J.Lo’s Celebrity Divorce Details Explained

[Source: Bloomberg]

Celebrity Lawyer Christopher C. Melcher, who is ranked as a best family law attorney in California, explains the details of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck‘s celebrity divorce.

(31:34) June Grasso:

It’s just a song and no indication of how Jennifer Lopez is feeling after filing for divorce from Ben Affleck exactly 2 years after they were married. The couple famously split in 2003, calling off their first engagement. Both went their separate ways, got married, had kids, got divorced, and almost 20 years later, found their way back to each other. But now Lopez has filed for divorce. Joining me is celebrity divorce lawyer, Christopher Melcher, a partner at Walzer Melcher & Yoda, which is ranked as a best family law firm in California. Chris, this is her fourth marriage, his second marriage. I haven’t read anything about a prenup. Would you be surprised if there wasn’t a prenup?

J.Lo & Ben Affleck’s Prenup

Christopher Melcher:

It’s highly unlikely that this couple got married without a premarital agreement. They’ve been married before. They’ve had other relationships. They’re both wealthy with kids of prior relationships that need to be protected for inheritance rights. So it would be improbable in my mind that they got married without a premarital agreement.

June Grasso:

According to things that I’ve read, tabloid and others, they preplanned the terms of the split and he had moved out of the house in something like May, and they put the mansion on the market in June. So she filed pro per without a lawyer. That seems unusual. Is it unusual?

Christopher Melcher:

It’s really unusual. There’s no way in my mind that she did this without the assistance of a lawyer. She just chose not to list the name of that lawyer on the paperwork. I think this was probably for image purposes to make it look like this would not be a fight, that it’s going to be just processed as an agreed upon divorce, so I think that’s the message she’s trying to send with the no lawyer listed on the paperwork. Most of these cases are resolved before they file in court and that’s the smartest way to go because they can maintain their privacy and they can do it quietly, agree on all the terms. The only reason why she needed to file for divorce in that instance is to get their marriage terminated because the judge has to be the one who ends the marriage, and they can only do that with an active case, so that’s probably what we’re seeing is a fully documented and agreed upon settlement of all financial issues. It’s already been signed by them. And now she just needed to file this case to ask the judge to terminate their marital status.

Jennifer Lopez’s Divorce Date Significance

June Grasso:

She listed the date of separation as April 26th. Why is that significant?

Christopher Melcher:

In California, we have a partnership model for marriage, so any property that any spouse acquired from the date of marriage to the date of separation is community property and is shared 50/50. So when the spouses stop living together with the intention of ending the marriage and one spouse has communicated, “Hey, we’re done,” then they’re legally separated. That terminates or ends this marital partnership, so that’s why it’s important to know the date or marriage and the date of separation to understand what assets or streams of income were acquired or earned during that period.

June Grasso:

And as far as we know, the mansion in Beverly Hills, worth something like $60 million is the main asset that was acquired after they were married.

JLo & Affleck’s Property Loss

Christopher Melcher:

They did acquire this really expensive property in Beverly Hills during the marriage, so that would be community property unless they had a premarital agreement or other side agreement that made it different, like equally separate, or owned in separate proportions to each other. The down payment that was made on the house, if it came from, for example, Jennifer’s premarital property, then by law, she would be credited with that and get reimbursed off the top for the down payment. And only the appreciation would be split, but then again, unless they have some other kind of arrangement.

The problem though is that this house was not owned for very long, and it might’ve increased in value a bit, but it’s very expensive to sell a home. There’s not only the real estate commissions, but in Los Angeles, we have a mansion tax. So if the house exceeds $5 million, there’s quite expensive taxes that are levied on that property, so this would likely result in a loss the couple.

No Spousal Support or Alimony

June Grasso:

So she asked for no spousal support and she asked that Affleck not get any either. I mean, with very rich people who go into marriage later, who have children from separate marriages, is there normally a lot of fighting or controversy in the divorce? Or is it easier?

Christopher Melcher:

Well, it should be easier to solve these problems between two wealthy couples, but it’s all relative. It doesn’t matter how much money somebody has, they never want to give it to their former spouse or partner. And there’s a lot of resentment and resistance to sharing after a marriage or relationship is broken up. Now here, either one of these has no need for support. They’re extraordinarily wealthy, so there’s no need for support from one or the other, so that wasn’t going to be really an issue. But in other cases in California, when one spouse has all the money and the other is left without any assets, there’s going to be substantial spousal support or alimony to maintain that spouse at the marital standard of living.

Jennifer Lopez’s Name Change

(37:15) June Grasso:

She requested a new name on their filing. She got some criticism for changing her name when she got married. Nowadays, do most women keep their own name or change their name?

Christopher Melcher:

Well, certainly, things have evolved over time with regard to women taking their husband’s surname. But here, she has a right to have her maiden name restored, so she has checked that box on her divorce petition, which is common. And so when the wife chooses to take her husband’s surname, sometimes they’ll maintain that surname married name if they have children together because it’s just whatever reason, seems to be more convenient or less confusing for the mom to maintain her married name when they have kids together. But when there’s no children, many times we will see a request to restore the maiden name.

J.Lo Filed for Divorce First

June Grasso:

She filed for the divorce. Is it just how it looks? Is there any advantage for one party to file rather than the other?

Christopher Melcher:

There’s a slight legal advantage to being the first to file because they can maintain the initiative over the case as the petitioner. They get to go first if there’s a trial. But most of these cases are not litigated. They’re mostly all settled. So the decision on who the petitioner will be sometimes is left up to a coin flip if the couple’s really getting along and because there can only be one petitioner, and then the other is automatically the respondent. So sometimes they’ll just flip a coin to figure out who’s going to be the person to file first. Other times, there’s a lot of messaging and thought around it, which I would suspect is going on here, where it was important for Jennifer to be the one who took the lead and said, “I am filing for divorce. I want this divorce.”

Maybe Ben had said, “Hey, if you want a divorce, fine. I’m not going to fight you, but I’m not going to be the one asking for it.” So there’s a lot of dynamics that are involved with that relationship that will dictate who’s going to be the one to file first.

J.Lo’s Strategically Planned Divorce Date

June Grasso:

And speaking of appearances, she filed on the second anniversary of their Georgia wedding, and hours before the Obamas spoke at the convention. I take it hours before the Obamas spoke because she hoped somehow that this wouldn’t be noticed. How could that be? But is there any message or anything about filing on the second anniversary?

Christopher Melcher:

I’ve got to think that there’s some reason why she filed the day she did because there was no urgency to it. So some spouses need to file immediately to get protection, financial protection or protection against abuse. And that’ll drive the filing date. Here, there was no reason for her to file on that date other than to send some kind of message that this was two years, a second anniversary. Or what I think more cynically is that she picked a date that would also involve a lot of media attention to try to detract from it. That did bear out true, although the story got quite a bit of attention on the day that it was filed, there were a lot of reporters who were engaged with the Democratic National Convention. And so that did detract at least some of the initial attention away from the case.

June Grasso:

Are prenups still for the rich? Or are they more for people who have blended families? Where do you see the most prenups? Or is it just across the board?

Christopher Melcher:

We see a lot of people asking for prenups that maybe don’t need them. Certainly, I think that they’re indicated when a spouse or prospective spouse has children from a prior relationship because there’s rights of inheritance that need to be preserved for those children of the prior marriage, let’s say. And it’s just a really horrible thing to put the child adverse now to this stepparent that’s coming on scene. And so the way I look at it is that prospective spouse with the kids has prior obligations to those children, and also now taking on new obligations to the spouse, so a prenup is a really nice way of balancing those things and I think it’s appropriate.

The other time is when we have somebody with extraordinary wealth and complex finances that need to be protected and also just make it easy to sort out any event, or they break up, that is fine in my mind to have a premarital agreement, but not a one-sided, you get nothing and like it deal, which is oftentimes what’s proposed. And sure, that’s most protective, but it’s also detrimental, I think, to the relationship because it creates a power imbalance and resentment there, where one spouse has everything and the other spouse has nothing. And to think that party, that un-moneyed party, is going to be happy in that situation is just really unrealistic.

June Grasso:

Thanks so much for joining me, Chris. That’s top family law attorney, Christopher Melcher. And that’s it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.