At some point, anyone married to a sociopath is—or should be—headed for divorce. Once the legal proceedings start, they will be brutal, bloody and expensive.
The New Jersey Superior Court just released the verdict in the divorce of James E. McGreevey, former governor, and his wife, Dina Matos McGreevey. You may remember this case. On August 12, 2004, Governor James McGreevey held a press conference and announced to the world that he was a “gay American,” and he would resign from office because of an alleged affair with a male aide. He hadn’t bothered to tell his wife about his sexual orientation until about three days before the press conference. At his insistence, Matos stood beside him as McGreevey made his announcement on. She looked totally dazed.
In my opinion, McGreevey isn’t gay, he’s a sociopath, which I wrote in Book Review: Silent Partner, by the wife of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey. So the couple’s divorce was just like what many of us have experienced, except that it played out on national TV.
Dina Matos was deceived, outraged and humiliated. She wanted her husband to pay for what he had done and how badly he had treated her.
James McGreevey had moved on—his view was obviously, get over it already. He had a wealthy new lover. He did his best to appear poor so he wouldn’t have to pay.
Matos asked for $2,500 per month alimony for four years, $1,750 per month in child support, and attorney’s fees. McGreevey wanted to pay no alimony and about $100 per month in child support.
They would not settle. So it was left Superior Court Judge Karen Cassidy to decide for them.
Splitting the money
The court released Judge Cassidy’s decision on August 8, 2008. She wrote a 44-page opinion, which is posted on New Jersey Courts Online. I recommend that anyone going into court with a sociopath read it.
After a year of bitter litigation, James McGreevey and Dina Matos did come to terms on child custody for their daughter. All that remained for the court to decide was the money. The issues were:
- Celebrity goodwill—was James McGreevey a celebrity, and did Matos have a right to any money he made because of it?
- Should the couple’s brief tenure as governor and first lady of New Jersey, living in the governor’s mansion with plenty of perks, be considered in a determination of their marital lifestyle?
- Should McGreevey’s behavior—deciding he was gay and then claiming the Matos knew it—be considered in an alimony decision?
- Should standard child support guidelines be applied, under which McGreevey would owe hardly any, or did he have the financial resources to pay more?
McGreeveys have an agenda
In most divorce cases, courts take the position that both parties bear some of the blame for the dissolution of the marriage, and the point of the divorce trial is to distribute what’s left. The courts want both parties to play fair.
According to Judge Cassidy, the McGreeveys didn’t do that. She wrote:
It was apparent to this court that both parties took widely divergent positions and were unwilling to compromise despite significant efforts by the court system to have them resolve their matter out of the spotlight, by utilization of mediation and settlement conferences. Their positions were polarized and as the court will find in detail later, were somewhat disingenuous and unsubstantiated. As was expressed to the parties on numerous occasions, their ability to work together and fashion a financial settlement was clearly in their best interest. No one in a matrimonial case ever wins. Although the posturing in this case suggests that both parties were confident that they would prevail on most, if not all of their issues, rarely is that the case. Especially, in a matter as high profile as this, the court was disappointed that much of the testimony, particularly as it related to public figures within the State of New Jersey, and the dirty laundry associated therewith, needed to be aired in public and in the press. As will become apparent, there are no “winners” in a litigation of this type.
This court has an obligation to consider the evidence presented and the law and statutory factors in rendering a decision. The decision must be objective, fair, reasonable and not be influenced by the hyperbole displayed throughout this case. The issues here were plain and simple; a couple was married, certain events occurred within their relationship that resulted in their separation and ultimate decision to file for divorce. As a result of the demise of the marriage, fair and impartial determinations must be made in terms of support and the distribution of their property. Despite the unique circumstances in this case, this court must still use this analysis in rendering its opinion and making the necessary decisions.
The McGreeveys clearly had agendas. As previously addressed, their anger seemed to override any ability to testify credibly or to be reasonable. For example, Mr. McGreevey’s steadfast position that he was somehow unable to obtain employment contradicted directly with his position that he was actively attending seminary and pursuing a full-time program. Clearly, he cannot do both, but he somehow could not simply say that, instead contradicting himself over and over again. When faced with facts that he could not even support himself on his current salary, let alone both his daughters and possibly his wife, he was unable to provide a cogent explanation. Mrs. McGreevey’s demeanor in the courtroom and her position of an entitlement to an extremely generous standard of living reflected her anger and disappointment as to the end of her marriage. Her testimony was designed to generate a greater amount of support based upon circumstances that ended her marriage. The factors she suggested are not supported by the law and evidence.
Alimony
The McGreeveys had only been married for four years and five months. This is considered a short-term marriage. For two years and seven months, they lived in the New Jersey governor’s mansion, with cooks, landscapers, security guards and other staff.
Dina Matos argued that the amount of the alimony she received should reflect the lifestyle she enjoyed while first lady, when she spent all of her discretionary income on clothes. She also argued that McGreevey was at fault in ending their marital lifestyle because he had an extramarital affair and left office early.
The judge rejected these arguments. Cassidy wrote that life in the governor’s mansion was “inherently temporary.” She also wrote that many marriages ended because of affairs McGreevey’s did not “rise to the level of egregious conduct” according to legal standards. Matos was awarded no alimony.
Child support
In deciding the amount of child support James McGreevey should pay, the court looked at the earning capacity and financial resources of both parties. Dina Matos, until recently, had been working at a hospital foundation, earning $82,000 per year. James McGreevey earned $157,000 in 2004, $166,000 in 2005, $428,833 in 2006 (with the publication of his book), and $185,000 in 2007. Then he decided he wanted to become an Episcopal priest and quit working full-time to attend a seminary. So now he earns $48,000 a year. The court determined that McGreevey was “under employed” and imputed $175,000 in income to him.
Both McGreevey and Matos wrote tell-all books. McGreevey received a $250,000 advance for The Confession, and Matos received a $275,000 advance for Silent Partner. Both spent all their money, primarily litigating the divorce.
Still, McGreevey is living the good life because of his wealthy partner, Mark O’Donnell. O’Donnell has a 17-room mansion, where McGreevey is supposed to be paying rent, but doesn’t. O’Donnell pays McGreevey’s attorney’s fees and funds lavish birthday parties for his daughter. Because of O’Donnell’s financial support, the court found cause to increase the amount of child support McGreevey was required to pay.
The court ordered McGreevey to pay $1,075 per month in child support, plus 100 percent of the girl’s medical insurance and extracurricular activities.
Equitable distribution
Finally, there was the issue of equitable distribution of assets, including McGreevey’s possible “celebrity goodwill.” The couple didn’t have many assets, but McGreevey did sell his condo while married to Matos, which he “forgot” to tell her about. So he had some cash, which he claimed to be pre-marital. McGreevey also claimed he should be compensated for his wife’s expenditures on jewelry and clothing. The judge, however, pointed out that he provided no evidence for any of these claims.
Dina Matos said she was entitled to “an equitable share of the celebrity goodwill enjoyed by plaintiff due to his circumstances as Governor and recognizable persona.” As an expert witness, she brought in Kalman Barson, a forensic accountant. Barson valued this goodwill at $1,456,000. How did he arrive at this figure? He guessed. The judge wrote, “Mr. Barson’s report was not factually based and filled with assumptions that were never verified.”
In the end, Matos got nothing for goodwill, and nothing for McGreevey’s book. But she did get nearly $110,000 in equitable distribution of the cash.
Both parties also asked for attorney’s fees. McGreevey’s fees added up to $498,000; Matos’ were $526,689. The judge awarded no attorney’s fees. They both had to pay their own lawyers.
Marriage fraud
Dina Matos has also filed a marriage fraud claim against McGreevey. According to the Associated Press, “Matos McGreevey claims she was duped into marrying a gay man who sought the cover of a wife to hide his homosexuality and further his political ambitions.”
McGreevey, in the meantime, said that Matos knew she was gay, because she participated in threesomes with him and a male aide. Matos denied the allegations.
In my opinion, the threesome story is probably a fabrication, and McGreevey did dupe Matos into marriage. But on March 20, 2008, Judge Cassidy dismissed Matos’ claim of emotional distress, ruling that McGreevey didn’t plan to torment his wife while they were married. The judge permitted the marriage fraud claim to continue, but stated, “that does not guarantee the defendant (Matos) will be successful in trying her claim.”
The marriage fraud claim is still open, but it is not known if Matos will pursue it further. Unfortunately, she probably damaged her chances for success by asking for too much financial compensation in the divorce. According to NJ.com:
“Matos said during the trial that she could no longer afford to shop at Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus and Talbots and now had to shop at the Children’s Place, the Gap and T.J. Maxx. The judge was unmoved by that testimony, saying Matos brought her economic distress on herself.”
Lessons from the case
So what are the lessons in this case for us? What do we need to know if we’re in divorce court with a sociopath?
The court views divorce cases from the perspective that it takes two to fight. Now, we all know that in marriage with the sociopath, the disordered person is causing the vast majority of the problems. However, we have to be able to prove it. That’s why documentation and evidence are so important.
When it comes to settling the financial issues, judges expect to decide somewhere in the middle between what both parties ask for. In this case, it seemed like both parties asked for extremes, hoping to get a lot. But even when the news first came out that Dina Matos wanted to be compensated as if she still lived in the governor’s mansion, I thought she was nuts. That lifestyle was financed by the taxpayers of New Jersey, not her husband. It was an unreasonable demand, as the judge decided.
So why did Matos’ attorney, John Post, make such an outrageous claim? And why were her expert witnesses unprepared for the trial? To me it seemed that Matos’ attorney did a lousy job. The lesson here is to really research the attorney you hire. If you get bad advice and bad representation, you’re sunk.
McGreevey’s attorney, Stephen Haller, (the last one McGreevey had three lawyers) said the ex-governor offered his wife a settlement of between $250,000 and $300,000 before filing for divorce. Matos turned it down. In the end, she got far less.
My divorce from a sociopath
I can understand not wanting to accept the sociopath’s offer. I also turned down the settlement offered by my husband, James Montgomery, which was bogus he’d give me worthless assets, plus all the debts. I took him to court, spent about $35,000 on legal fees, and got a judgment against him of $1,253,287 which I was never able to collect. Then, heavily in debt, I had to declare bankruptcy.
But I did win my claim for marriage fraud. I had evidence. I had four other victims of my ex-husband testify on my behalf. My husband stopped participating in the litigation, so that helped. But I think I would have won anyway.
The point here is that you cannot expect a judge to understand what it means to be married to a sociopath. Therefore, your claims must make sense to someone who thinks yours is just another normal divorce case. If your claims seem unbelievable even though we all know they’re true you must have evidence. To prove your claims, you need airtight documentation.
As I said in the beginning of this article, I recommend that anyone going into divorce court with a sociopath read Judge Karen Cassidy’s opinion. It’s well written, and even if you have no legal training, you can follow the legal arguments. It will give you a good idea of what to expect, and forewarned is forearmed.
Note: In this article, I discussed divorce, not child custody. Child custody issues with a sociopath are totally different. For information, see 10 strategies for child custody battles with sociopaths.
“contradicting himself over and over again”
The judge probably thinks that his contraditions were situational. She probably doesn’t know that his whole self is a contradiction. The dichotomies of a sociopath are always overwhelming. I read online a theory that, sociopathic contraditions are caused by pathways in the brain not communicating properly. I even think sociopaths believe all of their contraditions. It could explain why they are such good liars.
I think they’re just expert liars.. Practice makes perfect. Kathy Krajco (narcattack.blogspot.com) had a theory… that makes a lot of sense. Their brains re-wire due to their bad behavior, their lies becomes easier because tey are rewired to lie. She explains this far better than I.
There’s just no way that you can “stir chit” and not get some on you!
I understand the wife’s ANGER and wish to “punish” her husband financially. I understand the “Unfairness” of it all.
This poor woman has been “had”—to me, the very anger she seems to have felt, and her desire for “revenge” financially against him bespeak to me that she was BLINDSIDED.
She may have been “unwise” in her choice of an attorney, and she may have come across as “greedy” and “shallow” in her seeking of financial punishment for her husband, but I suspect that she was still so wound up in her own anger over being blindsided that her judgment was somewhat warped.
My own late husband got a corporate “raping” by a large corporation which stole and used a patent of which he was the inventor and holder. He didn’t find out for years that this had happened, and before he died he filed suit (which I am continuing) but his ANGER at bring “raped” by a large corporation (I imagine like this woman’s anger) made him grind his teeth and refuse to compromise. He didn’t just want compensation (they offered less than 1/2 cent per dollar owed) he wanted them to be seen in court as THIEVES.
I understand her anger and her sense of betrayal.
OXY I love how you put that…”stir chit”. I know I’ve mentioned M. Scott Peck’s book “People of the Lie” many times. It’s just full of such insight into human evil. He warns that you can’t interact with evil without getting a little rubbed off on you. I look at how I’ve reacted to my experiences with sociopaths. The anger at such betrayal and the difficulty in just turning the other cheek while they are slamming your character and public reputation into the ground. It’s, hands down, the hardest thing not to want to seek justice that if overdue.
But I don’t think that we can ever get justice for what has happened to us. Not in the sense of how we view it. Nor how we deserve to be compensated. As your husband experienced and so many of us have, it is difficult, if not impossible, to play fair with a sociopath. They will fight to the end to keep us from what is justly owed to us. Our anger over that can keep us locked in a lose-lose pattern. So I figured out I have to look at the situation differently. I have to seek justice by another means.
My means for seeking justice is to take care of myself better. To acknowledge the misery that runs rampant in a sociopath’s life despite what it looks like on the outside. To know that I can choose to be free from it and live abundantly. To makes sure I understand the motives behind my actions. If it’s to make another pay for what they’ve done I feel like I’ve become them. That’s what they do. They make us pay for their misery and I think that we, in turn, want them to pay for what they’ve done. It’s human nature.
But I walk in the truth of this world and it’s not exactly pretty. But the blinders are off and I seek what makes me whole by God’s mean and not this world’s. That is justice to me. Knowing I can choose to be free from struggles that will keep me trapped in anger and resentment and walk away. That is not weakness, that is wisdom. God’s wisdom. Sometimes he calls us to fight, no doubt. But sometimes he calls us to turn the other cheek. It’s up to us to listen to him and figure out what he’s asking us to do not what our human nature wants us to do.
We have all been “had” by the sociopath and horribly abused. Most of us outside of LF live in a world that doesn’t understand the damage inflicted and the pain and struggle associated with it. Unfortunately our innate responses to sociopaths make us look like the culprit in our anger and rage and difficulty getting through the pain. Sociopath’s, in my book, are validated in who they are by our responses. They can point fingers and say, “See, she’s crazy. I’ve moved on and I’m doing fine. Look at how she’s freaking out and struggling.” I think they bank of this and know that they can push those buttons to reinforce to others that they are the “normal” one.
As we know, it is a horrid and twisted affair to deal with sociopaths. I know that if it wasn’t for my faith, I would not have the ability to manage all this on my own. I lean on God to show me the way through. I lean on truth. It’s not easy but who said life was going to be easy? It’s going to bed at night knowing I spent my day doing and being what God calls me to be that brings me justice. I could easily choose to be otherwise. But making the choice to be better is one that the sociopath does not do. It’s what separates us from them. It’s what makes us who we are.
This article was interesting to me because it reminded me of all the time I spent trying to figure out if the Bad Man had done anything illegal to me.
When I went back to Maui for a visit, for weeks and weeks before I went, I was wondering if I should go to the police and tell them about BM. but what would I tell them? What?
No matter how I tried to frame it, I just sounded like a bitter exgirlfriend. Or Isounded stupid for putting up with so much.
He stalked me but I talked to him. He showed up at my job interviews and my different places of work, sometimes with flowers and sometmes leaving “slut notes” on my car.. depending on his current state of mind. I suppose that was illegal.
UGH.
I am glad I never fought him in court on anything. BTW, I do know that he chose to represent himself in court when he divorced his ex-wife. Typical Narcissist.
I think because so many pathological people do things that aren’t quite illegal but they are quite cruel, the fly just below the radar. Some steal our things and our money. Illegal. Some get us to buy them things and gift them money. Not illegal. Mostly we give them our hearts… batter and destroy it. Not illegal. We get mad and post them on DDHG or other sites… be careful with this one. It can be used against us. It’s not necessarily legal.
Oh, yes, Aloha, you are so right!
Takingmeback, I have seen how so many people are just totally “freaked” by the betrayals, and I WAS ONE OF THEM. I acted “crazy”—but like Frankl quotes in his book (don’t remember who the original quote was from without looking it up) “a normal response to an abnormal situation is abnormal.”
I am pretty sure that no “normal” person would be “normal” after dealing with the psychopathic situations that all of us have dealt with! But, at thesame time, once we get away, once we escape, if we work on our healing, instead of staying stuck in the anger, we can become better people in the end.
Unfortunately, my late husband never ever got over the raging anger he felt for these people. I continued the law suit, because I know that is what he would have wanted. It is grinding its way through the courts SLOWLY–like seven years how I think, maybe eight—but CORPORATIONS I think are the ultimate psychopaths! LOL It is all about them covering up for illegal and immoral actions, and these actions took place so long ago that none of the men who actually did this are even still there. Many of them are probably dead by now. LOL
But, since it was not “my ox that was gored” I am not emotionally involved in the suit like my husband was. I just show up for the court hearings when my attorneys contact me, give my testimony and go home. If we “win” great, if we don’t, that’s OK too. After talking with my sons and step kids we have all agreed to use any funds from this suit for a charitable foundation that my husband would have supported, so that at least it will benefit his memory and help others as well. We’ll see what happens, as far as I am concerned it is in God’s hands, and whatever happens, happens. I just have to trust that it is for the BEST, whatever comes about.
HOLYWATERSALT and BIRD, I agree with both of your posts. The brain pathways of sociopaths are wired to contradict themselves and lie. But it’s because they’ve been doing it over and over again and it’s now formed a pattern that is second nature.
The biological basis for behavior is one of my favorite things to study. Ever wonder how talk therapy and medication can produce the same results? In talk therapy/counseling we analyze our thought processes and identify our thinking that leads to behavior and perceptions that cause us distress. We then change and ultimately correct our thinking and behavior through this process and through repetition as we enact change. We are, in essence, rewiring our brains. If you were to study your brain you would literally see changes in your own neurological pathways and changes in the neurotransmitters and serotonin and dopamine levels. If you simply take medication which aims to have the same effect you will see the same changes as well. The problem that some people don’t realize is that if you simply take medication which will bring you relief and do not work to change your thought process and behavior, you do not make permanent changes. Stop the medication and eventually you will relapse into the same problems you started with. This can happen with talk therapy if you don’t continue to reinforce the changes you made then as well. However, the potential and rate of relapse to returning to old ways of thinking is much less than that of simply stopping medication. But this is why it’s vital to have no contact with the sociopath. They will encourage us to return to our patterns of thinking that suit them and not us. The patterns that brought us all here in the first place thinking that something was wrong with us.
So, yes, we can study the brain of the sociopath and say that it doesn’t function correctly. But that’s a symptom and result of their pathology, not the cause. For those of us who have been in therapy, we know that to fully participate is to experience some level of distress and pain. I let my clients know that the process is not easy and they may feel more stress for a time as they undergo change. Change is not an easy process. It is asking someone to start thinking and doing in ways that are unfamiliar to them. But it’s going through the process that brings results that make it well worth the journey.
We live in a society that wants what it wants, when it wants it. and how it wants it. Immediate gratification is the American way. Many people would rather not struggle to do the work it entails to change this mentality in their lives. Here we introduce the sociopath as the most pathological of those in our society. It is easier to lie, to blame and to project onto others what is wrong in them than to do the work to face themselves and change. Unfortunately what they do to victims brings out the worst in others and reinforces how they see themselves and this world. Knowing what is right or wrong they make the choice over and over again to take the disodered way out. They become experts at their craft. They also keep themselves in the dark and as far from enlightenment, reality and truth than anyone can get. We are lucky to recognize that we are not like them. We have a chance for an abundant life living in the truth. We choose light. They choose darkness.
ALOHATRAVELER, I did the same thing as you. There were some things that were illegal that the S did and some that flew just under the radar. I knew that if I took anything to the police I too would look like the bitter ex-girlfriend. How do you explain how dangerous these folks are? Especially to one’s mental and emotional health? That is the challenge and, unfortunately, the advantage they have. But the advantage we have is not living life as they do. Being better and overcoming any bitterness. Being aware of them and knowing how to respond to avoid further abuse. To me, knowing all that I have, that the S will never have, is enough to thank God for my freedom and for being me.
OXY, corporations are referred to as the ultimate psychopaths LOL. Sad but very true. You have such a healthy perspective on the law suit and it’s wonderful what you and your family plan to do with the funds. I’m sorry your late husband went through that. He responded as anyone would naturally do. I love the quote from Frankyl though. So true as well. I will have to remember that one!
The Truth Will Set You Free – But First It Will Piss You Off
oxy don’t you think that would make a good tattoo? arm band? and if someone reads it and ask what is the truth I will look them in the eye and say the truth is right before my eyes!