Top Ten 15 Most Expensive Divorces

1. $25 million- Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall

Compared to other celebrity divorce settlements 25 million seems like a low number but it’s not considering that Mick Jagger and supermodel Jerry Hall were never actually married. Their “marriage” was a small religious ceremony in Bali that had no legal status. Their relationship lasted 21 years during which they had 4 children. In 1999 Hall filed for divorce asking for a $50 million settlement. Although she was legally entitled to nothing she made out with a reported $25 million.

2. $30 million- Ted Danson and Casey Coates

Cheers’ bartender Ted Danson married his first wife Casey Coates (10 years his senior) in 1976. A close couple, Danson took a six month off of work to nurse Coates back to health after she suffered a stroke during the birth of their first child. They had a second child together before the 1992 divorce. It is believed that Danson’s unusually close relationship to co-star Whoopi Goldberg while filming Made in America is what ultimately led to the divorce.

3. $45 million- Michael and Diandra Douglas

Actor/Producer Michael Douglas married Diandra in 1977, early in his carrier. After 20 years of marriage clothing store owner and mother of their child Diandra filed for divorce. The divorce settlement was $45 million, an estimated third of Douglas’s fortune at the time. Shortly after divorce Douglas married fellow actress Catherine Zeta-Jones. Notably, Douglas has been accused of being a sex addict.

4. $50 million- James Cameron and Linda Hamilton

Reportedly, the romance between famous director James Cameron and actress Linda Hamilton began in 1991, on the set of Terminator 2. The couple married in 1997 and had a daughter. Surprisingly, even after a long courtship the couple was only married for 17-months, 8 of which they were separated. During this time Cameron is believed to have been dating Titanic star Suzy Amis. In the end Cameron was forced settle with Hamilton who walked away with $50 million, half the revenue of the box-office hit Titanic.

5. $80 million- Kevin Costner and Cindy Silva

In 1994 Costner ended his 16-year marriage to restaurateur, college sweet-heart and mother of his three children, Cindy Silva. The two met while studying at California State University at Fullerton, before Costner hit it big. It is reported that Costner’s infidelity on set is what finally lead to their melt down.

6. $85 million plus- Harrison Ford and Melissa Mathison

Actor Harrison Ford and wife Melissa Mathison divorced in 2004 after 18 years of marriage. Mathison received an $85 million settlement as well as a share of all future earnings on movies he made while they were together. This includes royalties and DVD sales of 22 movies including Witness, The Fugitive and the Indiana Jones Trilogy.

7. $100 million- Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving

After 4 years of marriage and one child, actress Amy Irving and well-known director Steven Spielberg called it quits. Even though the couple had signed a prenuptial agreement before marriage Irving contested that at the time of signing she did not have the legal representation required. In the end Spielberg settled with Irving for $100 million.

8. $150 Million- Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphy

Legendary singer Neil Diamond and his second wife Marcia Murphy divorced in 1994 after 33 years of marriage. Diamond has been quoted saying that Marcia “earned every penny” and that “she’s been through thick and thin with [him] and deserves half of [his] fortune.” Although Diamond has not remarried he has been dating Rachel “Rae” Farley, 33, since 1996.

9. $168 million- Michael and Juanita Vanoy Jordan

Michael Jordan met Juanita Vanoy on a blind date in 1984 and by 1989 they were married. In 2002 the couple filed for their first divorce but reconciled shortly after. Again, in 2006 they filed for divorce, but this time they followed through. The couple had both signed a prenuptial agreement entitling Juanita two half of Michael’s fortune. In the end she walked away with a $168 million settlement, their seven-acre estate and custody of their three kids.

10. $300 million- Roman and Irina Abramovich

Roman Abramovich, now the richest man in Russia was once a struggling business man living with a wife and young daughter in a small flat. In 1990 Abramovich met the beautiful Irina, an Aeroflot flight attendant who soon became his second wife. While they were married Abramovich made his fortune. After 17 years of marriage the couple divorced. Somehow Abramovich talked the $7 billion divorce settlement down to a little cash and a few assets such as homes, a yacht and a plan. All of this amounts to about $300 million, a mere 2 percent of Abramovich’s $18.7 billion fortune.

11. $188-376 million- Paul McCartney and Heather Mills

In 2006—after 4 years of marriage and one child— the former Beatle filed for divorce from ex-model Heather Mills citing “unreasonable behavior.” Mills now claims that Sir McCartney abused her and that she has evidence to prove it. Although no settlement has been reached it is estimated that Mills will end up with $188 million to $376 million, really only a small portion of McCartney’s worth.

12. $460 million plus- Craig and Wendy McCaw

Craig McCaw’s fortune began when he turned the failing television cable service he inherited to a successful business. He eventually sold the it for $755 million. A visionary, he acquired cell phone licenses as early as 1981, which he was eventually able to sell to AT&T for $12 billion. He met his future wife before he made his billions when she tutored him at Stanford University. Their marriage lasted from 1974 until 1995. The settlement gave Wendy $460 million, enough to support her $200,000 per week lifestyle.

13. $874 million- Adan and Soraya Khashoggi

Adan Khashoggi made his early money as an international arms dealer for the Saudi royal family. He than started his own company Triad, which owned and managed banks, hotels, and real estate across the globe. He married Soraya in 1961. Both enjoyed living lavish lifestyles including thrilling affairs. They divorced in 1982 and Soraya walked away with an $874 million out-of-court settlement, one of the most expensive in history.

14. $1.7 billion- Rupert and Anna Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch is one of the richest men in the world. He made his fortune by inheriting his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952 and developing it into a worldwide media empire News Corporation. He married Anna in the 60’s and they had three children together. In 1999 they divorced and Rupert agreed to give Anna $1.7 billion mostly in assets, although she was removed from the News Corp board. Seventeen days after the divorce was finalized Rupert married his younger employee Wendi Deng.

15. A NEW HIGH?- Frederick and Vera Chiluba

The 33 year marriage between the former President of Zambia, Frederick Chiluba and his wife Vera was recently annulled. Ex-wife Vera is asking for a settlement of $2.5 billion (more than three quarters of the county’s Gross Domestic Product) in addition to a share of their concrete assets including six houses and a farm, she is also demanding over 400 cows, sheep, and goats. Since it is unknown exactly how much the ex-president is worth or how he was able to acquire the money this case has not yet been settled and Vera is living off government assistance.

Now, more than ever, you may need tax planning to lessen this tax bite. Your lawyer trusts, using gifts to reduce taxes, and other techniques. Possible changes in the tax code may open new opportunities as well.

This article is designed to start you thinking about establishing a retirement plan for your business. The law gives you plenty of options, and your lawyer can help you determine which is best for you. In future articles, we will look at some specific options, such as SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees) plans, SEP (Simplified Employee Pension) plans, profit-sharing plans, 401 (k) plans, and others

Learning the Lingo

The world of pensions has a language of its own. We’ll help you make sense of it. For example, in this article we’ll focus on tax qualified plans. These give you a tax break, and so they’re usually most attractive to you. However, you should be aware that nonqualified plans that are not tax favored are also available to meet your retirement needs.

Do You Need a Plan?

Perhaps you already have an IRA. (If not, you should.) But the funds in your IRA may be insufficient to retire on, and you want to receive additional tax-favored treatment for money you contribute to a business-related retirement plan. Take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of tax qualified plans.

A tax-qualified plan is an agreement between the employer and its employees that complies with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. In basic plans, an employer can contribute 15% of the first $160,000 of each employee’s salary up to $30,000.

As a business owner, you wear two hats you are an employer, but also an employee. As the employer, you provide the benefits of a tax-qualified plan to yourself as the employee. Under a tax-qualified plan, the benefits provided by you as the employer must benefit all employees. You as a business owner also gain tax advantages for your business.

Even if you’re the sole employee, even if you have self-employed income from moonlighting while you have a job, or your business is unincorporated, a retirement plan is available. Such plans are commonly referred to as Keogh Plans. Except for certain prohibited transactions, similar rules apply to Keogh Plans and plans for larger enterprises.

For a retirement plan to work, you need money to put into it. While you will not be locked in to making contributions to some plans during bad financial years, you need to feel that you are at a stage in your business where you can make a commitment to finance the plan.

That said, it’s important to start as early as possible. If you started at age 30 with a retirement plan, putting 10% of your income of $50,000 into a retirement plan every year, assuming a return on the investment of 10%, by age 60, you would have $1,243,000. But a delay of even a decade in getting started can make a huge difference. By waiting to begin retirement planning until age 40, your retirement plan would be only worth $396,900.

Sidebar: Pros and Cons of a Tax-Favored Plan

Advantages

A retirement plan could give you a competitive advantage over other businesses to attract and keep qualified employees.

As the employer, you receive a current tax deduction for all contributions to the plan. As an employee, you are not currently taxed on the contribution when it is made on your behalf, but only when you actually receive the money on your retirement, death, disability, or termination. Generally, when you receive the proceeds at the later date you have less income, and therefore pay a lesser tax rate on these distributions. Plus you can continue to defer this tax until age 70 1/2by not taking distributions.

The funds contributed by you as the business owner to the plan are held in a separate trust account. These assets may not be touched by the business, and are exempt from creditors of both your business and your employees. The funds in this tax-sheltered trust are to be invested by you as a “Trustee” of the retirement plan. All of the income generated by investment of these funds is also tax deferred. The trust will not pay any tax when the income is earned and the tax will be deferred until the investment income is actually distributed to you.

Disadvantages

You have to meet all the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code to receive tax-favored status. That prohibits you from contributing to your own account at a rate that discriminates against employees who are not owners of the company. Additionally, as an owner-employee, you will have to meet special requirements in order to maintain the plan’s tax-favored status. And only a certain amount of contributions to the plan will be tax deductible.

Plans can be expensive to administer, and you will be required to file an annual form with the Internal Revenue Service. However, the expenses of administration and filing annual reports will be paid from the plan assets and not out of your business.

The Department of Labor requires that the Department be notified and, in some instances, employees be notified about certain plan provisions.

To ensure the tax-exempt status of your plan, you must file for approval from the Internal Revenue Service. The application form is complicated and takes a long time to process. (However, there are several types of plans available to you that do not require approval. These include volume submitter plans, prototype plans and SIMPLE plans.)

Whether this is for you or not will depend on many factors-your age, health, budget, etc. Here’s a quick look at how the law is involved, and some possible developments on the horizon.

How Managed Care Works

Managed care programs cut costs by limiting your access to health care. That does not mean that managed care is bad or wrong. It simply means that you must follow more rules when you go to the doctor in exchange for paying less for your health care.

Under managed care specific doctors, hospitals and other health care providers agree with the insurance company to give you medical care at a reduced cost in exchange for making all members use that specific list of doctors and hospitals.

In general, your HMO gives you a list of doctors, from which you choose one doctor for your care. That doctor coordinates all of your medical care. If you want to see a specialist your primary doctor must refer you. If you go to a doctor that is not in your HMO, the HMO will pay no part of your bill. by limiting the care for which it will pay. What used to be a decision between you and your doctor is now a decision between you, your doctor and your health plan. You either must abide by your managed care policy or pay for the treatment out of your own pocket.

How the Law is Involved?

There is no law that stops a doctor from considering the cost of your medical care when deciding how to treat your illness. The courts, though, generally require that your doctor base his decision on what is best for you.

One problem with managed care is that it puts your doctor between a rock and hard place. The doctor may feel you need a particular treatment but your health plan will not approve it. Your doctor can either decide to not offer you the treatment or to prescribe the treatment and bill you directly. If your doctor decides to bill you directly there is the chance that the doctor will not be paid.

The HMO may also offer your doctor financial incentives to keep costs low. In some plans, the doctors get a percentage of the money they save the HMO. In some cases HMOs will kick doctors out of their plan if the doctors try to push for more expensive medical treatment for their patients.

Malpractice and Managed Care

If your doctor makes a neglectful decision about your care and you’re injured as a result of the decision, your doctor may have committed malpractice. In these days of managed care, though, that decision may have more to do with your health plan than with your doctor’s judgment. Yes, you can still sue your doctor for malpractice, but right now it is nearly impossible to sue your managed care company, although lawmakers are trying to change that.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal law that controls how your employee benefit plan is administered. Part of the law protects the health plan offered by your employer from being sued for interfering in your health care.

Remember, ERISA only protects health plans that are offered by employers. If you buy your health plan on your own or through some other type of group, you may still be able to bring a lawsuit against your HMO.

Is There a Limit on Damages if I Sue?

The states do not agree on how or when you can sue an HMO and what kind of damages you can recover. In some states awards can be high. In others, you can only recover the cost of the treatment or test. If a prostate exam costs $200 in your state and your HMO refuses to pay for a prostate exam, you could sue your HMO for $200 if the exam would have turned up the fact that you have prostate cancer. It does not matter if you die because of the HMO’s refusal to pay for the test.

If I Die Because of Care Denied by my HMO, Can my Heirs Sue the HMO?

Not at the present time if it’s an employee benefit plan. ERISA does not give your heirs the right to sue your HMO on your behalf. Look for consumer groups to try to change this rule in the coming years.

What Can We Expect in the Future?

ERISA’s effect on HMOs is a hot topic. Medical care and HMOs are on every political candidate’s platform-although they are not always on the same side. As for action on the state level, at least one state has made it legal for HMO members to sue their HMOs for malpractice when the HMOs did not use ordinary care in making medical treatment decisions. That state’s law also makes it illegal for HMOs to throw doctors out of their health plans when the doctors help the patients appeal HMO decisions or prescribe treatments the HMOs do not want the doctors to prescribe.

This is obviously a fast-changing area. Consult your lawyer to learn the legal situation in your state.

2. Who should make medical decisions for you if you become incapable of making your own decisions or unable to express your wishes?

3. When and how should those you designate be empowered to make medical decisions?

4. What level of quality of life existence do you wish to preserve through medical treatment and care? When, according to your own standards, would you want medical care to end?

5. Where would you draw the line between a quality of life worth preserving and a minimum life that should be mercifully shut down?

6. How do you want to be treated if you get Alzheimer’s disease or some other condition that limits your mental abilities?

7. If you are in serious pain, what do you want done?

8. Do you want to be put into a nursing home?
If so, for how long, under what conditions, and for what purposes?

9. Where do you wish to die?

10. Do you want to put a financial limit on your terminal care?

11. How much do you want to know about your medical condition and prognosis?

12. When should all life-sustaining treatments be ended?

13. When should Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders be written for you?

14. How long should you be maintained on life-support systems?

15. Should food and water ever be withdrawn or withheld in order to shorten the process of your dying?

16. Which definition of death should apply to you? (brain dead?)

In New Jersey, attorney fees are allowable at all stages of the divorce. The statutes permit the court to order that a retainer fee be paid for services when the respective financial conditions of the party make it reasonable and just.

• Avoiding criminal prosecution; or
• Avoiding creditors.

The Court will require her name, date of birth, social security number, as well as an affirmation that she is doing neither of the aforementioned things and is changing her name merely to disassociate herself from the marriage. However, many women choose to maintain their married name while there are still unemancipated children.

There are many reasons as to why divorces take longer or shorter. There are also tax reasons why someone may want to be divorced prior to the end of the year or wait until the first month in the new year. However, the divorces are often delayed due to a failure to either provide or receive information that is required under the current status of New Jersey law. Also, people being unreasonable forcing their demands and their offers, tend to cause divorces to take more time. Although a highly emotional situation, emotions should not play any role in the divorce. In the 21^st century, the main issue in the majority of divorces is financial. In that case, emotions should not play any role in the divorce proceeding. Emotions can only delay the eventual outcome. A situation where custody is truly an issue, emotions are also detrimental and time consuming as the experts that will insist in having the Court decide custody do not want either party to be too emotional.

When you are contemplating starting a divorce proceeding, you should plan on sixteen (16) months of dealing with the court system and being totally frustrated with the slowness of the judicial system. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel being that once the divorce is over, your new life can start.

• Assets which are pre-marital;
• Inheritances received by the one party during the marriage;
• Gifts from third parties.

Equitable distribution is determined as follows:

• The duration of the marriage;
• Age, physical and emotional health of the parties;
• Income and property brought into the marriage by each party;
• The standard of living established during the marriage;
• Any written agreements made by the parties before or during the marriage concerning an arrangement of property distribution;
• Economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property becomes effective;
• The income and earning capacity of each party;
• The contribution by each party to the education, training or earning capability of the other;
• The contribution by each party of the acquisition, dissipation, depreciation of the value of the marital property, as well as the contribution of the party as the homemaker;
• The tax consequences of the proposed distribution to each party;
• The present value of the property;
• Need of a parent who has physical custody of a child to own or occupy the marital residence and to use or own the household effects;
• The debts and liabilities of the parties;
• The need for creation of a trust fund to secure reasonable medical and educational costs for a spouse of child;
• The extent to what each party has achieved their career goals;
• Any other factors that the court may deem relevant.

Although in each case the court is supposed to make specific findings of fact on the evidence relevant to all issues pertaining to asset eligibility, asset valuation, and equitable distribution including specifically what is set forth above, it is rarely done. If there is a rebuttal presumption that each party made a substantial financial or non-financial contribution to the acquisition of income and property while that party was married, one is to spend the time reading each and every case that analyzed equitable distribution. Each case would specifically review the aforementioned factors. However, in reality that is rarely done. In reality the courts cannot have each asset valued and the assets and liabilities distributed equally. The courts question why this case is not a 50-50 case. Unless there are severe extenuating circumstances, all of the assets and liabilities of the marriage will be divided equally.

The issue becomes the value of the assets. This is especially true in cases when one spouse owns (or has an ownership interest in) a business. It becomes difficult and extremely important to determine the exact value of the ownership interest.

The other main problem in determining assets for equitable distribution occurs when the value of the asset has changed from the time the divorce was filed to the time the assets are separated. In the case of stocks that appreciate or depreciate as a result of market conditions, the court looks to divide those assets in kind. (This means that if there are 422 shares, each party will receive 211 shares.)

Another asset that is difficult to evaluate are the retirement assets. There are two main categories of retirement assets:

• A defined benefit plan. In these plans, the amount the participant will receive at retirement is determined in advance.
• A defined contribution plan. In these plans, the plan participant determines in advance how much will be contributed to his or her retirement accountant. The amount of the benefit at retirement is, however, unknown. The amount of savings will depend on the success of the participant’s investments. Employer responsive plans such as 401k’s and profit sharing plans are defined contribution plans. In many cases the retirement plans are distributed through the use of a qualified domestic relations order commonly referred to as QDRO. A QDRO is used to divide a retirement plan between the spouses to avoid tax consequences. It is a court order that requires an employer (or plan administrator) to transfer the employee’s plan assets to a spouse.

If you have been married for 10 or more years you have the right to plan on social security retirement benefits based on your spouse’s work records.

Child Support Basics

• Use of Child Support Guidelines(PDF format)
• Line Instructions for Shared Parenting Worksheet(PDF format)
• Considerations in the Use of Child support Guidelines(PDF format)
• Child Support Guidelines - Sole Parenting Worksheet(PDF format)
• Child Support Guidelines - Shared Parenting Worksheet(PDF format)
• Child Support Guidelines - Net Child Care Worksheet(PDF format)
• Basic Child Support Award Schedule(PDF format)
• Child Support Award Schedule as Percentage of Income(PDF format)
• Combined Tax 22b - withholding tables for Guidelines(PDF format)
• Family Part Case Information Statement(PDF format)