when it comes to divorce proceedings.
Complications arise, however, if the couple that is filing for divorce is living outside the boundaries of the EU and/or are foreign country nationals. In these cases, it’s possible that more than one court is eligible to oversee the case. This depends on the regular place of residence and/or other relation to a country. The actual problem here arises due to the fact that some countries have different laws and regulations.
On another hand, there is a possibility for a party to try and push for the divorce location which will get them a better settlement. Location and the number of children are important factors in determining both the proceedings’ location and the settlement itself.
This is further dependent on the location where the majority of couple’s mutual assets are located and the asset liquidity plays a vital role here.
The Matter of Children
The proceedings abroad tend to get complicated even further, once the matter of children is introduced into the equation.
Divorce is an extremely emotional experiences and, when it comes to their children, parents tend to get overprotective and, without thinking clearly, step out of boundaries of law. The most common issue here is where a parent takes their child or children to the parent’s own home country. This impulsive act can easily turn into a serious criminal offence, bringing along serious allegations such as child abduction, regardless of whether or not a child was willing to be taken by a parent in question.
While Canada is a good example of the ‘equal rights marriage policy’ which the country’s law fully abides by, most countries’ laws state that children are obligated to live with their mother, up to a certain age, which is why the proceedings tend to go smoother, as long as both of the parties agree on important issues (financial or child custody and support-related).
An uncontested divorce in Oregon, for example, is far easier to achieve if both parents agree on the modification of the Child Support Review Process (CSRP). This will likely make the entire proceedings go smoother, as well as quicker.
The reasons to come to an agreement outside of the court, when it comes to divorce, are sometimes heavily related to the harshness of laws in certain states. When you file divorce in California, for example, the wage withholding court order is put into force. It makes the employee of the parent, who doesn’t have the physical custody of the child, responsible for taking the child support out of the employee’s paycheck. This tends to cause further complications, especially in cases where courts of different countries or states are involved.
A well thought-out plan should account for any arrangements for the ‘non-resident’ parent to remain in contact with their children.
Divorce tends to be even more difficult when foreign nationals and expatriates are involved, than it is in regular cases. Naturally, seeking proper legal advice is always a good way to go, especially when a variety of specific and international laws are applied. Mutual agreement is the best way to handle a divorce abroad.
Kris Humphries is seeking $7 million from his estranged wife Kim Kardashian to avoid a public divorce trial, claimed new reports.
Kris Humphries, 27, has allegedly given Kim Kardashian, 31, an ultimatum: pay up or endure a public trial, according to TMZ.
TMZ sources claimed that Kris Humphries made the demand through his Minnesota-based lawyer Lee Hutton.
But the Kardashian camp immediately rejected Kris Humphries’ ultimatum.
There were also rumors that the New Jersey Nets player would be representing himself if the case goes to the trial.
But his representatives say those reports are simply not true.
Kris Humphries was hoping to hire a Minnesota lawyer to handle his divorce case in court.
California law requires a local lawyer to assist, so Kris Humphries was forced to hire a Los Angeles lawyer.
Then, the Los Angeles lawyer withdrew, leading to reports that Kris Humphries would be representing himself.
Kris Humphries is seeking $7 million from his estranged wife Kim Kardashian to avoid a public divorce trial
A source told HollywoodLife.com that those report were completely false.
“He’s simply in the process of changing his L.A.-based attorney. And, his Minnesota-based lawyer, Lee Hutton, will still be the lead attorney anyway in court,” the source told HollywoodLife.com.
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries were married in August 2011 in a lavish ceremony that was broadcast on the E! cable network.
Kim Kardashian announced she was filing for divorce less than three months later citing “irreconcilable differences”.
The couple is said to have a prenuptial agreement, and, sources told TMZ, Kris Humphries made $1 million from the wedding and TV special as well as $250-300,000 from his time on the Kardashians’ reality shows.
Kris Humphries is also seeking an annulment to the marriage instead of a divorce, citing “fraud”.
Yesterday, Kris Humphries reportedly hired Los Angeles-based attorney, Marshall Waller, to represent him in court.
Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown’s prenuptial agreement, which was drawn up before they got married in 1992, has now been revealed.
Whitney Houston, who passed away last month at the age of just 48, signed the document on July 17, 1992, and as well as banning Bobby Brown from accessing her will, it stated the income both parties earned during their marriage would remain separate property.
RadarOnline.com has obtained the document, which states: “Houston shall have the right to dispose of her Separate Property by Last Will and Testament in such manner as she may, in her own uncontrolled discretion deem proper.
“All future earnings, income, and accumulations resulting from each of the party’s respective personal activities, skills, efforts and work (including but not limited to each party’s respective earnings, income and accumulations derived from recording contracts, movie contracts, other media contracts, concert tours, endorsements, personal appearances….shall remain separate.”
Whitney Houston signed the prenuptial agreement on July 17, 1992, and as well as banning Bobby Brown from accessing her will
Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown, who had a daughter, Bobbi Kristina, together, filed for divorce in 2006 after 14 years of marriage, but the prenuptial agreement stated the late singer had “no obligation” to support her former spouse.
The document stipulated: “Brown agrees that Houston shall have no legal obligation to support him, and that he shall have no right to require the payment of any alimony, support (including temporary support), or other maintenance, and no right to receive any rights, interests, or claims to Houston’s property, and Brown hereby waives releases, and forever renounces any and all such rights to the fullest extent permitted by law.”
Bobby Brown, who was believed to have introduced Whitney Houston to illegal substances, was rumored to have been possibly banned from attending the star’s funeral last month, but did attend, only to leave early after a seating dispute.
Mel Gibson finalized his legal separation on Friday and is likely to hand half of his estimated $850 million fortune to his ex-wife Robyn Moore, according to reports.
Legal representatives for Mel Gibson and Robyn Moore gave a judge their suggested parting payment in a Los Angeles courtroom today.
The actor owns several properties in the wealthy, seaside enclave of Malibu, outside L.A.
Under California state law Robyn Moore, 51, is entitled to half of his assets as they didn’t sign a prenuptial agreement in 1980 when they wed.
After 26 years of marriage, Mel Gibson and Robyn Moore split five years ago when he was a detained for driving under the influence in Malibu.
Mel Gibson, 55, was later shamed throughout the film industry for making anti-Semitic remarks.
Mel Gibson finalized his legal separation on Friday and is likely to hand half of his estimated $850 million fortune to his ex-wife Robyn Moore
His wife only filed for divorce, stating “irreconcilable differences” in April 2009 after he had publicly stepped out with a pregnant Oksana Grigorieva, 41.
Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva went on the have a two-year-old daughter, however in 2010 more trouble brewed for the star when he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery following a dispute with Grigorieva.
The filmmaker and actor was sentenced to three years’ probation and was given a glowing review earlier this month by the same judge who is handling Lindsay Lohan’s case, for attending counseling and doing double the community service required of him.
The recovering alcoholic has been working with Mending Kids International, and he previously said working with the organization had helped him realize what the important things in life really are.
Mel Gibson said: “It gives you perspective. It’s one of my faults, you tend to focus on yourself a lot, which is not always the healthiest thing for your psyche or anything else.
“If you take a little time out to think about other people, it’s good. It’s uplifting.”
While Mel Gibson has seven offspring with Robyn Moore, he recently settled a custody battle with his former girlfriend, agreeing to pay Oksana Grigorieva $750,000 and share custody of their child.
Mel Gibson’s wild ways over the last few years have landed him in hot water when it comes to his career.
Producers of The Hangover movies pulled out of featuring him in their second movie due to his controversial actions.