The Associated Press has recently covered the current state of affairs in the world of Charlie Sheen.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Hank Goldberg on Friday approved a request by Brooke Mueller Sheen to garnish any payments Warner Bros. Television makes to her ex-husband.  This request will withhold $55,000 per month from Sheen’s paychecks automatically.

The former couple was divorced on May 2, about two months after Warner Bros‘ fired Sheen from Two and a Half Men. The actor and the studio have been fighting over payments ever since.

The hefty monthly payments are intended to support the Sheens’ twin sons and were part of a divorce settlement they reached earlier this year.

The actor’s spokesman Larry Solters declined to comment. Brooke Sheen’s attorney did not immediately return a phone message.

Orlando lawyer Jeffrey Feulner and the Men’s Divorce Law Firm are experienced in Family Law Child Support and Florida Alimony.  If you are engaged in a family law matter contact us for our expertise today.

Camille filed for divorce from the 55-year-old Hollywood actor on July 1, 2010 after Kelsey told her he wanted out of their 13-year-marriage. On July 2, 2010, Kelsey tweets, “I know people will be tempted to say some mean things. I realize that it is human nature but I ask that you be particularly sensitive to the feelings of my wife. She has been a terrific partner for many years and should not be treated with any disrespect at this time.”

In subsequent Twitter posts, the actor confessed, “Things fell apart between us. That is all. She is still the mother of my children and any disparagement of her will only hurt the children. Camille did not want this but has made a very difficult decision and I respect her for it. I appreciate your kindness for all parties in this matter. Especially for her and the children.”

To make juicy tabloid gossip even more tantalizing, “Kelsey has reportedly asked the judge handling the couple’s divorce case to bifurcate the matter and grant a divorce decree as soon as possible while postponing the division of the couple’s marital assets at a later time.”

So why does he want such a swift break from his current marriage? Why does he refuse to sign a pre-nuptial agreement the fourth time around? An insider close to the actor reveals, “Kelsey is deeply in love with Kayte and can’t imagine spending the rest of his life with any other woman in the world. He knows she’s the one and wouldn’t insult her by asking her to sign a pre-nup. Kelsey doesn’t care about the money. He never has. This is about being happy. Finding someone who is your best friend. He doesn’t want to wait any longer.”

So, what does the current Mrs. Kelsey Grammer say to that?  Apparently, this scorned woman lashes out against her estranged husband in an interview with America’s shock-jock, Howard Stern. Stern probed, “When you say you ‘needed a man’ to be with you, was he a little bit gay… Are you saying he couldn’t get it up… Are you saying in your marriage, Kelsey dressed up like a woman… Wow, Kelsey is a total freak.” Click here to listen to the intimate, uncut and graphic insinuations of the most hated housewife of Bravo’s Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

After planting various seeds of gossip in the media, Camille comes forth with the truth in an interview with ET’s Reporter Nancy O’Dell claiming, “It was a joke.” Nancy asks Camille if she has any concerns about how Kelsey is being portrayed because of their two children — a son and a daughter.  The housewife replies, “Of course, I want to protect him. I want to protect my children, but I think what he’s done to me is absolutely awful. He left me to go to New York. He didn’t want me to come because he said with rehearsals he was too busy. Then I find out he moved somebody else into our apartment that we found [to live in] together for the duration of the play. Then after that, I found out she was pregnant and I found that out right after I filed for divorce … a couple of weeks after.” Click here to read more.

In a recent U.K. article, “Camille Grammer Wants All of Kelsey’s Money,” insiders claim she is planning to squeeze every last dime out of the former Frasier star— sources say.  Previous reports have claimed Kelsey’s divorce from Camille could cost him more than $71 million. However, Camille — who owns half of the star’s Grammnet Productions television company — is said to be seeking the payout for revenge, rather than monetary reasons.

According to reports, Camille is requesting joint legal custody and primary physical custody of the children, as well as spousal and child support. Kelsey is allegedly not offering spousal support and is requesting Camille receives none of his earnings from before the marriage.

Grammer and his fiancee, a twenty-nine-year-old British air stewardess, currently live together in New York City while the actor performs in the Tony Award winning play, “La Cage Aux Folles.” Click here to view recent photographs taken of the happy engaged couple.

What other celebrities in Hollywood refuse to sign a pre-nuptial agreement before getting married?

The Green Hornet star, Seth Rogen, insists he has no intention of drawing up legal documents to protect his fortune before he ties the knot with his fiancee Lauren Miller later this year.

Jessica Simpson is newly engaged to her NFL playing boyfriend, Eric Johnson, and the couple will not be signing a pre-nuptial agreement to protect Simpson’s numerous assets.

Russell Brand must really think he has found “The One” in Katy Perry. So much so that the entertainer has apparently refused to sign a pre-nuptial agreement before tying the knot with Katy.

Many times when a man or woman remarries after a complicated and drawn out divorce, they will be interested in entering into a pre-nuptial agreement. After dealing with the stress of a previous divorce, it may be a good idea to enter into a new marriage free of the worry of what might happen down the road.

A pre-nuptial agreement will govern who gets what and who is responsible for what if the marriage comes to an end. To discuss your options and determine what should be included in your pre-nuptial agreement, contact the Men’s Divorce Law Firm today to schedule a consultation.

A recently published article, “Texts, Tweets and Other Ways NOT to Talk,” highlights tips for avoiding your own courtroom downfall while maintaining your social media profile. The following is an excerpt from the article:

With a few swift keystrokes, your case could go down in flames.

It’s easy in our social networking gluttony where your computer keyboard is your sounding board to rant about your case. After all, it is mostly free, you don’t have to pay your lawyer or your therapist to listen to you, your spouse or ex is not your friend or follower, and a status update or a wall post is the easiest way to tell your friends exactly how you feel.

And that’s the problem.

Litigation does a whirlwind on your psyche.  You will have to sign paperwork your attorney could explain to you ten times over and you still won’t understand. (“Wait, what does hold harmless mean again?” you ask).

You will have to sit in a courtroom and watch a judge listen to your case as if the judge (1) is mad at you or (2) will not listen to you or your attorney or (3) both.  You will have to pay a lot of money, it seems, to get what you want. (If you pay for good legal work now, you will save yourself from having to pay a lot more to correct the work later.)

So you will at times lose your sanity, get angry or want revenge, and be lured into that electronic community where you can vent for free.

However, one spur of the moment flippant text, tweet or Facebook post could live an eternity against you.

What Are They: E-Admissions

We call these texts, tweets, status updates, wall posts, etc., e-admissions. “E” because they are electronic. “Admissions” because they are the social networking era’s version of the law’s classic oral or written statement from the opponent; that possibly fatal statement that bursts into the middle of trial on a tape recorder or through a friend or a PI and proves your opponent is a liar or did X and not Y.

But isn’t an out-of-court statement hearsay, you ask? Yes, but not from your opponent. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement or assertive conduct offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (e.g., offering “John did this” to prove John really did do this).

Hearsay is inadmissible as substantive evidence (to prove a fact in issue) unless an exception applies. Hearsay exceptions include dying declarations, excited utterances, present sense impressions, and tens of others for each jurisdiction. For example, witness Bill could not testify that “I heard X tell Y that the defendant killed the victim” unless a hearsay exception applied (perhaps X yelled in a fit of excitement).

Admissions are a party’s out-of-court statements or assertive conduct used against him or her. For example, your wife’s e-mail from tax season that she under-reported profits from the part-time hair salon she runs is an admission if you offer that statement against her in order to prove that she earns an income to pay her attorney fees.

All jurisdictions characterize these statements as non-hearsay. Therefore, they are not subject to the hearsay rules, and the offering party need not find one of those tens of hearsay exceptions to apply before offering it into evidence. See, e.g., MRE 801(d)(1).

How They Hurt: You Can’t Un-ring a Bell

Just as you can offer the judge or jury your opponent’s crushing e-admissions, your opponent can offer yours.

The party may offer the admission into substantive evidence, i.e. to prove the matter asserted. For example, your revenge-driven wife’s lawyer could admit an e-mail of you apologizing for “gambling away our savings” or “taking that trip with my secretary because I didn’t care what you and the kids did at Christmas,” to prove that husband gambled the parties to debt or cares more about sex than his children.

Or her lawyer might print her status updates and tweets – in which you ranted about “having to go to court with that b****” and “refusing to give her a dime” – to prove that you disparage your wife and only want to avoid paying child support. Or her lawyer may demand text messages from you to prove you harassed her.

Even if they are inaccurate, untrue or heat-of-the-moment and poorly-thought-out comments, these admissions will do considerable damage to your case. Once the judge or jury hears them, that is it.

Although your lawyer may request a limiting instruction so that the statements apply for some things (e.g. the speaker’s credibility) and not others (e.g., the truth), it is impossible to forget a damaging statement. As the saying goes, “you can’t un-ring a bell.” Once they’re heard, they will not be forgotten.

Granted, there are exceptions, as they almost always are in the law. For example, admissions may not be admissible if they are made in connection with a criminal case later expunged, plea negotiations, settlement discussions or certain civil infractions. See, e.g., Pizzillo v Pizzillo, 884 SW2d 749 (Tenn Ct App 1994) (memorandum of father’s admissions to child abuse in criminal case could not be admitted into evidence in later divorce case when criminal case record expunged).

More often, however, they are stored or saved somewhere in the e-universe, just a printer and a few sheets of paper away from becoming crushing blows in your case.

Should you need more guidance on your potential, future or current family law matter, please allow the elite legal team at the Men’s Divorce Law Firm to assist you in handling all aspects of your case.  Contact us today to schedule a time to discuss your unique situation further.

Throughout the divorce, it was speculated that Woods was worth between $500 and $750 million. In the end, Nordegren received a payout of $110 million in their divorce settlement according to RadarOnline.

A Fox News article entitled, “Nordegren gets $110M in divorce,” stated that Woods and Nordegren first separated “after a confrontation last November over Woods’ affair with New York hostess Rachel Uchitel. Woods entered a rehab program for sex addiction, where he reportedly admitted to affairs with several women.”

As a loving parent of two children, Woods retains the natural rights of a father and will share legal custody of the children. Nordegren will maintain physical custody of 3-year-old daughter Sam and 20-month-old Charlie with Woods being allowed flexible visitation rights, accommodating his schedule as a professional athlete. Woods will be able to re-negotiate these terms in five years.

To read the full Fox News article, click here.

The Men’s Divorce Law Firm is joyous to hear that the visitation between Tiger and his children will be frequent and flexible around his schedule.  If you or someone you know has questions about the visitation options they have, please tell them to contact us today to discuss their situation further.

Sheen and Richards have two daughters, Sam, 6 years old, and Lola, 4 years old.  Even though Sheen no longer has custody rights, he still visits his daughters for dinners and pays $50,000 in child support every month.

The mission of our firm is to make sure fathers never feel like they have to give up when it comes to their kids.  Call us today at 407-644-1895 to discuss your situation and find out how we can help you protect your parental rights.

To read the original article from All Headline News, click here.

www.MensDivorceLaw.com

In a strange twist of events, the biological mother (Mike’s now ex-wife) remarried to his daughter’s biological father. Although his daughter was now living with both biological parents, he was still being forced to pay child support. Why would he still be willing to do so? As quoted in the article, “Just because our relationship started because of someone else’s lie,” he said later, “doesn’t mean the bond that developed isn’t real.”

Despite the situation, Mike still loves his daughter more than anything and proves a great example of a father who would do anything for their child.

Click here to read the full article from the New York Times

Mark Heller, an attorney for Jon, said his client had repaid the money the octodad had removed from a joint bank account he shared with his soon-to-be ex but Kate had yet to return the $33,000 she had taken from the bank.

“Jon Gosselin has met all of the obligations he was required to make,” Heller said outside a Pennsylvania courthouse today. “The obligations that Kate Gosselin has were not fulfilled. Maybe that explains why she didn’t appear in court today.”

To read the full article click here.

Article by | www.nbcchicago.com

Unlike many other legal issues, child support is a math problem based on the amount of income each party earns. If the child support you have been ordered to pay is not based on your actual income, you can file a Financial Affidavit with the Court and petition the Court for a modification of child support based upon your actual income.

It is likely in your best interests to consult an attorney. Once the attorney understands the history of your case and prior orders that have been entered, he or she can best advise you on whether it is necessary to have the transcripts in order to appeal. If you wish to appeal only a child support order, child support will be calculated based on the Financial Affidavit you file with the Court and it is likely that you will not need any prior transcripts.

Unlike many other legal issues, child support is a big math problem based on the amount of income each party makes. If the child support you have been ordered to pay is not based on your actual income, you must file a Financial Affidavit with the Court and petition the Court for a modification of child support based upon your actual income. If you are not working, the Court will impute your income at minimum wage.

If the other party is represented by an attorney, you should absolutely consider getting legal advice from a local attorney. The forms you needs to file are often overwhelming to pro se clients, and even more so when one party is represented and the other is not.

Regardless of whether you can obtain an attorney or seek legal advice, if you have a certain amount of time to respond, you absolutely need to do so. If you ignore the paperwork that you have received, you will more than likely be ordered to pay child support based upon the income that the opposing attorney has stated you earn.