SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

1stWife, I know, right?

I have another question for those of you who have gone through this. This morning he cornered me and started talking about how he had friends who had gone through divorce and they were able to come to a mutual agreement without involving lawyers. He wants me to give him a list of what I want and he will do the same, and then we can "discuss" it. I know what I want and I'm already pretty sure he isn't going to want to give it.

My question is whether there is any disadvantage to giving him that list directly as opposed to continuing to hold firm on having my lawyer communicate with his (currently nonexistent) lawyer? He is strongly fighting the idea of retaining his own lawyer (for "financial" reasons) and wants to just use my lawyer to draw up an agreement. I feel like this puts him at a disadvantage, but beyond that I'm concerned about the long term impact on drawing this out. I have no intention of negotiating with him about this, but am wondering if it's a good or bad idea to give him a heads up on what I will be asking for. Any thoughts?

I would not do it.

Let's say you give him the list, he reads over it and boom, it's an argument. You already know his mood can shift quickly.

The best course is not to engage him. He is an adult. He can/needs to retain an attorney.

Your attorney is not looking for his best interest but yours as you are the client.

Ask your attorney about this - that's the person in the best position to advise on this.

IMO, it is only AFTER he completes whatever financial info is required in your jurisdiction that you or your atty would be in a position to make a settlement demand. Until that happens, you really don't know if he's got $$ stashed somewhere (and yes, folks do lie about that, even under oath. I wish prosecutors would start pressing perjury charges for that crap). IOW, you two have to know & have some consensus on what the "pie" looks like (on paper, sworn under oath) before dividing it.

Narcs (and plain old arseholes) are notorious for not wanting to pay lawyers, then routinely ignoring the lawyers' advice, and then blaming the lawyer for the consequences.

And so the F what if he wants to "blame" you for having to get an attorney or whatever or accuse you of not being an "adult' when it comes to D? His opinion of you is not your problem anymore - right?

[This message edited by gmc94 at 10:44 AM, April 24th, 2021 (Saturday)]

Was there any mention of how things would be divided in the papers you had him served? If so, tell him you already spelled it out and he can either agree to it or fight it.

The D doesn't have to cost lots of money because you have an attorney. Costs go up when there's lots of going back and forth - the clock ticks for all of it. The more cooperative he is, the cheaper it will be.

I also wanted to comment on what you wrote early on, that you had cash to pay the hotel bill and that you'd opened a credit car in just your name. Logically, I think it might be smarter to continue using the joint accounts for normal life expenses. If you buy something for the house or pay a bill, make sure it comes out of joint funds. Even your hair appts., etc. You're still married and your spending should continue as married. And I think it would be within your rights to pay your hotel bill with joint funds - reimburse yourself.

And if he has spent lots of money on the A's, you can ask to recoup those dollars. The court might not force that one but your attorney can add it to the list of "what's right" to achieve an equitable distribution.

Please do not give him a list of anything! Let your lawyer handle this. When a WS says there is no need for lawyers in a divorce, there is a need for lawyers!

Do not let him bully you into doing anything.

At this point, let him hang himself. If he does not respond in time, its on him, and not you.

I wouldn't talk to him, respond to him in anyway. The courts will look at his demands and it won't look good on him. Although the court system would love for your D to be amicable and done through mediation, it doesn't mean that they want you to do it on your own.

WIth that thought in mind, just gently remind your WH in an email that all correspondence needs to go through your attorney. And don't feel the need to get it to him quickly, let him again, hang himself. If you don't want to engage, you also have that benefit. YOu've served him, through your attorney, its now up to him to respond through the courts. You will not be punished for not talking to him about splitting the assets.

I think you know that your WH is not going to take this sitting down, and is going to try and bully you into terms that favor him. So its best that you do not engage, and just let him find his own attorney. Do not give him a list of anything. No need to show your hand to him, he will see it soon enough once he hires an attorney.

The other good thing about forcing the WH to hire an attorney is they usually will keep their clients in check. SO if your WH is asking for outlandish things, he will get shot down first by his attorney, they know crazy one sided request will not fly, and will suggest that he take a different tact.

I’m tempted to suggest that you inform him that if he wants to provide you with a list detailing his view of a fair and equitable division of assets and debts, you will be happy to forward it to your lawyer. AFTER he provides it, remind him that your attorney will be speaking on your behalf and you will not discuss anything on the list with him then DISENGAGE.

That list of assets and debts could be very interesting and useful for your attorney. People tend to list what they want in order of priority. Then, you have some insight into what is most important to him, and you may be able to use those items as wedges against other assets. For example, if he lists his retirement as the top priority, you agree to leave it alone for cash in hand, etc.

I don’t know... I haven’t fully thought this through. Folks, feel free to shoot holes in that suggestion.... I can see where it might stoke needless and unwanted drama if he is the excitable type.

I think LiesWearMeDown makes some good points.

The trick is to not commit to ANYTHING unless/until your atty reviews it.

Ask your lawyer.

When I was considering the option, my lawyer advised trying to get her to agree to either mediation with no lawyer on either side, or an uncontested divorce without consulting her own lawyer because as soon as a lawyer got in her ear and started telling her to protect her own best interests, I'd be in trouble. But that was related to my specific circumstances and what she said she would agree to in a D.

I'd only present him the list with a lawyer present in mediation. That way if he argues and acts unreasonable, your lawyer will be documenting it.

Actually my first consult atty told me that if we wanted to only use him, that would be fine. But that I had hired him, so his obligation was to look out for my best interests, and to not tell that to my WS, bc he is an adult and should know whether or not to to get his own atty. The D was going to cost less than $500!

So, email/call your atty and see what he says. My guess is that he’ll get you both in and discuss everything but still keep the clock ticking on the court response until everything is signed.

[This message edited by homewrecked2011 at 7:13 AM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

This morning he cornered me and started talking about how he had friends who had gone through divorce and they were able to come to a mutual agreement without involving lawyers. He wants me to give him a list of what I want and he will do the same, and then we can "discuss" it. I know what I want and I'm already pretty sure he isn't going to want to give it.

If this is truly the case, then it is a wasted discussion AND he knows what you want and is likely to fight hard to make certain you don't receive it. At this point, I would hold firm on the stance to not discuss anything with him--he can retain an attorney and be advised on what he can expect. That's not your job--he fired you from that job, remember?

My question is whether there is any disadvantage to giving him that list directly as opposed to continuing to hold firm on having my lawyer communicate with his (currently nonexistent) lawyer?

See above--if he knows what you want, he might just be a big enough jackwagon to fight so you don't get it. Right now, you are under no obligation to negotiate with him.

He is strongly fighting the idea of retaining his own lawyer (for "financial" reasons) and wants to just use my lawyer to draw up an agreement.

Problem is that he probably will not negotiate fairly. If he weren't a manipulative ass, this *might* work. But you're not dealing with a reasonable person here.

I feel like this puts him at a disadvantage, but beyond that I'm concerned about the long term impact on drawing this out. I have no intention of negotiating with him about this, but am wondering if it's a good or bad idea to give him a heads up on what I will be asking for. Any thoughts?

If he has your attorney draw up the agreement without his own representation, then yes, he is definitely at a disadvantage. One thing you might consider is letting your attorney know what you want and having your attorney draw up the agreement. Of course, that is a financial outlay on your part, and you probably know he's going to object to it.

I'd let him get representation, then have your attorney draw up an agreement and send it to his.

Cat

started talking about how he had friends who had gone through divorce and they were able to come to a mutual agreement

This can be done depending on the parties. I was like you. I was the one with the attorney. My ex didn't have one. I wrote up the list of who gets what and my attorney put it in legal terms and my ex signed it. This worked because we were both on the same page regarding who-gets-what.

Anything you can work out on your own is going to save you $$$. However, this only works if you are dealing with a person who can be fair and not manipulative.

I know what I want and I'm already pretty sure he isn't going to want to give it.

This is your answer as to why you need to do it via your attorney.

Also - since you know he is going to be an azz about it. Start with requesting more than what you want so you have stuff to barter with. I am sure you know stuff he would probably want and he knows stuff you will want. You can bet when it turns ugly....all of a sudden he is going to want the things he knows are important to you.

Lastly - you can spend years and lots of $$$ fighting over 'things'. When I filed, I was prepared to walk with my kids and the clothes on my back if I needed too. Know the value of the items you are fighting over because there is no sense in spending way more on legal fees than what the material items are worth.

IE I would rather go buy new (or used) furniture than spend that money on the attorney.

His manipulation tactics are only going to work if you play into them.

My attorney had me remove anything I could not replace from the house before I served him. Things that I could never replace. This was very few things (my Gram's engagement ring).

Everything else was just things and I would have sacrificed them to get away from him. It would have been a small price to pay!

Fortunately, it went much better than that but I prepared for the worse.

[This message edited by EvenKeel at 8:26 AM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

InPurgatory

Are you still ok?

Sorry i know its only been three days since your last post but i worry.

Update - I'm doing okay. I've been snowed under by work this week, which has probably been a good thing in that it keeps my mind occupied but doesn't leave me much time for anything else except eating and sleeping. Things should slow down in a few days.

Thank you all so much for the advice. I contacted my lawyer and asked her how to handle this and she said pretty much the same things you all did. Her suggestion was to offer him a few options and let him respond how he wanted to handle it. All of the options involved either having her draw up the proposal and him dealing with her directly instead of with me (she is aware and also concerned about his propensity for bullying), or going through a mediator (she suggested a name). She was okay with being the only lawyer, but as you said, her priority is representing me.

WH decided (of course) that he would prefer to see my proposed split first before putting up his own. So I will be asking the lawyer to draft a proposed 70/30 split, knowing that he won't go for that, but aiming to accept no less than 60/40. I'm not concerned about specific "things", with very few exceptions, but I am concerned about a reasonable split of our retirement assets. He has much more cash available to him in retirement funds (because, in spite of so many years of unemployment, he makes a lot more than I do), so I'm looking for an even split of those assets.

Ever since I gave him the options to choose from, WH has basically backed off on any more discussion. Now, when work has died down a bit, I need to sit down with the lawyer and get a draft put together.

I also wanted to comment on what you wrote early on, that you had cash to pay the hotel bill and that you'd opened a credit car in just your name. Logically, I think it might be smarter to continue using the joint accounts for normal life expenses. If you buy something for the house or pay a bill, make sure it comes out of joint funds. Even your hair appts., etc. You're still married and your spending should continue as married. And I think it would be within your rights to pay your hotel bill with joint funds - reimburse yourself.

Josiep, I appreciate the suggestion. Since all cash will have to be divided equally anyway, it probably doesn't matter which account the bills are paid out of. The credit card was a backup in case he had decided to cancel our joint card. I had only planned on using it to charge things that he doesn't need to track.