iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
J. Richard Kulerski

GET UPDATES FROM J. Richard Kulerski
 

Hold onto Your Hat: Introducing the New Way to Divorce

Posted: 09/06/11 01:40 PM ET

I have practiced divorce law for 48 years. I've worked with and against just about every type of divorcing spouse imaginable: unreasonable, practical, obstinate, angry, vengeful, combative, miserly, and emotionally challenged, to name but a few.

You cannot swim in the waters that I have for almost five decades and be naïve when it comes to what people are capable of during divorce.

With this is mind, and with full knowledge of the extent to which I am sticking my neck out, I predict that divorce is one generation away from becoming much less contentious and considerably more amicable than it is now. I say this because I really don't see how it can do anything else.

Here's my thinking.

The public is displeased with the divorce legal system, and sees it as too complicated, lengthy, and costly. The argument is that the system should satisfy society's needs, not frustrate them. Heck, many soon-to-be exes are now spending more on their divorce than they did on their wedding. We need to change how we divorce, but the problem lies in figuring out what to change it to.

Lawyers could start charging less, but this isn't going to happen. Lawyers' rents, employee salaries, and other operating costs are not likely to decrease, so neither will their legal fees.

People could stop getting divorced, but this is not going to happen. Human nature is human nature and there will always be two sides to every story.

More people could start doing their own divorces. Admittedly, pro se (or pro per) divorce is becoming more common, but acting as your own lawyer is not for everyone. Only a small portion of the populace is actually capable of adequately representing themselves. The others may be making a grave mistake.

We could mellow-out our divorce court procedures and treat marital dissolution in a more family-friendly manner. However, this cannot happen because the Constitution prevents us from taking someone's property without due process of law. This necessitates adherence to the rules of evidence, and to the strict standards that go hand in hand with formal court procedures.

I submit the answer lies in our finding a way to stay out of the divorce legal system altogether. We have to learn how to settle our cases before it becomes necessary to take them to court.

This is not as impossible as it sounds, but it does require our doing the last thing on earth that we want to do: treat our soon-to-be ex and their settlement position with respect and understanding. This does not mean being weak; it means being smart. Listening to their side of the story is the cheapest concession we can make.

This is the civilized approach to divorce. It calls for us to behave at our best, at a time in our lives when we are inclined to act at our worst. Up to now, we have felt entitled to act at our worst, and the result has been disastrous.

The best way to disarm our spouse is by respecting their stand. This changes everything. Showing concern and respect for what he or she is saying reduces their anger and lack of trust. It relaxes their defenses and puts us in position to persuade them to settle out of court.

I predict that the future of divorce lies in this anti-war divorce mindset. One generation from now we will be well on our way toward this new cooperative and non-confrontational way of thinking.

Why will this occur, and why am I so certain of it? The reason lies in the answers to the following four questions:

  • What do you think a divorcing party would dislike more: the prospect of treating their spouse respectfully or the prospect of throwing money away?

  • Which of these do you suppose a divorcing party would find more distasteful: being pleasant to their soon-to-be ex who does not deserve it or giving money to their soon-to-be ex who does not deserve it?

  • Who would they rather give a new car to: their lawyer's kid or their own kid? Similarly, whose child would they prefer to put through college?

  • Will a divorcing party that wants blood, still want blood once they realize they will get just as bloody as their spouse?


These questions are indeed dramatic and argumentatively simplistic; however, they are meant to illustrate the absurdity of our continuing to divorce in a non-cooperative manner.

Divorce will always be able to bring out the dark side in all of us. Human nature is not going to change, but our willingness to subsidize its folly will.

As much as we dislike being nice to our soon-to-be ex, we dislike wasting our money more. This is the basis of the civilized approach.

Admittedly, this will not work for everyone, as there will always be people that must fight. However, most of us can get pretty doggone cooperative once we fully understand what it costs to act otherwise.

J. Richard Kulerski is a partner in the Chicago area, Oak Brook, IL divorce law firm of Kulerski and Cornelison. Richard is the author of The Secret to a Friendly Divorce: Your Personal Guide to a Cooperative, Out-of-Court Settlement. You may find him at www.civilizeddivorce.com and at his firm's blog, www.dupagedivorcelawyerblog.com.

 

Follow J. Richard Kulerski on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Chicago_Divorce

 
 
  • Comments
  • 265
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
07:15 PM on 09/09/2011
When I split with my ex, we didn't even discuss a lawyer. I came up with a number, he came up with a number and then we split the difference. Far cheaper to give a little than to involve a lawyer.
I did consult with a lawyer beforehand to see what I was obligated to give. That was worth the $350 to learn what I could expect in my state.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:06 PM on 09/09/2011
My ex left and he and I went thru legal mediation with two other lawyers besides our own (after his new gf and he got a restraining order against me-long story.) It wasn't necessary, but they must have felt that that was their "first strike." Then my ex came to his senses and realized lots of HIS money was involved and going to be disseminated to ME if he didn't wise up and cool off. I needed to, too. We did and now we have gotten years down the road and achieved a somewhat amicable divorce. His new wife makes it hell for my now-adult daughter, but that's another story.
11:49 AM on 09/09/2011
If two adults get married, it should be two adults who get divorced. My ex and I took the civilized approach. When we divided our household effects, the common refrain was, "Are you sure YOU don't want this? No, take it. I know how much you enjoy it." Once the property settlement agreement was done, I fired my attorney and did the filing and paperwork for the court myself. My attorney was too blood-thirsty, trying to create conflict where there was none. Dang straight I had better things to do with my money than give it to her.

Unfortunately, all too often, people resort to behaving like petulant teenagers. Don't get me wrong: My ex and I had our angry moments. But we were both grown up enough to realize that once upon a time, we were friends before we started dating and later married, and we had to respect our own judgment in people. the storms we weathered together, and the ways we helped each other over the years. No good guy, no bad guy. Like the song, "It's only you and me and we just disagree." I wish more people could feel that way for their exes. It's not always possible, I know. But when it is, it helps you heal, and it certainly avoids a lot of the bitterness divorced people often bring to the dating scene when they get back out there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
11:45 AM on 09/09/2011
There is another option, and that is to change the nature of the failed institution called "marriage." Divorce is a symptom of the unrealistic expectations and absurd strictures we place on people in this institution. And the fact that close to half of all marriages end in divorce. If you're 50, think about how many people you know who HAVEN'T been divorced at least once, even if in a happy marriage now. BUT...add to that the number of marriages where there are affairs, and the number of marriages where people endure day-to-day in misery, and you have a truer picture of the failure of the institution. Why marry? A good part of it is the drumbeat of religion. But fewer and fewer young people are listening....or marrying.

A system wherein there would be "contract marriage," where people would have an out after X number of years, and an option to renew, but where there would be a pre-agreed financial settlement and child custody settlement mandated by law prior to the issuance of a marriage license would both cut down on hasty marriages, and give an intelligent system for ending those that did not last. It would also take away the threat of financial ruin and one spouse's relationship with the children being held hostage to the corrupt and inequitable court system. Change marriage and divorce will also change.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:18 AM on 09/09/2011
My ex and I used the "Collaborative Divorce" process.

That worked because she wanted out (determined she was lesbian) and I was too stunned and scared and in denial to get angry and vengeful.

We spent a lot of money on lawyers - but not as much as a contentious divorce would have.

Betrayal - small and large - plays too much of a part of divorce to avoid an expensive solution.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lissa Coffey
Author, Producer/Host CoffeyBuzz.com
07:04 AM on 09/09/2011
I completely agree with you. There is a new paradigm for divorce and it involves mutual respect. As more people go through these amicable partings this will become more the norm. My philosophy is that relationships don't end, but they do change. When we can come to terms with these changes and move forward with what we have learned from each other, then we have come to a place of gratitude, and we have CLOSURE. ClosureBook.com
12:49 AM on 09/09/2011
I wish all the men the same success that Lou Pai, former enron executive, had in his divorce.. do a web search on him if you forgot his story qne was dubed the man with the most lucky divorce that ever occured. I wasn't as lucky. I lost my 2 million dollar house in So Cal, my kids and I still pay my ex over 10k/month. Lou Pai is my hero.
12:19 AM on 09/09/2011
Interesting thought but if it was this easy to divorce, it would be this easy to avoid divorce. Since frequently resentment, jealousy, selfishness, emotional trivializing and other such traits grow to lead to a large portion of divorces, it is unlikely in most cases both sides will put strong emotions aside now at the time of divorce, when unable within the marriage. If the mate that is listening and understanding of their soon to be ex-mates concern when doing so while married was out of the question, hypocritical manipulation will become evident or suspected. "Why is my mate now so interested in understanding my feelings now while not interested before?" is a natural question. On the other hand, if it is the party that already showed understanding and concern in the marriage that applies this advice, why would it lead to any more success in divorce than when married? That is not to say it will never work. The fact is though that the questions presented as evidence did not suddenly appear; options have been available for a while. Even once these questions are pondered, if feelings were hurt, dignity lost, betrayal of trust and desires and thoughts trivialized or even if one of the mates is simply vindictive, control of emotions will be lost. Unless the divorce can be settled in just one meeting emotions will cause distrust and heels to dig in.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kmc528
I ALWAYS have an opinion....
07:54 PM on 09/08/2011
My ex (admittedly an emotional toddler) was stunned when the judge said we were each to pay our own legal fees. He was under the impression that it didn't matter how much he ran up with ridiculous maneuvers because I'd have to pay his lawyer. His goal was to make my life miserable, but he missed one little factor -- professional courtesy: all I had to pay for was copies and postage. He spent most of a year's pay, and I got by with a few hundred bucks. End result, he got not one cent more than he was originally offered.
06:54 PM on 09/08/2011
Time heals all wounds, or is it time wounds all heels? In my case it is the former.
04:46 PM on 09/08/2011
There are so many scenarios that don't apply here. My ex was physically abusive. There was no proof, as he always stopped short of doing anything that would leave visible marks. If there were any, they were vague and could be explained away. So what were my choices? I don't have a college degree; I stayed home to raise the kids we made. I tried to start up a couple businesses but he sabotaged them as soon as he felt threatened by any show of independence, and I was too worn down and exhausted for a while to fight him. My point here is, if he had been able to demonstrate the level of respect the author is calling for during the divorce, I wouldn't have sought one in the first place. I didn't leave because it made anything easier; I left because I realized as a human being, I deserve to be with someone who likes me and doesn't hurt me. Period.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
11:51 AM on 09/09/2011
Yes, you DO deserve be with someone decent. One lesson here for women, though, is to make sure that you don't marry until you're able to take care of YOURSELF. Don't stay home to "raise the kids" after they are past infancy. Work and make money. There is no reason that one side of a marriage should be completely responsible for financially taking care of the other. Women -- get an education, a decent job, understand finances, and don't marry and retire to keep house. In today's climate, it is just foolish to try to have a 1950's marriage...foolish for both parties. Don't. Everyone should pull his and her weight in a marriage, financially, housework-wise, raising of children, affection, etc., etc. But if not, both parties should have an out that doesn't lead to financial ruin or loss of children. Until the nature of marriage is changed, anyone who doesn't have a pre-nup is just plain naive or foolish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
11:52 AM on 09/09/2011
By the way....I am male.....
06:33 PM on 09/09/2011
Yes, that scenario IS ideal. We dated 3 years, I was in college, too, but when a kid did come, and we lived nowhere near any kind of family, who is going to care for the baby? I couldn't continue in my studies, care for an infant, AND work. I was post-natal, depressed, isolated, and I had no support. My family bought the facade we put on for 15 years. I had every intention of finishing school, but things didn't quite work out. So I instead devoted my life to raising my kids. I DID pull my weight in the marriage, even though I wasn't employed full-time. I had part time work off and on. I started my own business, complete with employees. And in between I tried very hard to figure out how to turn our relationship around. It didn't work, and by the time I realized that fact, my kids were old enough that it was going to be very difficult to navigate without destroying them. I take offense to calling me foolish for making the best choices I could with the tools I had available at each junction of my marriage. Even though I divorced, even though it was hard, I have no regrets. I do have 2 beautiful, well-adjusted kids, as well as my dignity. Better off than most, I'd say.
photo
sigmetsue
militantly moderate
04:39 PM on 09/08/2011
In most quarrels, from those between spouses or co-workers to those between countries, settlements would be more quickly and easily arranged if each side would really listen to what the other is saying rather just thinking up more accusations while the other side is stating their case.
12:33 AM on 09/09/2011
And despite being able to find such advice back to many famous and respected philosophers from centuries back as well as authors, people, political parties and countries still fall in to this trap. In many strides taken forward in education and technology, as well as great strides in organizations paying lip service to relationship building, ambition, pride and biased perspectives still permeate how people communicate and negotiate. If so many can be familiar with such philosophy's in our time of educational enlightenment and yet so obviously miss out in the application of them in work and in countries where there are less emotional invested commitment, how can we think amicable quick and cheap divorces will be anything but exceptions rather than the rule.
04:27 PM on 09/08/2011
This is to Blarneydude:

Of course, after a scorched-earth divorce, I have no desire to try marriage again.

However, in terms of personality disorders and treacherous people, you simply cannot tell how dangerous they are the first couple of years. They devolve into horrible people very slowly. Obviously, if someone behaved badly at the beginning of a relationship, no one would marry them.
08:28 AM on 09/09/2011
With a personality-disordered spouse your married life will be different and your divorce will be different and (if you are not careful/fortunate) your divorced life will be different.

There probably are signs of personality disorder exposed in the relationship prior to marriage. You do well to identify them and recognize them for what they are if you want to maximize your happiness/success in life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
11:57 AM on 09/09/2011
Some intelligent suggestions: 1). Pre-nup, pre-nup, pre-nup. 2). Pre-marital counseling with a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a sign off on the marriage by that person should be REQUIRED before the issuance of a marriage license. People who didn't do this could still have a church wedding ceremony (or whatever), but the State would not recognize the marriage....nor be responsible when (not if) it fell apart for resolving the issues. 3). Don't marry someone who is unstable. What You See Is What You Get. Those with true personality disorders show the signs long before they fully manifest. Just saying "I luuuvvvv him or her..." doesn't cut it. The old saying "marry in haste, repent at leisure" is still true. If we want to cut down on divorce, we'll make getting married a great deal harder, and have everything worked out when it falls apart.
04:17 PM on 09/08/2011
yes, I agree with your thesis. Yet, we need to realize that divorce lawyers are used when the two parties vastly disagree in the first place. The cases where two people divorce amicably, will not use a lawyer necessarily (as in my case) and now the question is "what percentage of people that divorce use lawyers versus not use lawyers". That also means your premise might already be in place.
08:19 AM on 09/09/2011
Not necessarily.

A divorce lawyer is sometimes used by a divorcing spouse with a greedy/bad intent -- to separate the other divorcing spouse from the children or to get the most money possible out of the marital estate -- notwithstanding fairness.

A divorce lawyer is able to take advantage of that type of situation -- continuing litigation even though the reasonable hope of success is near zero.
01:59 PM on 09/08/2011
I am currently married to Husband #3 ( I am his 2nd wife). I live in FL, he in OH. We have been married for 30 years, and until 3 years ago, lived together. We have never considered a divorce, and cannot wait til I can live with him again (I turn 62 in Jan and will "retire"). We are still in love, and enjoy each other, thru our differences. Just like in the olden days. I think people just need to "choose" better for the long haul. It took a few tries, but we finally got it!!!
04:43 PM on 09/08/2011
age and experience help. Most people in the past married anywhere from age 18 to 23, with zero experience in life.
12:41 AM on 09/09/2011
I certainly agree that waiting and growing do help. But since divorce rates go up with 2nd and 3rd marriages in which the persons should have more experience, marrying young is only part of the problem. Even if we reason that only the naive get married again making divorce more likely, we are left with those that due to their now having "experienced" are disillusioned with marriage and do not feel it is possible for them to have a successful marriage. And if we further argue this incorrect and that those now with experience recognize that they "don't need a piece of paper" to have a successful relationship, then do they feel that a lack of a piece of paper somehow will help have a successful relationship if having that piece of paper does not?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
11:58 AM on 09/09/2011
Second (third, fourth, fifth, etc.) marriages, it is said, is the triumph of hope over experience.