The precedent-setting 1997 case of Wendt v. Wendt, successfully litigated by Rutkin & Oldham, L.L.C., changed the way courts view the financial arrangements in marriage. Our client, Lorna J. Wendt, became a household name nationwide and in many countries throughout the world after she – then a stay-at-home mother of two – went public when the Wendts‘ 32-year marriage ended. After the conclusion of her lawsuit, Ms. Wendt appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine; the headline read: “What‘s a Corporate Wife Worth?” The New York Times noted in a 1998 article: “Ms. Wendt‘s (successful) claim . . . sent shivers through the corporate ranks, where the thought is that who made the money keeps most of it.”
In 2005, the New York Times again addressed this topic with their published article “Divorce, Corporate American Style” and interviewed Attorney Rutkin. The divorce quoted Attorney Rutkin‘s conclusions about this case: “The divorce showed that being a corporate wife carried responsibilities that she should have been compensated for.”
Of course, most people choose not to go public. However, the Wendt dissolution illustrates the depth of understanding that Rutkin, Oldham & Needle brings to the practice of family law in cases with very complicated assets and in which clients successfully litigated their rights to maintain their assets against unwarranted or spurious claims.
Among Attorney Oldham‘s best known accomplishments was her litigation of Ireland v. Ireland, a landmark decision in relocation of parents after divorce. Attorney Oldham represented the Plaintiff father, who in 1995 got a temporary restraining order to prevent the mother‘s move to California. At trial, where the facts and evidence were heard, the father won. The decision was upheld at the Appellate level. However, on appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the court reversed the decision, essentially granting the custodial parent greater freedom to leave the state in pursuit of personal opportunities.
This landmark case led to greater confusion about whose interests were best served: the custodial parent or the child. Attorney Oldham persisted in her interest on the issue, subsequently writing position papers for the Connecticut State Bar calling for a state law to give clarity to the issue, and testifying several times in public hearings on the need for new legislation to reverse the effect of Ireland. Both she and Arnold Rutkin testified in favor of the new statute. Arnold Rutkin was quoted in a Connecticut Law Tribune article, stating: “I think it will be definitely be harder” now for a spouse to relocate out of state. “The new standard goes back to best interests. And if anything, the science is the other way – that children need to have two parents”. He also sees the new statute as sending a message. “The importance of the new anti-Ireland statute was to give notice to everybody that they didn‘t need to go through that fiction of shifting burden of proof anymore, and that women couldn‘t just leave automatically.”
This case (the name of which is not included due to the sensitive facts involved) stands as the nation’s longest divorce trial (86 days), and also one of its grittiest. This case involved unfounded accusations against the husband. Attorneys Rutkin and Oldham were part of the legal team comprised of three firms representing the husband. They assisted in strategy decisions and handled and coordinated the medical/mental health expert testimony. The hard work of his lawyers achieved a positive outcome for the husband. Hopefully, no other divorce case will ever be as long, but this case stands as a testament to some of the harsh realities of a divorce. Your spouse and his/her counsel can make serious allegations against you, and your case can hang on your counsel’s ability to counter those allegations and put the truth in front of the court for proper consideration. Rutkin, Oldham & Needle, L.L.C., has experience doing just that.