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.
Bird,
I think you have been here a long time but remember that Dr. Leedom has a book on parenting an at-risk child. I seem to remember an article about it somewhere and there was something about teaching a child about empathy early on. No pressure dear. You probably haven’t graduated too far out of new born diapers yet. :o)
All the best to you and baby bird.
XO
Hey, Aloha!
You pulled an “Oxy” LOL Quote to Bird: ” YOU probably haven’t graduated too far out of new born diapers yet” LOL I of course know you meant that Baby Birdie hasn’t graduated out of new born diapers yet, but I pull this kind of thing all the time when I am writing. ROTFL I think my fingers run faster than my brain sometimes. I am sure that Mrs. Barlow, my 7th grade English teacher is rolling over in her grave at the typos, misspellings, (forget to use spell checker) and unidentified pronouns I use. I just had to tease you, because now I do’nt feel so alone. ((((Aloha))))
Oopsie… I meant that she hadn’t graduated… as a Mom… past newborn diapers but I guess it did sound like… well.. ya know. How funny!
Sorry Bird.
Have a nice day!
One thing I know for sure, as I graduate from newborn diapers to stage one:). If we were all sociopaths, our species would become extinct. If I were a sociopath, I would just leave and do whatever my fancy told me to do. And the baby bird would die. And, if we were all sociopaths, no one would come to its aid. I am going to get a bumper sticker that reads “Pro Species”. A sociopaths would read “Pro Self”. The sociopath is for the survival of the self over the species. The majority of non sociopathic people are for the survival of the species over the self. I guess that is why we are not extinct:)
Dear Bird,
I think you are definitely right on with that statement. If ALL people were sociopaths the species would not survive long.
There are some diseases that are genetic that are interesting in that way. We all I am sure have heard of sickle cell anemia, that is fairly common in black populations. It is a genetic disease that must come from both side of the family for a person to have it. Well, it so happens that there is a majority of cases where a person has ONE gene for the disease and his no bad effects. But that person with ONE bad gene can pass it on. If two people produce children and each of them have the “trait” (one gene) statistically one of their four children will have NO “trait” and 50% will have the one gene trait, and 25% of their children will have full blown sickle cell anemia and probably be disabled or die from it.
How is this beneficial to the species? Well, it so happens that a person with sickle cell TRAIT (one gene for it) is almost immune to malaria which kills millions of people yearly in many parts of the world. Of course the people who have no trait (gene) don’t have that protection and are more likely to die of malaria than the sibs with the trait, and of course the child with sickle cell anemia (especially in a third world country) will die from the disease.
So what it amounts to is that the species “sacrifices” 50% with either the disease or the lack of immunity, but 50% of the children born will not die of either the disease or the malaria. Without the sickle cell gene, 100% of the species would be at risk for dying of malaria.
Of course in the US, where malaria is not endemic, having the trait (one gene) is not a benefit, or a harm, but having two of the genes is definitely NOT a benefit.
My guess is that there is more than one gene “responsible” for what we call a Psychopath, the “bad” kind, so maybe having SOME sociopathic/psychopathic traits (but not full blown serial killer) would make that person more able to “survive” in a tribal situation and pass on more of his genes to more offspring. The person with more psychopathic tendencies, who would do whatever it took to survive, yet cooperate to some extent, (fake it) would be likely to survive in times of shortages of food, and other goods, because he would take what he needed to survive without pity on the others he took it from, where the person without those traits would be more likely to share his/her food and maybe not make it through the famine.
So maybe these genes were at some time beneficial to the species in some way. I think if they weren’t they would have been “selected” out at some point. Sir Laurens van der Post, who was by his life history quite narcissistic, sexually unfaithful, leaving his wife and children to fend for themselves after WWII and not going home to them when he could, impregnating a 15 year old girl who was his “ward,” a continual liar and self aggrandized, and so on, yet this man was a genuine hero in a Japanese prison camp, and risked his life repeatedly for other prisoners. Sacrificed for other prisoners. WHY? Somehow he got NS for this heroism for which he suffered greatly to “purchase” is my guess.
This man was Knighted by Queen Elizabeth and is one of the godfathers of Prince William. He rose far from his farm roots in South Africa, became a world figure in literature, and wrote some of the most caring and moving books I have ever read. His written philosophy was remarkable, and he was a close friend of Jung. I am acquainted with this man’s daughter and two of his closest friends, and also a man who is currently doing a second biography of him. The first biography of van der Post was so scathing that his family was livid.
There is not one shred of doubt in my mind that this man’s biography would paint him squarely into the clinical diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, yet, in spite of this, the man had some characteristics that made him “a great man” in spite of this. I wouldn’t have wanted to be married to him, but yet, he wasn’t “all bad” as some of the psychopaths are. He did do good—even if his motive was his own glory.
Wow Bird… that is awesome.
It reminds me that there has to be more good than bad out there. This is important to remember because sometimes it can be overwhelming reading all these stories of bad bad bad.
Awhile back, I went through a phase where I though every where I looked, men looked predatory and I started to lose some sleep over it. It passed.
There is good in us and there is good in most people. We have to remember that too. It’s part of our healing after experiencing something so dark.
:o)
“peep peep peep” says baby Bird.
I am victim of scoiopath. My ex cheated on me 4 times and lied to me about her past. My ex lied to court that she is not working and was suing me for spousal support. Spousal support is the worst invention ever. Now back to the point:
I read the article above…excuse me…I did not get wh ois a sociopath in this case?
This is how I saw it: women moves into somebody elses house, uses his generocity and lives a lavish lifestyle. 4 years later she moves out. She makes 85K a year (this is what PhD people make), enough to live amodest normal lifestyle. THIS IS WHAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO!!!! She sued the guy so that he would pay her more money in alimony so that she could buy more clothing…Excuse ME, this is called “a thief”, a parasitic lifestyle.
She tried to convince the court that she is entitled to more alimony payments than she should have…excuse me??????
Dear Cellstemcell,
This woman married this man and he was Governor of a state, then he decided to come out of the “closet” and announce he was GAY! He had married her knowing he was Gay, and she felt betrayed.
Sometimes people who (regardless of how long or short they were married) who are betrayed, and especilally PUBLICLY betrayed as this woman was, try to “punish” the guy financially as a means of vengence, justice, revenge, whatever you want to call it–doesn’t mean it is right, but certainally understandable in her wanting to “punish” him.
As the wife of the Governor of a state, she had a full time “job” being the state’s hostess so it wasn’t exactly a “parasitic” life style though it was fairly grand I am sure.
I’m not defending her behavior, but I think I do understand it. I think if what he had done was a legal “crime” she would be screaming for the death penalty, instead of trying to get it by “spousal support” etc.
They may both be Ps for all I know, she may have married him for his position and money and he obviously married her to cover up his sexual preferneces so his political career would flourish—but she sure ended up getitng publicly burned. The fact that she is SO burned makes me belive that she did NOT know at the time she married him.
My best advice to her is to read love fraud and learn about her P and heal herself, let go of the bitterness and wrath and get on with her life.
well…lets say you worked your way out to be a “celebrity” – hollywood, governor, whatever…it is YOURS and in a way it is YOU, you make the profit out of it. Lets say you created a “google” it is yours, YOU are celebrity because of YOU and not somebody else.
Someone marries you, and because of you that “someone” is now “celebrity” everyone knows that she is “HIS” wife. When she gets divorced, well she is no longer HIS wife therefore nobody gives a sh..t about her. Because this is what divorce is about. They are no longer husband and wife.
you cannot claim your “celebrity’s wife” status back because you want to continue to get public attention and enjoy monetary benefits.
If you get divorced from Angelina Jolie, can you claim that you got addicted to paparazzi and that now you want Angelina to spend 40% of her time (“spousal support”) next to you so that you could live a lifestyle you are used to? So that you would have a “smooth” transition back to single lifestyle?
This whole stuff with “spousal support is stupid”. It should be eliminated
This site is about Sociopaths aka Frauds. Whack jobs who have no remorse, no guilt, no true feelings of love. It’s all about them, their narcissism, their next victim, someone who will buy into their lies. Why did Mr. McGreevey misrepresent himself by marrying a woman and breeding? Because he had to use other people to achieve the position of Governor. He should have chosen a different “profession” where his homosexualtiy would be accepted. He should be writing his ex “wife” a check, or borrow the funds from his live in boyfriend to compensate her for the humiliation she has suffered.