Money, money,money,....MONEY!!!

Let me ask this, ( while I am thinking about it) if you were asked to go to the negotiating table over finances with someone who refuses to discuss finances with you and has been in constant control ? Would you go thinking your going to be treated fairly, because you both have an attorney? If you were convinced you had the upper hand, and your chances of getting a fair settlement were highly in your favor would that help? That is were I think I am at. Along with the notion that all of this is still new and developing. I have been given 15 pages of definition about collaborative law to read. Time to look it over again, and wright down more questions.

I will embarrassingly, honestly admit, I hardly know the difference in a 401 k and a IRA. Ironically mine are greater, due to my parents already passing away.

I was also given pages of daily expenses to fill out. Not having seen our budget in years I can estimate on a few things. My attorney,and other things I have read, tell me, " so much of your expenses are on line now it's hard to lie about it"". Why are my doubts and fears still there? Another trust issue. Surely I am not the only one who has little knowledge of all the finance. Attorney's act like they are used to dealing with that, and spouses a cussing each other of being a Narcissist. Again leading me to think this will stay a money dividing issue. At least the huge controlling issue of homeschooling, will be coming to a close. That was life altering for me as a man.

This is just me and my viewpoint, which I put out there.
"If" I was in this position, and I figured I needed $1,000,000 to fund my post divorce lifestyle, then that would be my benchmark.
"If" the disclosed joint asset base was $2,000,000 and I got my half of it, I'd be happy with that, and would walk away whistling dixie.
-
"If" it turned out later that there were undisclosed assets and the divisible pool was actually $4,000,000, I don't think I would give a fuck.
-
Chances are that even if I was prepared to chase the extra $1m (in this theoretical example) it would cost me big time to get it, it would be a long and laborious process - and very expensive - and extremely aggravating. It would tie me in to prolonging the relationship while the whole sorry tale spun out over probably another couple of years.
I have better things to do with my time than that.
-
In short, if I got "enough" out of the split to finance my post ILIASM shithole life, I'd be cool with that - even if subsequent events showed that "I could have got more".
-
Again, this is a personal opinion, not advice, not a suggestion.

Absolutely not.

She has already shown that she does not respect you, or even a court order. She will disclose the minimum she believes she must. Anything she can "overlook", neglect to disclose, or chalk up to careless bookkeeping is in her favor, and if your side of the table doesn't know how to ask the right probing questions then you will settle for what you are given.

My point about the different types of assets was exactly for that reason. You don't know this stuff; she does. You would be foolish to try and learn now all that you need to know in time. This is the time to hire an expert who will know more than her and advise you. While you might use this person as a general financial advisor, they really need to have skills with tax impact of the different accounts I mentioned; more like a tax specialist.

If I were in your shoes, and given her demonstrated behavior, I would not only be hiring a forensic accountant (in addition to the above advisor), but asking the judge to make her pay for it. Among the things they would do is to reconcile transactions for all accounts over the past few years to find any siphoning or hidden accounts. Also checking other avenues like LLCs where funds might be stored from, say, rental properties, or management fees for those properties. It takes some persistent digging when you have multiple properties, and likely legal structures, as I gather you probably do. It would also clearly substantiate your standard of living.


You really can't negotiate until you know what you're negotiating for. I would feel confident in my negotiating position in general, but it's pointless to settle details without having the facts and advice first. Ditto for throwing it all on the mercy of a judge - they aren't going to dig and sort out the facts; your team needs to do that regardless.

Being pessimistic, whatever you negotiate now will have a profound impact on the quality of the rest of your life. And not just yourself, but your ability to help your kids and other interests as you see fit. Don't take it lightly in an effort to be finished quickly; she will absolutely take advantage of your urgency.


Per above, you don't need to understand any of it, but you do have to hire experts who do.

Your inheritance is a fantastic example of knowing what to fight for. Inheritance is typically excluded from the 50:50 asset split. It remains your sole and separate property unless it was explicitly converted to a shared asset at some point. (E.g., deposited into a shared bank account, or in the case of real estate retitled into both your names.)


They are right that there is a pretty clear paper trail. But you are right to be wary. The paper trail only tells an informed viewer what they need to know.

An example... You might have a property held in an LLC. Rents and expenses might be transacted from separate accounts for that property. Management fees might be paid to a different LLC that acts as the property manager for all your properties. Another set of accounts.

The LLCs might not be owned by you directly and might pay taxes separately, so not an obvious connection. I could go on, but the point is that those assets wouldn't be obvious except to someone digging to find them.


I think your distrust is well placed. Most divorces do not involve multiple rental properties, which tends to involve more complex legal structures and intentional protective barriers. Combine that with a woman who has demonstrated a willingness to be uncooperative, and you need skilled help.


I'm not sure how relevant that'll be to a judge if it goes that far, but I'd be sure to bring it up.

Both my ex and I were in the dark about our finances LOL.

greatcoastal, sadly her motivation is very probably financial. More custody = less child support. The starting point should default to 50/50 time unless one spouse can clearly show that the other is incapable of that much time (say, with small kids and work schedule).

So, don't stress too much about losing access to your kids, regardless of where you're living. This should not be a new tactic for your lawyer. If it is, be very afraid.

Try your best not to be emotionally attached to any outcome that's not essential - the person who's emotionally invested in the outcome ("I *must* have the dining room set") will make irrational compromises to achieve their goal. Make your compromises count.

Specifically, the house. Unless there is a genuine practical reason to want the house, don't get hung up on sentimental attachment to it. In most cases, it ends up being sold because neither party can afford to buy the other out of their half.

Since you have rental properties, that's probably not the case - I recommend viewing the home as simply an asset; one of you will end up with it, and the other will end up with comparable assets elsewhere. Mentally consider that if you ended up with the house's value in cash instead of the structure, how bad would it really be to buy a comparable place and make it your own, with no baggage? (In fact, the spouse who ends up with the house often ends up with a lot more house / maintenance / upkeep than they really need going forward).

Instead, find the things that she is emotionally invested in and leverage them to your benefit. In this case, to try and level the playing field against an opponent with questionable ethics.

My lawyer called me Fri. Let me know calmly that she had emails to send me. Her next sentence was," are you sure you want to do collaboration, or go litigation? " I informed her that my STBX did see our therapist. Her response was, " talk to your therapist as soon as possible and let him , let your wife know that she could loose her attorney and have to start all over again , costing thousands more".

Sounds like my attorney is stepping up for me already. I informed my attorney of the information one of my sons was given from my STBX about us sharing the house and being gone on the weekend. My attorney called that "nesting" and right away said," no, where's your privacy in any of that, that seldom works, where did she come up with that?" I elaborated on that, and said, " I can see her not mowing the yard, cleaning the gutters,trimming the trees,buying the groceries,cleaning the dishes,etc...and leaving that for me to do. And does she expect her daddy to stay there the whole time? Not going to happen!

I understand the,aim for the stars and reach the moon approach, but it flies right in the face of let's reach a fair compromise. More life long scaring.

Piling on bballgirl's excellent points...

When figuring out how much money you need to maintain your current lifestyle (excluding kids, and based on your current $0 income), this needs to be your bare minimum demand for *spousal support* (not child support).

Being specific for two reasons - first, child support is often formula-driven; in my state it's not negotiable. It's intended to be the incremental amount needed for the household to add a child at the same standard of living.

Second, child support is temporary. It has a limited duration.

On the other hand, spousal maintenance is intended to support *your* standard of living, for a duration until you're expected to become self-sufficient. In your state it sounds like you're crossed a threshold for "permanent" maintenance, but even that has a finite duration. Spousal maintenance in my experience has guidelines the state will apply by default, but it's negotiable. Your lawyer can tell you how much / how long you should expect spousal support if it goes to a judge - that's what you should expect, and I recommend you don't negotiate down from there.

While I would not want to find myself on the other side of this equation, you really are in the driver's seat here. There's a pretty pre-determined formula for how this will all play out - you shouldn't feel like you're "asking" for anything you're entitled to, and you should only make concessions if she's giving you something more valuable in exchange. (Because *she* will not make any concessions to you unless you're trading something more valuable.)