Lowering the Bar

Charges Filed After Parents Argue Over Baby's Gang Affiliation

The Denver Post reported today that the father of a 4-year-old boy pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct on Tuesday, after a heated argument with his ex-girlfriend during which he knocked displays over in the store where she works.  The two were apparently fighting over which gang their baby should join.

According to Sgt. Joe Sandoval, the mother is a "Crip" and the father is a "Westside Baller," and while that once was probably a forbidden romance akin to "Romeo & Juliet" it has since degenerated into an ongoing domestic dispute about the child's upbringing.  "They have different ideas on how the baby should be raised," said Sandoval.  "Basically, she said they cannot agree on which gang the baby would 'claim.'"  It seems like you have to start the application process earlier every year now if you want to get your baby into the right gang.

Actually, this makes me realize how lucky I was that in my part of town, these kinds of disputes were pretty much limited to the occasional rumble between the Lutherans and the Presbyterians.

Link: Denver Post

Ginormous Rock at Issue in Engagement-Ring-Retrieval Suit

Sadly, it seems to be all too common for legal disputes to arise over who gets the engagement ring if a wedding is called off.  But not many of those disputes involve a ring worth close to half a million dollars, or a former sister-in-law of the President.

On February 11, Gerald Tsai sued Sharon Bush to recover either the eleven-carat engagement ring he gave her or the $434,000 he says it is worth now.  (He bought it for a paltry $243,040, but she seems to have accepted anyway.)  Tsai gave Bush the ring in December 2006, but their plans to be married on Valentine's Day 2007 did not survive his refusal to sign a prenuptial agreement.  She kept the ring.

According to the report, New York's Civil Rights Law provides that property must be returned if the "sole consideration" for its transfer was a "contemplated marriage" that didn't occur.  A 1968 case directly on point (except that the ring cost $2,450) held in favor of the donor.

But Bush's attorney, Raoul Felder, is already on the offensive.  "We will vigorously defend this case," he said.  That statement was discounted by some, or at least by me, on the grounds that it's what you'd expect him to say.  If an attorney ever makes a public statement saying something like, "We will half-heartedly defend this case while hoping for a settlement," then I will pay attention.  Felder's argument will apparently be that Tsai gave Bush the ring as a Christmas present, not because they planned to get married two months later, and so the statute doesn't apply because the ring was not "in sole consideration" of a contemplated marriage.

Felder was also upset that hard-hearted Tsai had sued just three days before Valentine's Day.  "Valentine's Day is a day you give gifts to your sweetheart," Felder said.  "It's not the day you demand Christmas presents back."  Well, it could be a day you demand Christmas presents back.  In this case, it might also have been the day the statute of limitations would have expired, but that could be a coincidence.  And speaking of days not to do things, I guess if this argument succeeds then nobody will be able to propose at any time during the Christmas shopping season, unless he is willing to take the risk of a later "Christmas-present" defense.

Sharon Bush has been scorned at least once before, by her former husband and presidential brother Neil Bush, who, after 23 years of marriage, broke up with her by e-mail.

Link: On Point News (Matthew Heller)

Ruling on Typo Means It's Still Okay for Young'uns to Marry in Arkansas

Act 441, passed by the Arkansas General Assembly earlier this year, was titled "An Act . . . To Reconcile Inconsistencies Regarding the Minimum Age to Marry."  It reconciled the inconsistencies, all right, by getting rid of the minimum age to marry.

In the latest example of why proofreading is important, the appearance of an extra "not" in the text of the act changes the intended meaning pretty significantly, something that "not" has a tendency to do, I guess.  The intent was to amend section 9-11-102 of the Arkansas Code to standardize the minimum age for marriage at 18 (it had previously been 17 for men and 16 for women), but to provide an exception in some cases if the woman was pregnant.  But now, the statute reads:

The county clerk may issue a marriage license to a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant after the county clerk receives satisfactory evidence of parental consent . . . .

Oh, dear.  Luckily, the Arkansas Code Revision Commission caught the mistake and removed the "not" before the new code books were printed.

Problem:  The ACRC is not the legislature, and while it is allowed to fix minor spelling and grammatical errors, that power does not extend to "not."  That was the ruling on October 10, anyway, by Judge Tom Keith of the Benton County Circuit Court, in a case brought by the mother of a 17-year-old woman who was not pregnant but had permission to get married.  Since removing "not" was a substantive change, Judge Keith ruled, the legislature has to fix it.  Since the legislature adjourned in May, that would require the governor to call it back into session in order to make the change.

Reached for comment, Governor Mike Beebe said he did not yet see a need to call a special session in order to deal with the "not."  Inevitably, others disagreed.  "We need a special session to fix this," said Sen. Sue Madison, a Democrat. "I am concerned about pedophiles coming to Arkansas to find parents who are willing to sign a very young child's consent."  I realize that lines are probably forming right now of parents who can't wait to sign their child over to a pedophile, but maybe there are some other laws on the books that might be able to deal with that concern?

Unless there is a special session, the children of Arkansas will remain at risk until the loophole can be closed in 2009.

Link: FindLaw
Link: Arkansas News Bureau
Link: Arkansas General Assembly

Man's Right to Fish Recognized; Violation Held Not Grounds for Divorce

One of my ongoing projects (in addition to trying to convince our managing partner to get us a helper monkey) is to collect and make available as many legal documents as possible that are truly funny (intentionally or not).  As I come across good ones I'm uploading copies to the site and updating the summary pages that you can find over to the right.

Here's the latest addition, sent in by a reader.  Moore v. Moore was a 1960 case arising in southern Missouri and involving a husband's petition for divorce based on "general indignities."  Obviously that term describes a lot of relationships but this turns out to be Missouri's term for "irreconcilable differences."  Mr. Moore alleged a laundry list of "indignities," including (the court's headings):

• The turkey shoot
• The houseboat incident
• Another anti-fishing incident
• Late return from Shrine parade
• The pasture incident
• The cow sales incidents
• The quail hunting incident
• The telephone incident

Also, Mrs. Moore called Mr. Moore's folks "hillbillies."

The trial court granted the divorce, but the Court of Appeals in Springfield reversed.  The whole thing is worth reading, but here are a couple of excerpts:

We will agree with respondent . . . that a husband has a right to go fishing. And we will go further and say that this right extends to fishing without the constant and ever-present impediment of female presence and participation, if such be against the will of the husband. . . . [B]ut two or three or four isolated instances of insistence upon going along, or insistence upon his not going (either fishing or turkey shooting), over a period of six years do not, in and of themselves, constitute a constant and studied course of conduct amounting to indignities which render life intolerable. . . . .

* * *

In respect to plaintiff's evidence that Minnie once referred to relatives of the plaintiff as hillbillies: We suggest that to refer to a person as a 'hillbilly,' or any other name, for that matter, might or might not be an insult . . . . [H]ere in Southern Missouri, the term is often given and accepted as a complimentary expression.

An Ozark hillbilly is an individual who has learned the real luxury of doing without the entangling complications of things which the dependent and over-pressured city dweller is required to consider as necessities. The hillbilly foregoes the hard grandeur of high buildings and canyon streets in exchange for wooded hills and verdant valleys. In place of creeping traffic he accepts the rippling flow of the wandering stream. He does not hear the snarl of exhaust, the raucous braying of horns, and the sharp, strident babble of many tense voices. For him instead is the measured beat of the katydid, the lonesome, far-off complaining of the whippoorwill, perhaps even the sound of a falling acorn in the infinite peace of the quiet woods. The hillbilly is often not familiar with new models, soirees, and office politics. But he does have the time and surroundings conducive to sober reflection and honest thought, the opportunity to get closer to his God. No, in Southern Missouri the appellation 'hillbilly' is not generally an insult or an indignity; it is an expression of envy.

Now that's good legal writing.

Link: Moore v. Moore, 337 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) (PDF copy of opinion).
Link: Lowering the Bar's Case Law Hall of Fame Page
Link: And the Pleading Archive

Man Sues 1-800-Flowers Over Unfortunate Thank-You Note

Leroy Greer sued 1-800-Flowers last week in federal court, alleging that the company's breach of its privacy policy has caused him $1 million in damages.  Mr. Greer contacted the company in order to send a beautiful bouquet of roses along with a wonderful note:

All was well until 1-800-Flowers followed up later with a thank-you note.  Which it sent to their house.  Where his wife lived.  Who had not received any roses.  When she called with questions, the company helpfully faxed her a copy of the receipt that confirmed the purchase and the touching note that she also had not received.

This gave her an excellent reason to increase what she was asking for as part of their divorce settlement, which was apparently being negotiated at the time.  Mr. Greer's complaint admits the two were in the midst of a divorce, although his attorney described it as "amicable."  That's because he's now measuring the damages in part by the difference between the amount of the proposed amicable-divorce settlement and the significantly higher post-affair-disclosure-reduced-amicability settlement amount, which Greer is arguing he would not have had to pay if the company had helped him keep his adultery a secret.  (He looks slightly better in light of the fact that he and his wife had been separated for quite a while, but under Texas law it's still adultery until the divorce is final.  Maybe everywhere else, too, now that I think about it.)

"That thank-you note is going to cost him money," said Greer's attorney, Kennitra Foote.  And it will -- the report said that Mrs. Greer asked for an additional $300,000 after learning about the affair -- but there is probably going to be some discussion of whether it was the thank-you note or the I-love-you note that really caused the harm.

Greer says that he asked to keep his order private, and was referred to the company's privacy policy, which says customers can ask it not to share information with third parties.  He alleges that it violated this policy when it sent his wife the receipt.  But the company appears to be arguing, in part, that the wife was not legally a "third party" in this situation, since she was entitled to information about the couple's financial matters, or alternatively that she had "apparent authority" to act as his agent.  It is also possible that any privacy agreement Mr. Greer and the company might have had about this would be unenforceable because of what the parties to it were trying to keep private.

"This is not a moral issue," said Foote, the attorney for the party accused of immorality.  "The issue is, is 1-800-Flowers in the business of causing divorce or are they in the business of sending flowers and sticking to their privacy policy?"  Um, the second one?  Meanwhile, a spokesperson for 1-800-Flowers said that the company's policy was not to comment on pending litigation.  He then immediately violated that policy by stating, "We are not responsible for an individual's personal conduct."

Helpfully attached as an exhibit to Greer's complaint is a copy of the fax that his wife received, on which she wrote a note of her own, this one to Mr. Greer:  "Be a man!  If you got caught red handed then don't still lie."  I guess that is some evidence that the fax was responsible for him getting caught, but on the other hand, it is also some evidence that he is not a man.

Link: ABC News
Link: On Point Legal News (with link to full complaint)

British Court Allows "Second Bite at the Cherry" in Divorce Case

Among the terrifying things that have happened in Britain recently is this decision by a court ordering Dennis North to give his ex-wife an additional 202,000 pounds (which I think is a lot of money) as a lump-sum maintenance payment.  Mr. North has a lot of money, it's true, but there are some reasons to think that this was not a particularly fair decision:

• The parties had already reached a settlement by which she got the house and a significant amount of income from rents on other properties that Mr. North owned.
• She cheated on him.
• She left to be with the other man, leaving Mr. North to care for their three children.
• Let's see, there was something else . . .
• Oh -- they were divorced in 1978.

Not only have they been divorced for almost thirty years -- due to her adultery -- she decided in 1999 to move to Australia and (according to Mr. North's attorney) to live in "one of the most desirable and expensive areas of Sydney and to live beyond her means . . . ."  She seems to have conceded that she needs more money now because she lost what she had previously due to some "unfortunate" investments.  Still, the panel of judges decided that a provision in the 1981 settlement awarding her "nominal maintenance payments" could be enforced now to justify an award of 202,000 pounds.

"The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives," said Mr. North's attorney.  The fact that he has prospered since then and she has not "cannot be relevant."  Surprisingly, Mrs. North's attorney disagreed.  "This was not a second bite at the cherry, but it is what are her reasonable needs.  The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of the former husband."  Do they not have apples in England?  If cherries are really where this saying originated, then British people must have teeny-tiny mouths.  Maybe Americans just take bigger bites of things, in the same way that we do everything else better than the British except for running an empire.

Mr. North, his current wife, the two children they have had together and the three children the former Mrs. North bailed on will now have to scrape by on the remaining assets, currently estimated at between 5 and 11 million pounds -- at least until the former Mrs. North comes back for a third bite at the cherry.

Link: Daily Mail

Biggest Divorce Settlement Ever Gets Bigger

Sometimes it's hard to let go when you think a judge's ruling was wrong, but sometimes a motion for reconsideration is not a good idea.  Case in point: Michael Polsky's motion to reconsider the $176 million award to his ex-wife, believed to be the largest divorce award ever in the United States when it was handed down last year.

It's no longer the largest divorce award, though -- because after Judge William Boyd reconsidered, he gave the ex-Mrs. Polsky another $8 million, for a total of $184 million.  I guess when you are facing the largest divorce verdict ever, a motion to reconsider seems like a good idea, because how much worse can it get?  It probably would have been very hard not to give it a shot.

According to the report, the Polskys came to the US from Russia about 30 years ago, with nothing.  Mr. Polsky, an engineer, made a fortune in the energy business and is now the CEO of a company.  His wife raised their children, earning (as it turns out) $184 million for that job.  According to the wife's attorney -- and the judge -- the revised award is about a 50/50 split of the total couple's assets, and so is fair.

Link: Chicago Sun-Times

When Does a DNA-Test Result With 99.9% Certainty Not Prove Paternity?

When you and your identical twin brother had sex with the same woman on the same day.

I'm surprised that I'm just now hearing about this case, which evidently has been pending in Missouri for four years now.  Holly Adams named Raymon Miller as the father of her child, but he contests that, even though he admits he slept with Adams.  He knew or suspected, apparently, that his brother Richard might be the real culprit, since as soon as he was asked to pay child support, "he demanded that he and his brother both take a paternity test."

But he had forgotten, apparently, that he and his brother are identical twins.  Identical twins are identical, it turns out, because they have the same DNA.  "They're clones," said a forensic scientist quoted by ABC News.  "Even if you sequenced their whole genome, you wouldn't find [a] difference."  (I wish he hadn't used the C-word.  The panic in Missouri when they find out there are "clones" loose in their state is going to make "War of the Worlds" look like an episode of "Crank Yankers.")  The test results accordingly showed that both Raymon and Richard have a 99.9% chance of being the baby's father.

Since both of them are 99.9% sure they don't want to pay any child support, court proceedings followed.   Adams maintains that Raymon is the father, although he seems to have been the second cowboy at the rodeo.  "Did you sleep with [Richard] while in Sikeston for the rodeo?" Richard's lawyer asked Adams in her 2003 deposition.  "Yes ma'am," Adams replied.  She testified that she then went to Raymon's house, where she stayed the night and did what you do for fun in Missouri when the rodeo's over.  Adams argues that Raymon is the father, and Judge Fred Copeland ultimately sided with her in a decision that has been affirmed on appeal.

Judge Copeland told ABC that he does not have to rely solely on DNA evidence (and obviously can't in this case), and that he can take Adams' testimony into account when determining paternity.  The report did not say what the basis was for her belief that Raymon is the father, and Judge Copeland's summary for ABC was not too reassuring: "Look," he said, "she had a bunch of girlfriends to the rodeo and they got drunk and she went banging on Raymon's door trying [successfully] to have sex.  He says he did reluctantly -- but I can't imagine it was reluctantly -- and that's when the baby was conceived I guess."  Gentlemen of Missouri, please be aware that "I guess" is the standard in paternity suits in your state, and act accordingly.

Raymon ain't happy about it, that's for sure.  "I want to go to the Supreme Court," he said, in a statement that likely thrilled the Supreme Court.  "If they can't prove it's me then they should throw it out of court."  Who should pay the child support?  "The state should eat it," he concluded.  He also offered his own legal analysis of the situation.

"They say you have to prove with 98 percent certainty that you're the father. But since with my brother it's a 99 percent chance and with me it's a 99 percent chance -- that seems like more of a 50/50."  (That sure sounds wrong, but if I think about it too much I'm afraid my head will explode.)  He continued, "What if there was a rape or murder case with twins?  Then they could just go around pointing the finger at the other."  That's an excellent argument, combining the rhetorical power of a policy argument -- we must not grant immunity to roving pairs of identical-twin rapists -- with reverse psychology, since I think his argument establishes exactly why they can't both walk away from this and the law needs to pick one.  I think before Raymon makes the leap to law school, he should start with a more attainable goal, like figuring out what happened to the "D" at the end of his name.

Richard, meanwhile, at least for now is basking in the knowledge that he will not have to pay, which he thought was fair.  "Raymon's the one that done everything," he said.  Well, not everything, Richard.  That's the whole problem.

Link: ABC News

Bishop Says Octuple Bigamy Due to "Misunderstanding"

Bishop Anthony Owens of Memphis, Tennessee, is back in jail on bigamy charges again after a woman said he proposed to her not long after being released from serving his previous sentence.

He had apparently proposed to three other women over the last year as well, which is not in itself illegal but does cause authorities some concern, given that he does not seem to have divorced any of his existing eight wives.

Bishop Owens, who is not in fact a bishop but rather a "traveling minister" who happens to be named "Bishop," married for the first time in 1990, when he was 18.  Young love, perhaps, although his bride was 43.  According to Owens, that marriage was troubled from the start, and two years later he married a younger woman (she was 41).  Owens didn't bother to divorce his first wife, which he said was due to a "misunderstanding" of Mormon teachings.

It's not clear from the article whether Bishop was a Mormon, so his misunderstanding may be understandable.

The misunderstanding confused Owens into marrying six other women in four different states between 1995 and 2002.  Wife number eight somehow learned about the others, and called police.  Owens was convicted of bigamy and served two years in prison.  He got out sometime in 2004 or 2005, and in March 2005 encountered Betty Dixon in a Memphis casino.  "He was a slick talker," Dixon said.  "He told me God had sent him to me and I needed help."  The Lord works in casinos in mysterious ways.  Sometimes He works through the tumbling of the dice, and sometimes through a traveling minister named "Bishop" who already has eight wives.  All is according to His will.

Dixon does not seem to have married Owens, whose way with women may have atrophied a bit after a couple years in the joint.  Within six months, he had proposed to another woman, and another a month after that.  Then he received another message from the Lord apparently saying that the first eleven were a good start, but that he should propose to Karen Ward too.  "He said God gave him a message that he was going to move my family to California for a better life. . . . He said he is a real man of the Lord.  But he is just a mess.  I hate the day that I met him."  Ward did not say which day was responsible for the attempted bigamy or if it was to blame for the previous eleven attempts too, but hopefully whoever turned Owens in this time told the police about it.  Owens is in the county jail awaiting a hearing on whether he will be sent back to prison (I assume on a probation violation -- there doesn't seem to be any harm in asking).

Owens did not comment for today's report, but in the past he has maintained that he did divorce at least some of the eight women he actually married.  He just can't remember which ones.

Link: CNN.com

Attorney Billboard Stating: "Life's Short. Get a Divorce" Lasts Just One Week

An all-female law firm in Chicago that specializes in domestic law drew fire (and new business) over the past week for putting up a billboard downtown that features the slogan, "Life's Short.  Get a Divorce." 

The billboard also has a couple of racy pictures, apparently suggesting that the people in the pictures are out there waiting for you if you would just get that divorce and live a little.

Corri Fetman of Fetman, Garland & Associates told ABC that "Law firm advertising is boring . . . Everything's always the same.  It's lawyers in libraries with a suit on and the law books behind them.  They don't say anything. . . . So we wanted to try something different."  And there are no suits involved in this ad, that's for sure.

Other attorneys who work in the same field criticized the billboard, saying it trivialized divorce.  They were also quoted using terms such as "grotesque," "undignified," "offensive," "absolutely disgusting," "bizarre," "a disappointment," and "the Academy Award of bad taste."  So there are some ethical domestic-law attorneys out there -- well, either they're more ethical or pissed that they didn't think of it first.

And it was effective -- Fetman also said that calls to their firm have gone up dramatically since the billboard went up last week.  This week, however, the billboard was taken down, after a city alderman who lives nearby claimed that the firm did not have a permit for the billboard and ordered the building inspector to take it down.  Fetman and Garland claimed a due process violation (although First Amendment might be more like it).  "We own that art," she said.  "I feel violated."

A bar complaint has also been filed, but an expert was quoted as saying that the bar committee rarely takes action on attorney advertising because of the constitutional issues involved, unless a clear misrepresentation is involved.  Example: recently it disciplined an attorney who was advertising on a local Polish-language radio station with an ad that featured "jungle noises" and then a voiceover in Polish saying "I am the lion of the courtroom."  And he might have been lion-like, but it turned out he had never tried a case.

Link: ABC News
Link: CBS News

Nice One, Einstein

The latest article of Newsweek has an interesting review of a new bio of Albert Einstein, who besides inventing special and general relativity, providing proof of the existence of atoms, providing the foundation for quantum mechanics, and thinking up that E=MC² thing -- all of which he did while he was just sitting around bored at the patent office -- also tried to come up with a legal framework that would lead to greater harmony in his domestic life:

Einstein's relations with his first wife, Mileva, degenerated so badly that in 1914 he demanded she sign a contract promising to deliver three meals to his room daily, renounce "all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons" and "stop talking to me if I request it."

He never totally understood quantum physics, either.

Newsweek, Apr. 16, 2007, at p. 100.

New Law Punishes Husbands Who Are "Jealous" or "Indifferent"

A law passed this month in Mexico imposes criminal penalties on men who are "jealous" or who are "indifferent" toward their wives.  The law would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. because it applies only to husbands and not wives, but Mexican prosecutors were quoted as saying the disparate treatment was necessary in order to "level the playing field" for women because of domestic violence.

The law apparently is meant to stop abusive treatment before it starts by punishing the allegedly pre-abusive conduct of jealousy, indifference, and/or "lack of love."  But the definitions given of these offenses by the prosecutor were very broad.  Special Prosecutor Alicia Elena Perez Duarte said that men who "phone their wives every half an hour to check up on them, constantly suspect them of infidelity or try to control the way they dress" are committing the "crime of jealousy."  A man who stops talking to his wife, refuses to have sex or tells his wife she is "crazy" to think he is having an affair (even if she catches him having one) would be guilty of "indifference."  The law suggests a penalty of up to five years in prison for these offenses, although individual states will set the punishments.

Thus, under the new law, it appears to be criminal either to call your wife too often or to not call her enough.  Men are used to these kinds of dilemmas, but we typically don't face five years in jail for getting it wrong.

While domestic violence is a serious problem in Mexico (and many other places, of course, such as in a room where you try to tell your wife she is "crazy" to think you are having an affair when she has just caught you having one), the approach taken by this law, at least as Perez Duarte defined it, seems pretty Draconian.  But she reiterated it was necessary to act early because of what the early conduct can lead to -- and the way she described it, it's a pretty darn slippery slope: "If we do not stop this from the beginning," she said, "it turns into beatings, and the beatings turn into more beatings and rape, until it gets out of hand, and whoops, she died."

I'm not making light of the problem, just suggesting the law could devote a little more scrutiny to the links between "we don't talk enough" and "whoops, she died."

Link: Reuters via Yahoo! News.

Heroic Recliner Saves Husband From Wife's Assault

Perhaps irritated because her husband would never get up out of the recliner, Jan Kamp fired a bullet at her husband Norman on Sunday night after an argument. But she did not reckon with the combined powers of our 57-year-old hero and his (La-Z-)Boy Wonder.

Because Mrs. Kamp shot at her husband from behind, the recliner's padded, sturdy headrest heroically deflected the bullet and absorbed most of its force, so that Norman was only slightly wounded. He may have been slightly stunned, however, as he then "stood up from his chair, followed his wife into the kitchen and declared 'you shot me,' according to authorities."

Experts are virtually unanimous that the best course of action after being shot by your wife is not to follow her into the kitchen in order to tell her that she shot you. She knows that. She's the one who shot you. And following her into her lair only makes it more likely that she will remember why she shot you in the first place, and shoot you again.

Which is what Mrs. Kamp did, or tried to do, anyway.  She missed, and Mr. Kamp, having finally learned the above lesson, then "retreated" to a neighbor's house where he called 911. Mrs. Kamp has been booked for attempted murder. Mr. Kamp was treated and released. The La-Z-Boy was reportedly in stable and comfortable condition.

Link: AP via Yahoo! News.

Lawyer Claims Condition Inherent in Marriage Proposal Entitles Him to Get Ring Back

Attorney William Kaper of Barrington, Illinois, is suing his ex-wife in hopes of getting back a 5-carat, $98,000 diamond ring that he offered her as part of a proposal that he hoped would result in their second marriage.  Kaper and his ex-wife, Dr. Mary Ann Rosanova-Kaper, had been married for 25 years and then divorced for 10, although the ex-wife apparently remained hyphenated for the sake of their children.  Rosanova-Kaper accepted the re-proposal when it was made in 1999, but the re-marriage never actually took place before (according to the lawsuit) she ended their relationship in 2002.

Having apparently tried for four years to get the ring back without success, Kaper filed suit this week in Cook County Circuit Court.  The lawsuit alleges that his proposal included a condition subsequent, namely that Rosanova-Kaper would give back the ring should her oral acceptance of the marriage offer not ultimately become fully and legally binding.  She does not seem to recall any such condition being uttered at the time, which I guess would have gone something like this:

Darling, I remember all our happy times together and am sorry that we have been apart.  I love you deeply and hope you will marry me again.  Please say yes, with the understanding that acceptance of this offer constitutes agreement to the implied condition subsequent of a formalized marriage and that the non-occurrence of such condition shall result in forfeiture of any gifts made concurrently with this proposal, and make me the happiest man in the world.

But she doesn't remember it that way.  Kaper says he paid $70,000 for the ring, but that it is now worth at least $98,000.

The Sun-Times contacted law professors at Illinois schools for comment.  They advise that Kaper actually has a good chance to get the ring back, as courts tend to look to whether a marriage actually took place and, if not, who broke up the engagement.  In divorce proceedings, rings are typically construed as gifts that need not be returned, but if no marriage ever took place, then the engagement ring may be treated as a "conditional gift in contemplation of marriage."  In most cases, the experts said, the conditional giftor does not go after the ring because it could well cost more in legal fees to get it back than it is worth.  But here, where the rock may be worth six figures and the giftor can represent himself (presumably), things seem to be different.

Link: Chicago Sun-Times

Man Accidentally Divorces Wife While Asleep

Divorces are much cleaner and easier under Islamic law than in the West.  If you are a man, of course.  Under Islamic law, a man only has to say the phrase "I divorce you" three times (within a relatively short period of time, I guess) and he is automatically divorced.  Even this is construed pretty generously (in favor of men, that is) -- a couple of years ago there was a story about a man in Dubai who had successfully divorced his wife by text message (or three text messages, anyway).

A group of village elders in India, though, are probably taking this a bit too far.  They have ordered a man to leave his wife, even though neither one of them wants to be divorced, on the grounds that he said "talaq," the Urdu word for "divorce," three times in his sleep.

His wife, worried about the effect of this under the law, made the always-wise decision to talk about the secret with her friends.  The elders found out and declared that, unconscious or not, the words meant divorce.  The couple insists they want to stay together.  "I have not given talaq," the husband said.  "When I uttered talaq three times [stop admitting it!] I had taken medicines to help me sleep."  But the elders not only would not budge on the divorce, they also ruled that the couple could not get "remarried" unless they lived apart for at least 100 days and the wife married another man, spent the night with him and then was divorced by that man.  (The second divorce, at least, should not be a big deal.)

Newspapers reported that the couple has been ostracized because they refuse to abide by the elders' decision.

Link: Associated Press

Note to Self: "What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas" May Not Be Legally Binding

This transcript from a CNN report (Anderson Cooper, again reporting on the vital issues of the day) records a great argument by Larry Burns, attorney for a woman who was married to three men (independently).  Julia Bish was already married to Randy Bish when she married Sgt. Mark Hunt last year in Las Vegas.  Randy and Mark then found out that Julia also married yet another man, also in Las Vegas, in 2002.  Julia Bish was arrested in her home state of Pennsylvania and charged with bigamy.

The legal argument: "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."  Brilliant, but controversial.  CNN checked it out with a law professor to make sure they had it straight:

LARRY BURNS, JULIA BISH'S ATTORNEY: What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Pennsylvania has no jurisdiction over actions of people out in Las Vegas and they [sic] never have.

     TUCHMAN:  Is that true?

PROF. MICHAEL BROYDE, EMORY UNIV. SCHOOL OF LAW: If you are validly married to a person in Pennsylvania and then you validly marry another in Las Vegas, you have violated the bigamy statute. No question about it.

Well, that's his opinion.

CNN.com - Transcripts

Marital Spat Escalates to Use of Napalm

Police in Mexico's Yucatan province were called to the scene of a domestic disturbance in the town of Oxkutzcab, where they found a married couple's home burning in the aftermath of a fiery explosion.  Witnesses told police that the fight between Juan Espinosa and Irma Contreras had escalated from mere argument to knife-throwing, shooting and eventually the use of homemade gasoline bombs.  A local official confirmed the report to Reuters News.

Later, the couple tearfully embraced and reconciled their differences.  Actually, not.  They were described as "recovering separately" from their injuries suffered in the battle.  Espinosa told reporters that he was glad his wife had suffered third-degree burns, while Conteras said she was sorry she had not "hacked off his manhood" during the fight.

Experts say that almost fifty percent of marriages end in knife-throwing, shooting and eventually the use of homemade gasoline bombs.

Reuters via My Way News

Cuddling Ticket Overturned

A diligent sheriff's deputy in Oregon gave Faith Miller a ticket in February for sitting next to her husband while he was driving.  Because they own a "spacious 1988 Chrysler Fifth Avenue," she has to sit in the middle of the front seat instead of by the door if she wants to "cuddle" or "snuggle up," as the activity was variously described by the Associated Press.  But that means that she cannot wear the car's shoulder harness, which is what bothered Deputy Darren Broome.

Deputy Darren had given the Millers a warning last summer about the same practice, which Faith Miller readily admitted she disregarded.  But the deputy remembered them when he pulled them over again in February, and this time he wrote her up for a $97 ticket.  "Now I'm stuck way over by the window," she lamented, "and can barely even reach my husband."

After doing some research, though, Miller found no provision in Oregon law that actually required adults to wear a shoulder harness.  A statute does require it for children, but not adults.  The sheriff's office agreed with her interpretation of the law and voided the ticket, bringing an end to the month-long non-cuddling ordeal.

AP via My Way News

7-Year-Old Girl Marries Dog, Family Celebrates

Friends and family of Shivam Munda, a seven-year-old Santhal Indian girl from Bihar province, held three days of traditional celebrations and festivities after Shivam married a dog.

Indian media reported that girl's upper teeth came in before her lower teeth did, which in Santhal culture is a very bad omen.  The remedy for this particular bad omen is apparently to get married to a dog.  The girl's father, Kundan Munda, said his daughter wed the stray dog only to "remove the evil eye" -- somehow the dog carries the curse away with it.   Evidently, the dog wedding is not legally binding, as Mr. Munda noted that it would not prevent his daughter from marrying a human man later in life.

However, it did provide an occasion for the traditional three days of celebration that are part of Santhal wedding rituals.

AP via SFGate.com

Kansans Wanting to Marry a 12-Year-Old Must Act Quickly

KAKE News in Wichita has alerted local residents to a new bill that may raise the minimum marriage age to 16, with parental approval, or 18 without approval.  Currently, 12-year-olds can get married in Kansas with the consent of a parent or judge.

Is there any irony in the fact that 12-year-olds can mate in Kansas but the teaching of evolution is frowned upon?  I mean, there's something there -- I'm just not sure irony is the word.

121 state lawmakers voted in favor of the bill -- and one dissented.  Rep. Bonnie Huy of Wichita voted against the bill, noting there have been only 34 underage marriages (under what age was not reported) in Kansas since 1999, and that Kansans facing "the most important decision of their young lives" should not be limited.  She also believes the law infringes on parental rights to raise children.

The bill is expected to pass the state senate as well.

KAKE.com