April 30, 2024 • 46 mins
Ever wondered why untangling the knot of marriage can feel like braving a labyrinth? In a truth-telling session with financial divorce consultant Mark Hill, therapist Pete Roussos, and attorney Shawn Weber, we uncover the multifaceted journey through divorce. Starting with a chuckle, we quickly delve into the sobering realities couples face as they divide their lives, emphasizing the pivotal role of understanding both the tangible assets and the intangible emotional investments involved.
Navigating a divorce can feel like steering through a storm, with the potential to either reach safe harbor swiftly or get mired in tempestuous disputes. Our experts dissect the emotional echoes of marriage that reverberate through the legal process, illustrating with tales of lightning-fast settlements and agonizing multi-year battles. The conversation is an eye-opener to the significance of emotional intelligence and the strategies that can help avoid the quicksand of acrimony, framing a realistic picture of what closure might truly entail.
Lastly, we stitch together the wisdom of our Three Wisemen of Divorce to craft an arsenal of negotiation strategies that balance heart and wallet. This episode isn't just about the end of a marriage; it's a guide to the beginning of a future—with the clarity and support to make it a healthier, wealthier one. Join us for an intimate exploration of the intersection between the ledger and the heart in the landscape of divorce.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Shawn Weber (00:00):
Well, every good dad joke I've learned this from
being a father every good dadjoke needs to cause physical
pain.
Welcome to the Three Wisemen ofDivorce Money, psych and Law
podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts Experts
(00:22):
financial divorce consultantMark Hill, marriage and family
therapist Pete Russos andattorney Sean Weber for a frank
and casual conversation aboutdivorce, separation,
co-parenting and the difficultdecisions real people like you
face during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
(00:43):
Are looking at divorce orseparation can be scary and
overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 60 years of divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
So I've got a joke, guys.
Why does a divorce cost so much?
(01:05):
Tell us, because it's worth it.
Okay, what do you think?
Peter Roussos (01:18):
No, no, I'll tell you why jokes like that make me
a little bit uncomfortable.
Shawn Weber (01:25):
First of all.
It should make youuncomfortable, actually, because
it's kind of an irreverent,inappropriate joke.
Peter Roussos (01:30):
Well, and I I, I know the two of you very well
and I know how, how.
First of all, I know how kindand compassionate and committed
you are to a healthy divorceprocess Uh, to a healthy divorce
process, and I don't have anydoubts whatsoever about that,
(01:51):
and we've talked a lot about howdivorce is, you know, one of
the most gut-wrenching andpainful things that a person can
go through.
But I do wonder about somebodywho might be tuning in for the
first time, who doesn't have asense of us, and why we're doing
this, which is all about how tohave the healthiest possible
divorce process.
Shawn Weber (02:13):
Yeah, I mean that's a good point.
I mean, people come at ourdivorce process from different
places, yeah, and some of themare willing to have more of a
sense of humor and more be moreirreverent about it than others.
I've had people that come inwith the divorce cake, which is
(02:34):
like the you know, the groombeing pushed off the cake by the
bride.
On the cake and there's likesevered head and blood.
They think that's hilarious andif I were to show that to
another couple, they would seethat as something really
offensive.
They think that's hilarious andif I were to show that to
another couple, they would seethat as something really
offensive.
Peter Roussos (02:48):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Shawn Weber (02:51):
And there's reasons why it is offensive.
People come at us fromdifferent places and we have to
meet them where they are, don'twe?
That's a good point.
Peter Roussos (03:05):
But having said that, it's a pretty good joke
well, yeah, it is actually.
Shawn Weber (03:10):
The thing is scary about it.
There's some truth to it.
I mean, there's a yeah whypeople are, yes, pay these
untold amount of money to gettheir divorce done.
You know, it's because theyneed to get out of their
marriage.
Whether that's good or bad,they need to get out.
Mark Hill (03:27):
Yeah, I have to tell you my divorce cake story.
Oh, I want to hear.
It Did a very high dollar, highprofile divorce case.
At the end of it the wife saidit was full collaborative, full
team.
The wife said I want to takethe whole team to dinner.
So we go to this fancyrestaurant in Del Mar.
(03:49):
It's a big table set up and inthe middle of the table is this
four-tier cake with thedecapitated husband on the top
and the sauce dripping downacross the different layers of
the cake Red sauce dripping downRed different layers of the
cake.
Shawn Weber (04:05):
Oh, red sauce.
Mark Hill (04:05):
dripping down Red sauce, yeah, and she's holding
the decapitated head of thegroom in her hand on the top of
the cake.
And so everyone shows up, thefull team shows up, the wife is
there, husband shows up late,comes in, sees the cake and goes
and goes.
Oh, there we go, all thehostilities out there on the
(04:30):
table.
Shawn Weber (04:31):
Now we can have a nice dinner so was that a
collaborative case that you?
Mark Hill (04:36):
it was a collaborative case.
Shawn Weber (04:37):
Yes, yeah, so they were able to.
Mark Hill (04:39):
They had that emotional space because they did
it collaboratively where theycould have that kind of
irreverent joking that may havesome layer of truth in it I
think she was making somethingof a point, but at the same time
, you know, because he was theone that wanted the divorce, um,
but at the same time, you know,it allowed a little more space
(05:02):
for us to operate.
Because of that, you know.
Peter Roussos (05:05):
Yeah, was the cake at all, mark?
Did it have a slightly bitterflavor?
I'm curious.
Mark Hill (05:11):
You know, I don't recall, but I have a photograph
of it to this day it's on myphone that I'd be happy to share
with everyone.
Shawn Weber (05:18):
What is the ancient Klingon proverb?
That revenge is a dish bestserved cold.
Peter Roussos (05:24):
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Shawn Weber (05:26):
Yeah, wow.
Mark Hill (05:28):
Yes, but what does take so long in divorce then?
Shawn Weber (05:31):
Well, that's the thing I mean.
One of the reasons it costs somuch is because it takes a long
time.
Exactly, yeah.
And why does it take a longtime?
You know?
Mark Hill (05:40):
from my standpoint, I've got a very narrow focus at
the start of a case, which is totry to understand what the pie
looks like, what's going to beneeded to be divided, both in
terms of income and expenses andassets and debts.
And I always tell people wedon't have a case, you've got
nothing going, we can't doanything until you've completed
(06:02):
those mandatory court forms andexchanged them.
Basically, I've got to getstatements, I've got to get data
.
People have to engage in thatprocess and often what we find
is that one is more motivatedthan the other.
So one person, because theydecided years ago they want to
(06:25):
get a divorce, they just toldtheir spouse and, uh, so they've
been thinking about this,they're ready to go, they'll get
the statements, you know,overnight, um.
But the other spouse, who'sstill processing the fact that
they are getting a divorce, canoften be very reluctant to
engage.
And the problem we face is thatthese documents can age out.
(06:49):
In other words, the court formsrequire them to be within a
certain period of the timethey're signed as to how old the
statements are.
So if you've got one persondragging their feet and the
other person engaged, thefrustration level of the person
that did that work can escalateto the point where it can
(07:10):
actually make it more difficultto even have a case.
Peter Roussos (07:15):
How do you both answer the question?
I imagine you're asking a lot.
How long will it take?
How do you feel that question?
Mark Hill (07:25):
Well, there's a legal answer to that.
There's a waiting period.
So you start there, once youfiled it, six months before you
can be divorced not that youhave to be divorced at that
point.
Shawn Weber (07:36):
That's at least in California.
Mark Hill (07:38):
In California.
Yes, sorry yeah.
Yeah, just thank you forpointing that out, and beyond
that I say what is pretty muchup to you.
Shawn Weber (07:48):
I always tell people there's no cookie cutter
that fits everybody the same way.
I do have gross averages.
Most of my mediated cases areabout six to eight months to
complete.
A collaborative case tends tobe a little bit more than 12
months and a collaborative casetends to be a little bit more
(08:09):
than 12 months, but everybody'sdifferent.
And I always say my worldindoor record was 25 minutes.
They came in, they knew whatthey wanted.
It was the college divorcewhere all they had was a car and
some student loan debt.
That was easy, in 25 minutes wewere done.
And then I had the case that'sgone six plus years.
In fact, it's still going on.
(08:33):
It's one of the cases that markand I pull our hair out over um,
and and there's reasons forthat, you know and and they
spend an enormous amount of feesand enormous amount of time and
it's a fairly complex financialcase and I think what made that
case in particular take as longas it's taking is it's also
very emotionally complex.
The dynamic between the partiesis so unbelievably toxic that
(08:55):
um, and they've got brilliantcoaches that are working with
them, but it is just, uh, youknow you, stop and start, you,
stop and start, you stop andstart, you think you're on your
way to something, and thensomebody brings up something new
that's such a zinger at theother person.
Then it blows up and then yougot to start over again.
Mark Hill (09:13):
And all our documents keep aging out.
Shawn Weber (09:16):
Yeah.
Mark Hill (09:17):
And we have to redo it and then the cost goes up.
Shawn Weber (09:20):
So Well, and they do things also that make it take
longer, longer like this,continuing to use joint assets
yeah, five years down the road,they're still using the same
account like separate your moneyalready, you know, but that's
that's taking, that, that causesit to take longer.
And it's not like I have somepeople where they continue to
use joint assets, but they'rejust kind of cool with that,
(09:41):
they don't even care and they'lljust wash it out at the end.
I want to do all the math, butthese people want to sharpen
their pencils and do everytransaction.
And well, that means that markhas to go through bank
statements for years and yearsto.
Mark Hill (09:55):
And I come up with a number, and then this case goes
to sleep for nine months.
And now, the numbers are out ofdate.
Shawn Weber (10:03):
But here we go again.
So, but I think, and thatwouldn't happen, mark, on that
case, if it wasn't for thefamily dynamic, would it?
No, this would have been settledbefore they moved out of town.
Frankly, yeah, and then I had acouple this morning that I met
with and she was weepy and shegot on the call before he did
(10:24):
and she was really kind of weepyabout it and she's like I'm
just very emotional about thecase ending.
I think that's part of why Idon't want to do my forms.
Yeah, so there's a thing goingon there where she's kind of
dragging her feet and he'sdragging his feet too, because
it means that it's finally over.
I mean, you see that, pete,don't you?
(10:45):
Can you speak to that?
Peter Roussos (10:48):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think I've ever.
I'm just thinking, in all theyears I've been doing divorce
work, have I ever had a casewhere the partners were coming
in and operating at the samesense of pacing?
And the answer to that is no.
And I've only had one case, andit was a collaborative case,
(11:08):
and one of the parties had noambivalence whatsoever, no
second guessing, about the needto divorce.
They were so done and itactually was, I think,
pathological on their part.
Every other divorce case thatI've worked there's always been
(11:32):
a level of ambivalence,certainly grieving.
I mean, when I hear youdescribing what that person is
describing, she's talking abouta grief process, that's exactly
right and I think it's reallyimportant that that be part of
the work that is ideallyhappening in a divorce process.
Shawn Weber (11:52):
Well, it was interesting, pete, because I
asked her.
I'm like, well, are you havingsecond thoughts about the
divorce, because I want to pusha divorce if they're thinking
they want to stay together?
And she's like oh F, no, it'snot like she's like oh f, no,
you know, right, right, she, she.
It's not like she's havingsecond thoughts about the
divorce.
But, yeah, there's grief,there's grief and it's still
taking it's a little time to bewilling to finish it.
(12:14):
Yeah, yeah, even though shedoesn't want to go back yeah.
Peter Roussos (12:20):
So ambivalence doesn't necessarily mean second
thoughts.
It can be a desire to avoid thefinality.
Even though a person in anintellectual way that can
understand it's the right thingto do, it's a healthy decision,
there's still that sense of lossand an emotional level.
You know there's no, I don'tthink I've ever encountered a
(12:42):
completely bad relationship.
Every marriage that I've everencountered in my work, every
divorce case that I've everencountered, there is the good
stuff that's there.
There's a wisdom that bringspeople together and sometimes
that wisdom fails and a marriageends.
(13:03):
But when they end, when arelationship ends, when it
started with love and arelationship ends, there's
always a grief process andavoiding that or denying that, I
think, is one of the thingsthat that is core, the core
cause, if you will, for peoplethat that then get stuck after
(13:26):
divorce in moving on makes itmore likely that they're going
to repeat mistakes andsubsequent relationships.
Shawn Weber (13:36):
Well, and you're not going to divorce differently
than you were married.
Yeah, you're still the samepeople.
Sometimes I'm like what did youexpect this person to get a
lobotomy?
They're going to change whothey are Once you filed the
petition.
They're going to stay the sameperson.
Mark Hill (13:52):
I say to people, wouldn't it be unreasonable to
expect the divorce to be anyeasier than the marriage would
be?
And they always nod.
Shawn Weber (14:00):
You know they get it when you put it in those
terms well, it is interesting,you can get married very quickly
, yes, you know, uh, but butgetting divorced, unwinding that
marriage, I mean we've all donethe case with, you know, the
one year divorce.
I've got a couple of thoseright now and they're they're
taking a terrible amount of timeto unwind just a year, you know
(14:23):
.
And and so we have people thathave been together 30, 40 years.
You know that's not somethingyou unwind easily, right?
Peter Roussos (14:30):
So I think.
I think that does then beg thequestion.
Maybe, if we turn the questionaround, let me ask the two of
you so what is it that you uhtell people they can do in order
to move their process alongmore quickly?
Shawn Weber (14:48):
I think number one is do your homework, finish your
tasks.
Mark Hill (14:57):
I have a whole lot.
Shawn Weber (14:59):
Your deliverables.
As one client says yeah, wehave.
One client says what are mydeliverables?
Mark Hill (15:02):
And then he never delivers anything.
It's true, it's true, it's true?
Shawn Weber (15:07):
Yeah well, it's the same list that we gave you last
time.
You didn't deliver anything.
Yeah, I think now I lost mytrain of thought.
Yeah, finishing your task,finishing your homework, getting
it done.
I always tell my clients andmaybe this is bad customer
service, but it's a reality.
I, as the practitioner, won'tand cannot work harder than my
clients.
I'll meet them halfway, to theextent that they're willing to
(15:32):
move forward.
I'm willing to move forward.
I'm willing to move forward,but if they don't do what they
need to do to move the caseforward, it can't move forward.
There's nothing I can do aboutit.
Peter Roussos (15:44):
Well, I realize that people don't know what they
don't know.
Well, that's true.
How do people who've never gonethrough a divorce process
before I can imagine when youguys are explaining to them what
is required of them, what theirdeliverables are, what their
homework is.
I can imagine that most peopleare maybe surprised by that.
Shawn Weber (16:05):
Well, and sometimes their eyes glaze over.
Mark Hill (16:08):
Yeah, people hate filling out forms.
I mean I hate filling out forms.
I get it.
Okay, I understand.
You never feel like the formquite captures who you are
filling out forms.
Peter Roussos (16:15):
number one, I mean, I hate filling out forms.
Mark Hill (16:15):
I get it okay.
I understand you never feellike the form quite captures who
you are.
It seems impersonal and it's apain in the butt well, these
forms are are detailed.
Shawn Weber (16:24):
They require the use of your prefrontal cortex in
your brain right, the logiccenters of your brain.
Mark Hill (16:30):
But if you're in a fight-or-flight place, or you're
enraged or you're terrified,how easy is it pete then to pay
attention to details or you'reresentful and you basically
don't want to give the otherperson what they're demanding,
and so you drag your feet, andthen it's's the person that
(16:52):
comes into alternative disputeresolution because they believe
if they can delay the processlong enough, the person on the
other side will come to theirsenses and come back into the
marriage.
Shawn Weber (17:05):
I do know this.
People sometimes think, well,litigation will go faster, and
that is not the case.
You take a litigation case andyou multiply the time by three.
And the cost by at least three,and that's probably close to
what would happen and the wheelsof justice at the courthouse
(17:26):
turn extremely slowly.
Peter Roussos (17:28):
Well, and I imagine that they don't have
less homework in the litigationprocess.
Shawn Weber (17:32):
They don't less homework in a litigation process
, they don't.
Maybe even more, and you knowjust to get a trial after you've
done all of your disclosure andyour discovery and you told the
courts we've done all thediscovery, we're ready for a
trial, let's go.
You will get a date.
A year out, maybe longer, yeah,because I mean there's so many
(17:56):
cases and you're one of athousand that this judge is
thinking about, you know, and sothinking that the court will
get you, like getting your dayin court is somehow going to
move this along now, where thethe only thing I would maybe a
friendly amendment to this wholeconcept is that sometimes you
have to do court because atleast it will move forward.
(18:17):
Yes, there are those cases wherethey just get stuck and they're
in a swamp and they just sinklike they're walking through mud
and they don't move.
What happens when you do that?
You just sink.
Sometimes those people, I'm tothe point where you know it's
unethical for me to continuewith you because you never
continue your commitments, younever get, you can't reach
(18:38):
agreements.
It's like Groundhog Day.
We're doing the same thing overand over again.
I feel like it's unethical forme to continue to take money
from you.
You should just go to court andit will be resolved.
I mean, that's one of thebenefits of court I can resolve
just about any issue.
But the drawbacks to court isit's expensive and they can't be
very flexible.
They have to apply the law theway that it's applied and that's
(19:00):
it, whereas what we do we'remore creative and outside the
law when they tell you you haveto be there, you have to be
there and you better be there.
Mark Hill (19:17):
Yeah, the court can hold you in contempt, the court
can fine you.
You know, one thing that I findis delays cases is what I don't
know.
In other words, in these longerterm marriages we come up
against things that I can't getstatements from.
Institutions more than five orseven or the most 10 years back.
Institutions more than five orseven, or the most 10 years back
(19:37):
.
So we often have situationswhere we just cannot give the
data that would normally be usedin the process to determine
separate property assets, forexample.
We just can't get thestatements.
Nobody's fault, just can't getthem Okay.
So there's that aspect to it.
There's also things like theybought a house in.
They've got a case right now.
They bought a house in 1993.
(19:58):
Well, in 1998, the tax lawschanged to mean that you could
own a house for two out of fiveyears and then get, as a married
couple, up to half a milliondollars exclusion from gain.
But if you owned a house in1993 and you bought a condo that
you rolled the profit in fromin 1984, now you've got a
(20:21):
situation where I cannot tellyou what your basis in the
property is and the IRS willtell you well, it's zero.
Then if you can't prove it, noone's going to do that.
So until I get the data, Idon't know what the issues are,
and Sean can't know what theissues are.
To have a meeting and to gothrough what do you guys want to
(20:42):
do about?
Shawn Weber (20:42):
this.
Well, I had that conversationwith the frustrated client
that's like, why can't we justbe done?
I'm like, well, you're notready to have an intelligent
conversation yet about this, tohave an intelligent conversation
yet about this.
You know, we've talked aboutthis before, mark, the concept
of agreement, readiness, yes,yeah, that the case will not
(21:03):
settle, basically until the caseis ripe enough to settle.
And a big part of that ishaving the data, having the
information, so that we canspeak intelligently about the
issues.
And sometimes things are justcomplex and it's going to take
some time to just muddle throughthat, you know.
And so there is a little bit ofpatience that people need to
have.
Um, you know, and sometimes I'mtelling people, you know it's
(21:26):
not going to happen.
They don't understand how come,how thorough the disclosures by
law must be to prevent themfrom having huge problems later.
So that gets to be.
I mean, it's universallyloathed, the disclosure process.
No one loves to fill outdisclosure forms, but they must
be done.
Even if you think the otherperson knows about it already
(21:47):
and even if both of you agree,you still have to do the
disclosure and declare anappellate perjury.
Mark Hill (21:54):
And there's real potential risk by not doing it
accurately.
Yeah, I mean you say, oh, I'vegot this separate property stuff
that's mine.
She knows it's mine.
I'm not even going to put it onthe form.
Well, how does that work,counselor?
If something comes up later,some kind of disagreement?
Shawn Weber (22:15):
Well, you can end up having the MSA, the marital
settlement agreement that youworked so hard to negotiate.
You could have it set asidebecause something was forgotten.
Worse can happen is you couldhave sanctions.
You could lose the asset.
We've talked about the lotterycase before, where the person
the woman bought a lotteryticket and didn't tell her
husband that she won, and thenhe figured it out later, after
(22:37):
the divorce was alreadyfinalized.
She didn't put in herdisclosures and he got 100 of
the lottery winnings awarded tohim because she was a bad girl
and didn't disclose.
So I'm always telling peopleyou've got to take this as
serious as a heart attack,because the court does yeah so I
mean there there is stuff,there's tasks that have to get
done, that are time consuming.
I mean, the faster you get thetime the tasks done, you get the
(22:59):
data to your financialspecialist or to your mediator,
the better, because then it canget done faster.
Most mediators and financialpeople have methods to help you
get it done quicker.
Um, you know, and then and thenthen we can get to a place of
agreement.
Readiness now another place, Ithink, blows cases up and makes
(23:20):
them take longer.
Mark is this what do you thinkof this?
Um, they try to negotiatesomething that has been very
difficult for them to talk about.
That's why they've hired aprofessional mediator and they
choose to negotiate itthemselves at Denny's.
Yeah, and how does that usuallygo?
Mark Hill (23:36):
Usually we get a call the following day saying that
was a disaster, and we're backto square one.
Shawn Weber (23:44):
We're more angry than we started Exactly.
Or we have that case where shedropped, left him on the side of
the road, they got in the cartogether and drove somewhere,
and then she she threw him outof the car on the freeway.
Yeah, she left him out of thehim on the side of the road.
They got in the car togetherand drove somewhere, and then
she she threw him out of the caron the freeway.
Mark Hill (23:56):
Yeah, he left him out of the car on the side of the
freeway and drove they were onthe way to to an appointment for
their child who had some mentalhealth issues and uh, and we
told him take separate cars, butno, yeah, so um, I always tell
people I mean, if you want tonegotiate things on your own,
that's great, but if you evensense a slight amount of blood
(24:19):
pressure increase, stop.
Shawn Weber (24:22):
There's a reason why you've hired professionals.
We know how to help you getthrough this managing the
emotional responses and and letus work with you, let us do what
we are paid to do to help youget this done.
Otherwise, it will take longerbecause you'll have blowups.
Peter Roussos (24:39):
One of the things that I like to ask clients who
are thinking about having thatkind of conversation is I like
to ask them well, tell me, whatgives you confidence that you're
going to be able to have thatconversation effectively and
appropriately?
Shawn Weber (24:57):
Oh, it's a brilliant question.
Mark Hill (25:01):
I love that, but I also ask them so have you ever
talked about this before?
Yes, how?
Shawn Weber (25:07):
did that go?
How did that go?
Oh it's terrible.
She threw a hairdryer at me.
I'm right.
Oh it's terrible.
Peter Roussos (25:13):
She threw a hairdryer at me.
Well, that's why you do it atDenny's because usually there
isn't a hairdryer.
Mark Hill (25:19):
No, no you do it in the bathroom, not in the kitchen
.
This hairdryer is not knivesthat fly across the room.
Shawn Weber (25:28):
That's like that scene.
You remember the Sopranos?
And there's the scene where theI can't remember her name wife
carmella, yeah, um, told tonythat she wanted a divorce.
And so they go to theirfavorite italian restaurant,
where everything happens in thisshow, right, and she, she tells
them, um, she wants a divorceand that that conversation
(25:50):
didn't go very well.
She's's like I want what I'mentitled to and he's like you're
entitled to something.
You know he used someexpletives to explain what she
was entitled to, but yeah, Imean, it often doesn't work.
Mark Hill (26:07):
Yeah, if it were easy , it would be.
Shawn Weber (26:14):
You know, there wouldn't be an industry
surrounding it which you know,maybe that's why divorces are
expensive is because they'rehard, yeah yeah, and there's
some work that has to be done,so maybe saying it's worth it I
mean, that may be true for somepeople, but maybe the issue is
the reason you're willing to paythe money to the professionals
to help you is because this ishard.
And having people withcredentials and experience,
(26:39):
who've seen a few divorces, Iusually tell people I think I've
seen a few more divorces thanyou have.
I think I've been involved in afew more.
Well, I certainly hope you have.
And so my 20 plus years ofexperience doing hundreds of
divorces a year, yeah, I've seensome things and I know what
will work and what doesn't work,and you don't know the
(27:00):
questions you don't know to ask.
And then bringing in otherprofessionals you know I am an
attorney here, but bringing in afinancial professional and a
mental health professional tobring in additional experience
just adds more to that so thatpeople can be done more quickly.
Now you know another thing I'veseen guys, when you have the,
(27:24):
sometimes you have a personthat's going faster than the
other person, right?
You mentioned that earlier,pete, and do you think this is
what I've observed?
I think it only goes as fast asthe slowest person.
Mark Hill (27:35):
I would say a little faster than the slowest person
wants to proceed.
Yeah, okay, Because they do getwe do push them along, but at
the same time you know we've gotthat case, sean.
That's been going on forever,you know where.
Finally, the wife gave us somedates for the final, final,
final meeting.
You know, yeah, finally thewife gave us some dates for the
final, final, final meeting.
You know, yeah.
Peter Roussos (28:01):
She would disappear for months on end and
not respond.
You know the way that I'lldescribe because that question
is always asked is you know it'sgoing to move faster than you
to the person who is who is, uh,slower, if you will, in their
adjustment, it's going to movefaster than you probably wanted
(28:21):
to, and to the other person it'sgoing to move slower than you
wanted to, and that thatactually, I think, accommodating
those pacing differences is animportant part of the
collaboration that's necessaryin a healthier divorce process.
Mark Hill (28:33):
For them to understand that.
Well, there's the emotionalreadiness, but also we often
have what I call the non-moneyedspouse, the person that can
take care of the money duringthe marriage, and he or she
needs to get up to speed, to bea participant at the table, and
so, even once the disclosuresare done and we know what the
(28:54):
pie looks like, I might have tohave a conversation with someone
about.
You know your spouse's benefitsand you know what their income
really looks like when we takeinto account all the little
perks they get.
You know that no one comes outof the womb knowing how this
works, and it's complex, andeven CPAs don't understand how
(29:17):
divorce works.
As we have found many times,what's appropriate for the IRS
may not be appropriate for thecourts in divorce, and that's
shocking to some people.
Shawn Weber (29:29):
What you mean.
I don't get to removedepreciation from my income, yep
and a divorce, and that's right.
Mark Hill (29:38):
Yeah, it may work for the IRS, but it doesn't work.
And the fact that your car andyour cell phone and all your
children's cell phones are putthrough on your company, that
doesn't necessarily work fordivorce.
Shawn Weber (29:48):
Yeah, yeah.
And then you know kind of alsosometimes slower is faster.
You know, I know if I try to doa job really fast, that is
intricate, I'll screw it up andthen I have to go back and
unwind something.
So yeah, I mean we want to beefficient, but sometimes going
(30:09):
too fast and I've seen that willtrip you up and make the case
last longer.
Peter Roussos (30:14):
Well, I wonder about cases that you've had
where, because I think the riskthat you're just describing,
sean I think of it in terms ofreally getting out that drives
buyer's remorse and howunresolved grief or or grief or
(30:46):
incomplete grief and I think,drive that kind of ambivalence.
Mark Hill (30:51):
We have that case right now, sean.
We write.
You talked about it earliertoday.
Shawn Weber (30:56):
Where there's what what our colleague Nancyancy
ross calls negative intimacy.
Um, parties kind of becomeaddicted to one another in their
relationship.
That's how relationships work,and so if they can't have a
positive connection, they'llhave a negative one, and so we
might be on the threshold ofsigning the final marital
(31:18):
settlement agreement, and thensomeone will throw in some
horrible thing or some monkeywrench, and I don't know if I
don't think it's even conscious,I think they just do it.
And then what it does is itprolongs the process, because
then I get to have a connectionwith this person you know and
you call him as well.
I don't want to be connected tohim, but then they do things
that force them to be connected.
(31:39):
Yeah, I'm kind of speaking yourlanguage, pete.
Am I making any sense?
Peter Roussos (31:45):
No, absolutely, and so it's interesting.
As you were talking about that,I was thinking about something
you said earlier.
Vis-a-vis a litigation process,you were talking about how the
court can apply sanctions, andso what incentives?
If you will do you have in aprocess other than the
(32:12):
withdrawing from a case becauseit's stuck, that situation that
you described earlier.
How do you you motivate people?
Shawn Weber (32:19):
how do you affect?
There is the specter of theother person is going to be fed
up and go to court, and theseare the bad things that can
happen to you at court.
But there's also just the youknow what.
What would your life be like ifyou could go to bed at night
without worrying what the otherperson is going to do next?
Mark Hill (32:39):
And that there's one who's been through divorce the
only one at the table here.
That is far more debilitatingthan I would even admit.
I know that, going through avery challenging divorce, I was
having real trouble sleeping,finally got it resolved.
(33:00):
Guess what I sleep like a baby,you know.
It's really interesting,although I would have denied
that that was the cause, but itwas you know there's.
Shawn Weber (33:11):
You know we talk about in terms of negotiation,
you know going back to, you knowthat, getting to, yes, and they
talk about the best alternativeto a negotiated agreement and
the worst alternative to anegotiated agreement and having
that kind of being bookends inyour understanding of the case,
(33:32):
making sure you have a clarityabout your BATNA the best
alternative to a negotiatedagreement, and your WATNA, the
worst alternative to anegotiated agreement.
But there's another conceptthat's also very important.
It's called the NAN N-A-N yournegotiated agreement, and you're
what?
The worst alternative tonegotiate agreement.
But there's another concept,it's also very important.
It's called the NAN N-A-N yournegotiated agreement.
Now, and what would happen inyour life?
Why would that be somethingthat you would want in a
(33:53):
negotiated agreement?
Now, maybe you're giving upsomething that is below your
best case scenario or worst casescenario.
Maybe it's different than whatyour attorney is even telling
you you should be asking for orentitled to, but you're buying
your piece and there's noattorney, no financial person
that can figure out exactly whatthat's worth to you.
(34:14):
But it does have value and so,thinking about that, what is
that value to me?
Am I, is there something I'mwilling to leave on the table so
I can be done.
Mark Hill (34:27):
And interestingly that is rarely a conversation
that's had early in the process.
Shawn Weber (34:35):
You're right, and we should do it more.
Mark Hill (34:37):
We should do that more, because what tends to
happen is people can becomeentrenched in the divorce
process.
Well, they can focus on thingsthat I mean.
We have a case right now wherethere's some issues that need to
be addressed, but wife couldnot focus on the immediate
(34:59):
demand to get their documents inplace or get the documents to
me, because she was so focusedon this other wrong that she
perceived to have been wroughtupon her, which actually we all
agree she was.
Peter Roussos (35:28):
I think it's tricky, though, because I think
that if that conversation is hadprematurely, it can come across
to clients, I think, as thoughwe're encouraging them to
negotiate against themselves.
And what I've seen the two ofyou do very adeptly, I think, in
cases is to have theconversation with clients that
goes something like this Well,you know you could take that
position, but let's talk aboutwhat it's going to cost you
financially in order to maintainthat position, to literally do
it.
(35:48):
I've heard the two of you talkabout it in terms of a
cost-benefit analysis and,broadly, these conversations of
do you want to win the battleand lose the war?
And I think that the timing ofthat and it's I think it's sad,
but I think it's a truism thatsometimes there's a level of
(36:09):
pain or discomfort that clientshave to go through before
they're ready, I think, toreally face that kind of choice
dilemma.
Shawn Weber (36:16):
I think that's true .
Or this question I know that'sa very important principle to
you Is that a hill you want todie on today?
Mark Hill (36:27):
And when I've got the data, I can quantify it, and
that's something that oftendoesn't happen.
They're fighting over a concept, but it's only $300 in a, you
know, two million dollar caseyeah, yes, it's so true.
Shawn Weber (36:45):
You know, when we say that, is that a hill you
want to die on today, I think ofmy father, who was a veteran of
the korean war and fought atheartbreak ridge wow and it was
really the whole point of thatbattle was just, can we get a
little bit of real estate?
and then they end up losing thereal estate anyway, yeah.
And so what was the point ofthat battle was?
Just, can we get a little bitof real estate?
And then they ended up losingthe real estate anyway, yeah.
And so what was the point ofall that death and carnage?
Now, hopefully there's notdeath and carnage in people's
(37:07):
divorces, but, um, but there'sdamage, there's damage and
there's collateral damage.
Mark Hill (37:15):
Exactly, there's damage that goes beyond the
couple.
Shawn Weber (37:19):
There's victims beyond the couple.
There's victims beyond thecouple like especially if you
have kids.
Mark Hill (37:23):
Yeah, and and other family members you know.
Shawn Weber (37:28):
Yeah, so you know.
Think about that, grandparents'rights.
We sometimes say, well, it'sthe principle.
What are principles areexpensive.
Yeah, you know so.
So how is this bridge thatyou're fighting over this hill?
Is this really something thatyou're willing to lay it all
there?
Mark Hill (37:45):
I had an issue with real estate where a guy who sold
me the real estate lied and Iwas incensed and went to my
business attorney and was justcomplaining about it cost me
$26,000 to repair this and helied about this and it was
obviously leaking before and Isaid it's the principle of the
(38:07):
thing and my attorney said ohMark, please, please, he goes,
don't talk about principle.
We have a broken system.
You will win this case, but itmight cost you 100,000 in
experts and the judge may justdecide you have to eat.
That it's like we have a brokensystem and so making clients
(38:29):
aware of the fact that you go tocourt it's not Al Pacino and
justice for all folks.
It is a situation where,depending upon the mood of the
judge, who the judge is, howwell educated the judge is in
terms of family law and we knowsometimes people are just doing
their two or three years infamily law before they can move
(38:51):
on be judges where they reallywant to be judges and there are
some excellent family judges whoreally know what they're doing,
don't get me wrong but there'salso those others who are just
transitory and they will decideyour case and, as I walked out
of court.
One day I was violated by thisprocess.
It's exactly how I felt.
Shawn Weber (39:15):
Well, guys, maybe we should kind of summarize
where we've been here.
So the things that slow thecase down are many fold, right.
So one is clients have got toget their homework done or it's
going to take longer yeah,that's one.
The other is sometimes there'sjust kind of emotional reasons
that cause there to be blocks,which could be one of the
(39:36):
reasons that we prevent peopledon't get their homework done,
yeah, or at the end of the casethat we prevent, you know,
people don't get their homeworkdone, or at the end of the case,
things get strung out.
The other is using jointresources longer than you really
ought.
I also thought about using thecourt system that makes it take
(39:58):
longer, and then the standing bya principle that you really,
really it's not the hill youshould die on.
Peter Roussos (40:01):
And when, I would add to that you're.
You reference the emotionalpiece, but I want to be even
more specific, Please, sean.
Is is is denying and not facingthe grief process that is
inherent to divorce.
Mark Hill (40:16):
Hmm, yes, yeah, yes yeah, there's always some loss
no matter how difficult marriagebecame.
There is always a loss and youfeel that loss.
Shawn Weber (40:29):
And I might add another one, and that is feeling
like it is going to work foryou to impose your will, because
that usually slows it down.
It's kind of like when I firstgot a puppy and tried to take it
for a walk and I pulled on hiscollar and he's like you're
(40:50):
pulling my collar, I'm gonna sitdown, and I think people aren't
much different.
Peter Roussos (40:58):
So helping you know, helping people see that
it's in their best interest toactually move, Well, I think the
way that that I will talk withpeople about that kind of
dynamic that you're describingis, I literally will say you
know, I think you both havelearned the hard way that you
can't get the other person to dosomething that that he or she
(41:19):
doesn't want to do.
And so how is it that you think, in this process, you're going
to be able to exert what youwant or to behave unilaterally?
How do you expect that to go?
Shawn Weber (41:33):
How's that going to work, yeah?
Well, we'll just do it.
Peter Roussos (41:35):
It's the right thing to do, or and I think that
sometimes there's anexpectation that the
professionals involved are goingto land a kind of either
authority or a force.
Shawn Weber (41:49):
Yeah.
Peter Roussos (41:51):
That is one of the magical powers to us?
Shawn Weber (41:53):
Yeah, you're my attorney, can't you make this
happen?
Yeah, and we're not magical.
Smart, yes, magical no and youknow.
Mark Hill (42:07):
The reality is that when financial resources get cut
in half, lifestyles change.
Yeah, two households cost a lotmore to run than one household,
and so expectations coming intoit and entitlements.
I'm entitled to this, it's.
Somebody told me I'm entitledto the marital standard of
(42:30):
living.
Well, that's the first half ofthe sentence.
What does the second half say?
If it's available and I'mparaphrasing, but it generally
isn't available.
Shawn Weber (42:40):
Well, and marital standard of living is one of 15
factors, right, yeah, the lastfactor being one that you always
point out, mark.
Mark Hill (42:47):
Anything the judge thinks is important, exactly,
yeah, and I've had people saywell, it sounds like you could
do anything.
I go bingo now, you understand.
Can we negotiate please?
Yeah, well, anchoring slowsthings down too.
I go bingo Now, you understand.
Shawn Weber (42:59):
Can we negotiate please?
Yeah, well, anchoring slowsthings down too.
I mean, if you anchor on aconcept that you only have half
information about, yeah, thatcan screw you up.
All right, guys.
Well, we did it again.
We did indeed.
Hopefully the people listeningare getting something out of
this.
We know you're out there and weappreciate you.
Mark Hill (43:20):
Yes, indeed, and if you have questions, please reach
out to us.
We'd be delighted to addressany issues that you are
concerned about during theprocess.
Bring us your, bring us yourquestions.
Peter Roussos (43:34):
At the very least , guys, with today's episode, at
the very least, if they use itjudiciously and with discretion,
they got a good joke.
Exactly, they got a good jokeout of this.
Shawn Weber (43:47):
Oh, I would say a meta.
You know a mediocre joke,you're so hard on yourself well,
every good dad joke I'velearned this from being a father
every good dad joke needs tocause physical pain and long
(44:07):
long groans we need to starttiming.
The zone the groans on my dadused to say ooh, that's a double
groaner, alright.
Well, if they had questions foryou, how would they get a hold
of you?
Ooh, that's a double groaner,all right.
Well, if they had questions foryou.
Peter Roussos (44:24):
How would they get ahold of you, Peter?
My website peterrousoscom,that's
P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom.
Contact me on that website.
Mark Hill (44:38):
And my website is packdivorcecom, short for
Pacific Divorce ManagementP-A-C-D-I-V-O-R-C-Ecom.
Again, we have a contact formand a lot of useful information
on there regarding divorce.
Shawn Weber (44:51):
And if anybody wants to get a hold of me,
likewise my website,weberdisputeresolutioncom.
Weberdisputeresolutioncomthat's Weber with one B.
Like the grill dispute, like wehad a fight and resolution.
Like we solved itcom.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the Three Wisemen of
Divorce Money, psych and Law.
(45:12):
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe.
Leave us a review and sharewith others who may be in a
similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
(45:34):
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
Health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
(46:25):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
Thank you.
Well, every good dad joke I've learned this from
being a father every good dadjoke needs to cause physical
pain.
Welcome to the Three Wisemen ofDivorce Money, psych and Law
podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts Experts
(00:22):
financial divorce consultantMark Hill, marriage and family
therapist Pete Russos andattorney Sean Weber for a frank
and casual conversation aboutdivorce, separation,
co-parenting and the difficultdecisions real people like you
face during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
(00:43):
Are looking at divorce orseparation can be scary and
overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 60 years of divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
So I've got a joke, guys.
Why does a divorce cost so much?
(01:05):
Tell us, because it's worth it.
Okay, what do you think?
Peter Roussos (01:18):
No, no, I'll tell you why jokes like that make me
a little bit uncomfortable.
Shawn Weber (01:25):
First of all.
It should make youuncomfortable, actually, because
it's kind of an irreverent,inappropriate joke.
Peter Roussos (01:30):
Well, and I I, I know the two of you very well
and I know how, how.
First of all, I know how kindand compassionate and committed
you are to a healthy divorceprocess Uh, to a healthy divorce
process, and I don't have anydoubts whatsoever about that,
(01:51):
and we've talked a lot about howdivorce is, you know, one of
the most gut-wrenching andpainful things that a person can
go through.
But I do wonder about somebodywho might be tuning in for the
first time, who doesn't have asense of us, and why we're doing
this, which is all about how tohave the healthiest possible
divorce process.
Shawn Weber (02:13):
Yeah, I mean that's a good point.
I mean, people come at ourdivorce process from different
places, yeah, and some of themare willing to have more of a
sense of humor and more be moreirreverent about it than others.
I've had people that come inwith the divorce cake, which is
(02:34):
like the you know, the groombeing pushed off the cake by the
bride.
On the cake and there's likesevered head and blood.
They think that's hilarious andif I were to show that to
another couple, they would seethat as something really
offensive.
They think that's hilarious andif I were to show that to
another couple, they would seethat as something really
offensive.
Peter Roussos (02:48):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Shawn Weber (02:51):
And there's reasons why it is offensive.
People come at us fromdifferent places and we have to
meet them where they are, don'twe?
That's a good point.
Peter Roussos (03:05):
But having said that, it's a pretty good joke
well, yeah, it is actually.
Shawn Weber (03:10):
The thing is scary about it.
There's some truth to it.
I mean, there's a yeah whypeople are, yes, pay these
untold amount of money to gettheir divorce done.
You know, it's because theyneed to get out of their
marriage.
Whether that's good or bad,they need to get out.
Mark Hill (03:27):
Yeah, I have to tell you my divorce cake story.
Oh, I want to hear.
It Did a very high dollar, highprofile divorce case.
At the end of it the wife saidit was full collaborative, full
team.
The wife said I want to takethe whole team to dinner.
So we go to this fancyrestaurant in Del Mar.
(03:49):
It's a big table set up and inthe middle of the table is this
four-tier cake with thedecapitated husband on the top
and the sauce dripping downacross the different layers of
the cake Red sauce dripping downRed different layers of the
cake.
Shawn Weber (04:05):
Oh, red sauce.
Mark Hill (04:05):
dripping down Red sauce, yeah, and she's holding
the decapitated head of thegroom in her hand on the top of
the cake.
And so everyone shows up, thefull team shows up, the wife is
there, husband shows up late,comes in, sees the cake and goes
and goes.
Oh, there we go, all thehostilities out there on the
(04:30):
table.
Shawn Weber (04:31):
Now we can have a nice dinner so was that a
collaborative case that you?
Mark Hill (04:36):
it was a collaborative case.
Shawn Weber (04:37):
Yes, yeah, so they were able to.
Mark Hill (04:39):
They had that emotional space because they did
it collaboratively where theycould have that kind of
irreverent joking that may havesome layer of truth in it I
think she was making somethingof a point, but at the same time
, you know, because he was theone that wanted the divorce, um,
but at the same time, you know,it allowed a little more space
(05:02):
for us to operate.
Because of that, you know.
Peter Roussos (05:05):
Yeah, was the cake at all, mark?
Did it have a slightly bitterflavor?
I'm curious.
Mark Hill (05:11):
You know, I don't recall, but I have a photograph
of it to this day it's on myphone that I'd be happy to share
with everyone.
Shawn Weber (05:18):
What is the ancient Klingon proverb?
That revenge is a dish bestserved cold.
Peter Roussos (05:24):
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Shawn Weber (05:26):
Yeah, wow.
Mark Hill (05:28):
Yes, but what does take so long in divorce then?
Shawn Weber (05:31):
Well, that's the thing I mean.
One of the reasons it costs somuch is because it takes a long
time.
Exactly, yeah.
And why does it take a longtime?
You know?
Mark Hill (05:40):
from my standpoint, I've got a very narrow focus at
the start of a case, which is totry to understand what the pie
looks like, what's going to beneeded to be divided, both in
terms of income and expenses andassets and debts.
And I always tell people wedon't have a case, you've got
nothing going, we can't doanything until you've completed
(06:02):
those mandatory court forms andexchanged them.
Basically, I've got to getstatements, I've got to get data
.
People have to engage in thatprocess and often what we find
is that one is more motivatedthan the other.
So one person, because theydecided years ago they want to
(06:25):
get a divorce, they just toldtheir spouse and, uh, so they've
been thinking about this,they're ready to go, they'll get
the statements, you know,overnight, um.
But the other spouse, who'sstill processing the fact that
they are getting a divorce, canoften be very reluctant to
engage.
And the problem we face is thatthese documents can age out.
(06:49):
In other words, the court formsrequire them to be within a
certain period of the timethey're signed as to how old the
statements are.
So if you've got one persondragging their feet and the
other person engaged, thefrustration level of the person
that did that work can escalateto the point where it can
(07:10):
actually make it more difficultto even have a case.
Peter Roussos (07:15):
How do you both answer the question?
I imagine you're asking a lot.
How long will it take?
How do you feel that question?
Mark Hill (07:25):
Well, there's a legal answer to that.
There's a waiting period.
So you start there, once youfiled it, six months before you
can be divorced not that youhave to be divorced at that
point.
Shawn Weber (07:36):
That's at least in California.
Mark Hill (07:38):
In California.
Yes, sorry yeah.
Yeah, just thank you forpointing that out, and beyond
that I say what is pretty muchup to you.
Shawn Weber (07:48):
I always tell people there's no cookie cutter
that fits everybody the same way.
I do have gross averages.
Most of my mediated cases areabout six to eight months to
complete.
A collaborative case tends tobe a little bit more than 12
months and a collaborative casetends to be a little bit more
(08:09):
than 12 months, but everybody'sdifferent.
And I always say my worldindoor record was 25 minutes.
They came in, they knew whatthey wanted.
It was the college divorcewhere all they had was a car and
some student loan debt.
That was easy, in 25 minutes wewere done.
And then I had the case that'sgone six plus years.
In fact, it's still going on.
(08:33):
It's one of the cases that markand I pull our hair out over um,
and and there's reasons forthat, you know and and they
spend an enormous amount of feesand enormous amount of time and
it's a fairly complex financialcase and I think what made that
case in particular take as longas it's taking is it's also
very emotionally complex.
The dynamic between the partiesis so unbelievably toxic that
(08:55):
um, and they've got brilliantcoaches that are working with
them, but it is just, uh, youknow you, stop and start, you,
stop and start, you stop andstart, you think you're on your
way to something, and thensomebody brings up something new
that's such a zinger at theother person.
Then it blows up and then yougot to start over again.
Mark Hill (09:13):
And all our documents keep aging out.
Shawn Weber (09:16):
Yeah.
Mark Hill (09:17):
And we have to redo it and then the cost goes up.
Shawn Weber (09:20):
So Well, and they do things also that make it take
longer, longer like this,continuing to use joint assets
yeah, five years down the road,they're still using the same
account like separate your moneyalready, you know, but that's
that's taking, that, that causesit to take longer.
And it's not like I have somepeople where they continue to
use joint assets, but they'rejust kind of cool with that,
(09:41):
they don't even care and they'lljust wash it out at the end.
I want to do all the math, butthese people want to sharpen
their pencils and do everytransaction.
And well, that means that markhas to go through bank
statements for years and yearsto.
Mark Hill (09:55):
And I come up with a number, and then this case goes
to sleep for nine months.
And now, the numbers are out ofdate.
Shawn Weber (10:03):
But here we go again.
So, but I think, and thatwouldn't happen, mark, on that
case, if it wasn't for thefamily dynamic, would it?
No, this would have been settledbefore they moved out of town.
Frankly, yeah, and then I had acouple this morning that I met
with and she was weepy and shegot on the call before he did
(10:24):
and she was really kind of weepyabout it and she's like I'm
just very emotional about thecase ending.
I think that's part of why Idon't want to do my forms.
Yeah, so there's a thing goingon there where she's kind of
dragging her feet and he'sdragging his feet too, because
it means that it's finally over.
I mean, you see that, pete,don't you?
(10:45):
Can you speak to that?
Peter Roussos (10:48):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think I've ever.
I'm just thinking, in all theyears I've been doing divorce
work, have I ever had a casewhere the partners were coming
in and operating at the samesense of pacing?
And the answer to that is no.
And I've only had one case, andit was a collaborative case,
(11:08):
and one of the parties had noambivalence whatsoever, no
second guessing, about the needto divorce.
They were so done and itactually was, I think,
pathological on their part.
Every other divorce case thatI've worked there's always been
(11:32):
a level of ambivalence,certainly grieving.
I mean, when I hear youdescribing what that person is
describing, she's talking abouta grief process, that's exactly
right and I think it's reallyimportant that that be part of
the work that is ideallyhappening in a divorce process.
Shawn Weber (11:52):
Well, it was interesting, pete, because I
asked her.
I'm like, well, are you havingsecond thoughts about the
divorce, because I want to pusha divorce if they're thinking
they want to stay together?
And she's like oh F, no, it'snot like she's like oh f, no,
you know, right, right, she, she.
It's not like she's havingsecond thoughts about the
divorce.
But, yeah, there's grief,there's grief and it's still
taking it's a little time to bewilling to finish it.
(12:14):
Yeah, yeah, even though shedoesn't want to go back yeah.
Peter Roussos (12:20):
So ambivalence doesn't necessarily mean second
thoughts.
It can be a desire to avoid thefinality.
Even though a person in anintellectual way that can
understand it's the right thingto do, it's a healthy decision,
there's still that sense of lossand an emotional level.
You know there's no, I don'tthink I've ever encountered a
(12:42):
completely bad relationship.
Every marriage that I've everencountered in my work, every
divorce case that I've everencountered, there is the good
stuff that's there.
There's a wisdom that bringspeople together and sometimes
that wisdom fails and a marriageends.
(13:03):
But when they end, when arelationship ends, when it
started with love and arelationship ends, there's
always a grief process andavoiding that or denying that, I
think, is one of the thingsthat that is core, the core
cause, if you will, for peoplethat that then get stuck after
(13:26):
divorce in moving on makes itmore likely that they're going
to repeat mistakes andsubsequent relationships.
Shawn Weber (13:36):
Well, and you're not going to divorce differently
than you were married.
Yeah, you're still the samepeople.
Sometimes I'm like what did youexpect this person to get a
lobotomy?
They're going to change whothey are Once you filed the
petition.
They're going to stay the sameperson.
Mark Hill (13:52):
I say to people, wouldn't it be unreasonable to
expect the divorce to be anyeasier than the marriage would
be?
And they always nod.
Shawn Weber (14:00):
You know they get it when you put it in those
terms well, it is interesting,you can get married very quickly
, yes, you know, uh, but butgetting divorced, unwinding that
marriage, I mean we've all donethe case with, you know, the
one year divorce.
I've got a couple of thoseright now and they're they're
taking a terrible amount of timeto unwind just a year, you know
(14:23):
.
And and so we have people thathave been together 30, 40 years.
You know that's not somethingyou unwind easily, right?
Peter Roussos (14:30):
So I think.
I think that does then beg thequestion.
Maybe, if we turn the questionaround, let me ask the two of
you so what is it that you uhtell people they can do in order
to move their process alongmore quickly?
Shawn Weber (14:48):
I think number one is do your homework, finish your
tasks.
Mark Hill (14:57):
I have a whole lot.
Shawn Weber (14:59):
Your deliverables.
As one client says yeah, wehave.
One client says what are mydeliverables?
Mark Hill (15:02):
And then he never delivers anything.
It's true, it's true, it's true?
Shawn Weber (15:07):
Yeah well, it's the same list that we gave you last
time.
You didn't deliver anything.
Yeah, I think now I lost mytrain of thought.
Yeah, finishing your task,finishing your homework, getting
it done.
I always tell my clients andmaybe this is bad customer
service, but it's a reality.
I, as the practitioner, won'tand cannot work harder than my
clients.
I'll meet them halfway, to theextent that they're willing to
(15:32):
move forward.
I'm willing to move forward.
I'm willing to move forward,but if they don't do what they
need to do to move the caseforward, it can't move forward.
There's nothing I can do aboutit.
Peter Roussos (15:44):
Well, I realize that people don't know what they
don't know.
Well, that's true.
How do people who've never gonethrough a divorce process
before I can imagine when youguys are explaining to them what
is required of them, what theirdeliverables are, what their
homework is.
I can imagine that most peopleare maybe surprised by that.
Shawn Weber (16:05):
Well, and sometimes their eyes glaze over.
Mark Hill (16:08):
Yeah, people hate filling out forms.
I mean I hate filling out forms.
I get it.
Okay, I understand.
You never feel like the formquite captures who you are
filling out forms.
Peter Roussos (16:15):
number one, I mean, I hate filling out forms.
Mark Hill (16:15):
I get it okay.
I understand you never feellike the form quite captures who
you are.
It seems impersonal and it's apain in the butt well, these
forms are are detailed.
Shawn Weber (16:24):
They require the use of your prefrontal cortex in
your brain right, the logiccenters of your brain.
Mark Hill (16:30):
But if you're in a fight-or-flight place, or you're
enraged or you're terrified,how easy is it pete then to pay
attention to details or you'reresentful and you basically
don't want to give the otherperson what they're demanding,
and so you drag your feet, andthen it's's the person that
(16:52):
comes into alternative disputeresolution because they believe
if they can delay the processlong enough, the person on the
other side will come to theirsenses and come back into the
marriage.
Shawn Weber (17:05):
I do know this.
People sometimes think, well,litigation will go faster, and
that is not the case.
You take a litigation case andyou multiply the time by three.
And the cost by at least three,and that's probably close to
what would happen and the wheelsof justice at the courthouse
(17:26):
turn extremely slowly.
Peter Roussos (17:28):
Well, and I imagine that they don't have
less homework in the litigationprocess.
Shawn Weber (17:32):
They don't less homework in a litigation process
, they don't.
Maybe even more, and you knowjust to get a trial after you've
done all of your disclosure andyour discovery and you told the
courts we've done all thediscovery, we're ready for a
trial, let's go.
You will get a date.
A year out, maybe longer, yeah,because I mean there's so many
(17:56):
cases and you're one of athousand that this judge is
thinking about, you know, and sothinking that the court will
get you, like getting your dayin court is somehow going to
move this along now, where thethe only thing I would maybe a
friendly amendment to this wholeconcept is that sometimes you
have to do court because atleast it will move forward.
(18:17):
Yes, there are those cases wherethey just get stuck and they're
in a swamp and they just sinklike they're walking through mud
and they don't move.
What happens when you do that?
You just sink.
Sometimes those people, I'm tothe point where you know it's
unethical for me to continuewith you because you never
continue your commitments, younever get, you can't reach
(18:38):
agreements.
It's like Groundhog Day.
We're doing the same thing overand over again.
I feel like it's unethical forme to continue to take money
from you.
You should just go to court andit will be resolved.
I mean, that's one of thebenefits of court I can resolve
just about any issue.
But the drawbacks to court isit's expensive and they can't be
very flexible.
They have to apply the law theway that it's applied and that's
(19:00):
it, whereas what we do we'remore creative and outside the
law when they tell you you haveto be there, you have to be
there and you better be there.
Mark Hill (19:17):
Yeah, the court can hold you in contempt, the court
can fine you.
You know, one thing that I findis delays cases is what I don't
know.
In other words, in these longerterm marriages we come up
against things that I can't getstatements from.
Institutions more than five orseven or the most 10 years back.
Institutions more than five orseven, or the most 10 years back
(19:37):
.
So we often have situationswhere we just cannot give the
data that would normally be usedin the process to determine
separate property assets, forexample.
We just can't get thestatements.
Nobody's fault, just can't getthem Okay.
So there's that aspect to it.
There's also things like theybought a house in.
They've got a case right now.
They bought a house in 1993.
(19:58):
Well, in 1998, the tax lawschanged to mean that you could
own a house for two out of fiveyears and then get, as a married
couple, up to half a milliondollars exclusion from gain.
But if you owned a house in1993 and you bought a condo that
you rolled the profit in fromin 1984, now you've got a
(20:21):
situation where I cannot tellyou what your basis in the
property is and the IRS willtell you well, it's zero.
Then if you can't prove it, noone's going to do that.
So until I get the data, Idon't know what the issues are,
and Sean can't know what theissues are.
To have a meeting and to gothrough what do you guys want to
(20:42):
do about?
Shawn Weber (20:42):
this.
Well, I had that conversationwith the frustrated client
that's like, why can't we justbe done?
I'm like, well, you're notready to have an intelligent
conversation yet about this, tohave an intelligent conversation
yet about this.
You know, we've talked aboutthis before, mark, the concept
of agreement, readiness, yes,yeah, that the case will not
(21:03):
settle, basically until the caseis ripe enough to settle.
And a big part of that ishaving the data, having the
information, so that we canspeak intelligently about the
issues.
And sometimes things are justcomplex and it's going to take
some time to just muddle throughthat, you know.
And so there is a little bit ofpatience that people need to
have.
Um, you know, and sometimes I'mtelling people, you know it's
(21:26):
not going to happen.
They don't understand how come,how thorough the disclosures by
law must be to prevent themfrom having huge problems later.
So that gets to be.
I mean, it's universallyloathed, the disclosure process.
No one loves to fill outdisclosure forms, but they must
be done.
Even if you think the otherperson knows about it already
(21:47):
and even if both of you agree,you still have to do the
disclosure and declare anappellate perjury.
Mark Hill (21:54):
And there's real potential risk by not doing it
accurately.
Yeah, I mean you say, oh, I'vegot this separate property stuff
that's mine.
She knows it's mine.
I'm not even going to put it onthe form.
Well, how does that work,counselor?
If something comes up later,some kind of disagreement?
Shawn Weber (22:15):
Well, you can end up having the MSA, the marital
settlement agreement that youworked so hard to negotiate.
You could have it set asidebecause something was forgotten.
Worse can happen is you couldhave sanctions.
You could lose the asset.
We've talked about the lotterycase before, where the person
the woman bought a lotteryticket and didn't tell her
husband that she won, and thenhe figured it out later, after
(22:37):
the divorce was alreadyfinalized.
She didn't put in herdisclosures and he got 100 of
the lottery winnings awarded tohim because she was a bad girl
and didn't disclose.
So I'm always telling peopleyou've got to take this as
serious as a heart attack,because the court does yeah so I
mean there there is stuff,there's tasks that have to get
done, that are time consuming.
I mean, the faster you get thetime the tasks done, you get the
(22:59):
data to your financialspecialist or to your mediator,
the better, because then it canget done faster.
Most mediators and financialpeople have methods to help you
get it done quicker.
Um, you know, and then and thenthen we can get to a place of
agreement.
Readiness now another place, Ithink, blows cases up and makes
(23:20):
them take longer.
Mark is this what do you thinkof this?
Um, they try to negotiatesomething that has been very
difficult for them to talk about.
That's why they've hired aprofessional mediator and they
choose to negotiate itthemselves at Denny's.
Yeah, and how does that usuallygo?
Mark Hill (23:36):
Usually we get a call the following day saying that
was a disaster, and we're backto square one.
Shawn Weber (23:44):
We're more angry than we started Exactly.
Or we have that case where shedropped, left him on the side of
the road, they got in the cartogether and drove somewhere,
and then she she threw him outof the car on the freeway.
Yeah, she left him out of thehim on the side of the road.
They got in the car togetherand drove somewhere, and then
she she threw him out of the caron the freeway.
Mark Hill (23:56):
Yeah, he left him out of the car on the side of the
freeway and drove they were onthe way to to an appointment for
their child who had some mentalhealth issues and uh, and we
told him take separate cars, butno, yeah, so um, I always tell
people I mean, if you want tonegotiate things on your own,
that's great, but if you evensense a slight amount of blood
(24:19):
pressure increase, stop.
Shawn Weber (24:22):
There's a reason why you've hired professionals.
We know how to help you getthrough this managing the
emotional responses and and letus work with you, let us do what
we are paid to do to help youget this done.
Otherwise, it will take longerbecause you'll have blowups.
Peter Roussos (24:39):
One of the things that I like to ask clients who
are thinking about having thatkind of conversation is I like
to ask them well, tell me, whatgives you confidence that you're
going to be able to have thatconversation effectively and
appropriately?
Shawn Weber (24:57):
Oh, it's a brilliant question.
Mark Hill (25:01):
I love that, but I also ask them so have you ever
talked about this before?
Yes, how?
Shawn Weber (25:07):
did that go?
How did that go?
Oh it's terrible.
She threw a hairdryer at me.
I'm right.
Oh it's terrible.
Peter Roussos (25:13):
She threw a hairdryer at me.
Well, that's why you do it atDenny's because usually there
isn't a hairdryer.
Mark Hill (25:19):
No, no you do it in the bathroom, not in the kitchen
.
This hairdryer is not knivesthat fly across the room.
Shawn Weber (25:28):
That's like that scene.
You remember the Sopranos?
And there's the scene where theI can't remember her name wife
carmella, yeah, um, told tonythat she wanted a divorce.
And so they go to theirfavorite italian restaurant,
where everything happens in thisshow, right, and she, she tells
them, um, she wants a divorceand that that conversation
(25:50):
didn't go very well.
She's's like I want what I'mentitled to and he's like you're
entitled to something.
You know he used someexpletives to explain what she
was entitled to, but yeah, Imean, it often doesn't work.
Mark Hill (26:07):
Yeah, if it were easy , it would be.
Shawn Weber (26:14):
You know, there wouldn't be an industry
surrounding it which you know,maybe that's why divorces are
expensive is because they'rehard, yeah yeah, and there's
some work that has to be done,so maybe saying it's worth it I
mean, that may be true for somepeople, but maybe the issue is
the reason you're willing to paythe money to the professionals
to help you is because this ishard.
And having people withcredentials and experience,
(26:39):
who've seen a few divorces, Iusually tell people I think I've
seen a few more divorces thanyou have.
I think I've been involved in afew more.
Well, I certainly hope you have.
And so my 20 plus years ofexperience doing hundreds of
divorces a year, yeah, I've seensome things and I know what
will work and what doesn't work,and you don't know the
(27:00):
questions you don't know to ask.
And then bringing in otherprofessionals you know I am an
attorney here, but bringing in afinancial professional and a
mental health professional tobring in additional experience
just adds more to that so thatpeople can be done more quickly.
Now you know another thing I'veseen guys, when you have the,
(27:24):
sometimes you have a personthat's going faster than the
other person, right?
You mentioned that earlier,pete, and do you think this is
what I've observed?
I think it only goes as fast asthe slowest person.
Mark Hill (27:35):
I would say a little faster than the slowest person
wants to proceed.
Yeah, okay, Because they do getwe do push them along, but at
the same time you know we've gotthat case, sean.
That's been going on forever,you know where.
Finally, the wife gave us somedates for the final, final,
final meeting.
You know, yeah, finally thewife gave us some dates for the
final, final, final meeting.
You know, yeah.
Peter Roussos (28:01):
She would disappear for months on end and
not respond.
You know the way that I'lldescribe because that question
is always asked is you know it'sgoing to move faster than you
to the person who is who is, uh,slower, if you will, in their
adjustment, it's going to movefaster than you probably wanted
(28:21):
to, and to the other person it'sgoing to move slower than you
wanted to, and that thatactually, I think, accommodating
those pacing differences is animportant part of the
collaboration that's necessaryin a healthier divorce process.
Mark Hill (28:33):
For them to understand that.
Well, there's the emotionalreadiness, but also we often
have what I call the non-moneyedspouse, the person that can
take care of the money duringthe marriage, and he or she
needs to get up to speed, to bea participant at the table, and
so, even once the disclosuresare done and we know what the
(28:54):
pie looks like, I might have tohave a conversation with someone
about.
You know your spouse's benefitsand you know what their income
really looks like when we takeinto account all the little
perks they get.
You know that no one comes outof the womb knowing how this
works, and it's complex, andeven CPAs don't understand how
(29:17):
divorce works.
As we have found many times,what's appropriate for the IRS
may not be appropriate for thecourts in divorce, and that's
shocking to some people.
Shawn Weber (29:29):
What you mean.
I don't get to removedepreciation from my income, yep
and a divorce, and that's right.
Mark Hill (29:38):
Yeah, it may work for the IRS, but it doesn't work.
And the fact that your car andyour cell phone and all your
children's cell phones are putthrough on your company, that
doesn't necessarily work fordivorce.
Shawn Weber (29:48):
Yeah, yeah.
And then you know kind of alsosometimes slower is faster.
You know, I know if I try to doa job really fast, that is
intricate, I'll screw it up andthen I have to go back and
unwind something.
So yeah, I mean we want to beefficient, but sometimes going
(30:09):
too fast and I've seen that willtrip you up and make the case
last longer.
Peter Roussos (30:14):
Well, I wonder about cases that you've had
where, because I think the riskthat you're just describing,
sean I think of it in terms ofreally getting out that drives
buyer's remorse and howunresolved grief or or grief or
(30:46):
incomplete grief and I think,drive that kind of ambivalence.
Mark Hill (30:51):
We have that case right now, sean.
We write.
You talked about it earliertoday.
Shawn Weber (30:56):
Where there's what what our colleague Nancyancy
ross calls negative intimacy.
Um, parties kind of becomeaddicted to one another in their
relationship.
That's how relationships work,and so if they can't have a
positive connection, they'llhave a negative one, and so we
might be on the threshold ofsigning the final marital
(31:18):
settlement agreement, and thensomeone will throw in some
horrible thing or some monkeywrench, and I don't know if I
don't think it's even conscious,I think they just do it.
And then what it does is itprolongs the process, because
then I get to have a connectionwith this person you know and
you call him as well.
I don't want to be connected tohim, but then they do things
that force them to be connected.
(31:39):
Yeah, I'm kind of speaking yourlanguage, pete.
Am I making any sense?
Peter Roussos (31:45):
No, absolutely, and so it's interesting.
As you were talking about that,I was thinking about something
you said earlier.
Vis-a-vis a litigation process,you were talking about how the
court can apply sanctions, andso what incentives?
If you will do you have in aprocess other than the
(32:12):
withdrawing from a case becauseit's stuck, that situation that
you described earlier.
How do you you motivate people?
Shawn Weber (32:19):
how do you affect?
There is the specter of theother person is going to be fed
up and go to court, and theseare the bad things that can
happen to you at court.
But there's also just the youknow what.
What would your life be like ifyou could go to bed at night
without worrying what the otherperson is going to do next?
Mark Hill (32:39):
And that there's one who's been through divorce the
only one at the table here.
That is far more debilitatingthan I would even admit.
I know that, going through avery challenging divorce, I was
having real trouble sleeping,finally got it resolved.
(33:00):
Guess what I sleep like a baby,you know.
It's really interesting,although I would have denied
that that was the cause, but itwas you know there's.
Shawn Weber (33:11):
You know we talk about in terms of negotiation,
you know going back to, you knowthat, getting to, yes, and they
talk about the best alternativeto a negotiated agreement and
the worst alternative to anegotiated agreement and having
that kind of being bookends inyour understanding of the case,
(33:32):
making sure you have a clarityabout your BATNA the best
alternative to a negotiatedagreement, and your WATNA, the
worst alternative to anegotiated agreement.
But there's another conceptthat's also very important.
It's called the NAN N-A-N yournegotiated agreement, and you're
what?
The worst alternative tonegotiate agreement.
But there's another concept,it's also very important.
It's called the NAN N-A-N yournegotiated agreement.
Now, and what would happen inyour life?
Why would that be somethingthat you would want in a
(33:53):
negotiated agreement?
Now, maybe you're giving upsomething that is below your
best case scenario or worst casescenario.
Maybe it's different than whatyour attorney is even telling
you you should be asking for orentitled to, but you're buying
your piece and there's noattorney, no financial person
that can figure out exactly whatthat's worth to you.
(34:14):
But it does have value and so,thinking about that, what is
that value to me?
Am I, is there something I'mwilling to leave on the table so
I can be done.
Mark Hill (34:27):
And interestingly that is rarely a conversation
that's had early in the process.
Shawn Weber (34:35):
You're right, and we should do it more.
Mark Hill (34:37):
We should do that more, because what tends to
happen is people can becomeentrenched in the divorce
process.
Well, they can focus on thingsthat I mean.
We have a case right now wherethere's some issues that need to
be addressed, but wife couldnot focus on the immediate
(34:59):
demand to get their documents inplace or get the documents to
me, because she was so focusedon this other wrong that she
perceived to have been wroughtupon her, which actually we all
agree she was.
Peter Roussos (35:28):
I think it's tricky, though, because I think
that if that conversation is hadprematurely, it can come across
to clients, I think, as thoughwe're encouraging them to
negotiate against themselves.
And what I've seen the two ofyou do very adeptly, I think, in
cases is to have theconversation with clients that
goes something like this Well,you know you could take that
position, but let's talk aboutwhat it's going to cost you
financially in order to maintainthat position, to literally do
it.
(35:48):
I've heard the two of you talkabout it in terms of a
cost-benefit analysis and,broadly, these conversations of
do you want to win the battleand lose the war?
And I think that the timing ofthat and it's I think it's sad,
but I think it's a truism thatsometimes there's a level of
(36:09):
pain or discomfort that clientshave to go through before
they're ready, I think, toreally face that kind of choice
dilemma.
Shawn Weber (36:16):
I think that's true .
Or this question I know that'sa very important principle to
you Is that a hill you want todie on today?
Mark Hill (36:27):
And when I've got the data, I can quantify it, and
that's something that oftendoesn't happen.
They're fighting over a concept, but it's only $300 in a, you
know, two million dollar caseyeah, yes, it's so true.
Shawn Weber (36:45):
You know, when we say that, is that a hill you
want to die on today, I think ofmy father, who was a veteran of
the korean war and fought atheartbreak ridge wow and it was
really the whole point of thatbattle was just, can we get a
little bit of real estate?
and then they end up losing thereal estate anyway, yeah.
And so what was the point ofthat battle was?
Just, can we get a little bitof real estate?
And then they ended up losingthe real estate anyway, yeah.
And so what was the point ofall that death and carnage?
Now, hopefully there's notdeath and carnage in people's
(37:07):
divorces, but, um, but there'sdamage, there's damage and
there's collateral damage.
Mark Hill (37:15):
Exactly, there's damage that goes beyond the
couple.
Shawn Weber (37:19):
There's victims beyond the couple.
There's victims beyond thecouple like especially if you
have kids.
Mark Hill (37:23):
Yeah, and and other family members you know.
Shawn Weber (37:28):
Yeah, so you know.
Think about that, grandparents'rights.
We sometimes say, well, it'sthe principle.
What are principles areexpensive.
Yeah, you know so.
So how is this bridge thatyou're fighting over this hill?
Is this really something thatyou're willing to lay it all
there?
Mark Hill (37:45):
I had an issue with real estate where a guy who sold
me the real estate lied and Iwas incensed and went to my
business attorney and was justcomplaining about it cost me
$26,000 to repair this and helied about this and it was
obviously leaking before and Isaid it's the principle of the
(38:07):
thing and my attorney said ohMark, please, please, he goes,
don't talk about principle.
We have a broken system.
You will win this case, but itmight cost you 100,000 in
experts and the judge may justdecide you have to eat.
That it's like we have a brokensystem and so making clients
(38:29):
aware of the fact that you go tocourt it's not Al Pacino and
justice for all folks.
It is a situation where,depending upon the mood of the
judge, who the judge is, howwell educated the judge is in
terms of family law and we knowsometimes people are just doing
their two or three years infamily law before they can move
(38:51):
on be judges where they reallywant to be judges and there are
some excellent family judges whoreally know what they're doing,
don't get me wrong but there'salso those others who are just
transitory and they will decideyour case and, as I walked out
of court.
One day I was violated by thisprocess.
It's exactly how I felt.
Shawn Weber (39:15):
Well, guys, maybe we should kind of summarize
where we've been here.
So the things that slow thecase down are many fold, right.
So one is clients have got toget their homework done or it's
going to take longer yeah,that's one.
The other is sometimes there'sjust kind of emotional reasons
that cause there to be blocks,which could be one of the
(39:36):
reasons that we prevent peopledon't get their homework done,
yeah, or at the end of the casethat we prevent, you know,
people don't get their homeworkdone, or at the end of the case,
things get strung out.
The other is using jointresources longer than you really
ought.
I also thought about using thecourt system that makes it take
(39:58):
longer, and then the standing bya principle that you really,
really it's not the hill youshould die on.
Peter Roussos (40:01):
And when, I would add to that you're.
You reference the emotionalpiece, but I want to be even
more specific, Please, sean.
Is is is denying and not facingthe grief process that is
inherent to divorce.
Mark Hill (40:16):
Hmm, yes, yeah, yes yeah, there's always some loss
no matter how difficult marriagebecame.
There is always a loss and youfeel that loss.
Shawn Weber (40:29):
And I might add another one, and that is feeling
like it is going to work foryou to impose your will, because
that usually slows it down.
It's kind of like when I firstgot a puppy and tried to take it
for a walk and I pulled on hiscollar and he's like you're
(40:50):
pulling my collar, I'm gonna sitdown, and I think people aren't
much different.
Peter Roussos (40:58):
So helping you know, helping people see that
it's in their best interest toactually move, Well, I think the
way that that I will talk withpeople about that kind of
dynamic that you're describingis, I literally will say you
know, I think you both havelearned the hard way that you
can't get the other person to dosomething that that he or she
(41:19):
doesn't want to do.
And so how is it that you think, in this process, you're going
to be able to exert what youwant or to behave unilaterally?
How do you expect that to go?
Shawn Weber (41:33):
How's that going to work, yeah?
Well, we'll just do it.
Peter Roussos (41:35):
It's the right thing to do, or and I think that
sometimes there's anexpectation that the
professionals involved are goingto land a kind of either
authority or a force.
Shawn Weber (41:49):
Yeah.
Peter Roussos (41:51):
That is one of the magical powers to us?
Shawn Weber (41:53):
Yeah, you're my attorney, can't you make this
happen?
Yeah, and we're not magical.
Smart, yes, magical no and youknow.
Mark Hill (42:07):
The reality is that when financial resources get cut
in half, lifestyles change.
Yeah, two households cost a lotmore to run than one household,
and so expectations coming intoit and entitlements.
I'm entitled to this, it's.
Somebody told me I'm entitledto the marital standard of
(42:30):
living.
Well, that's the first half ofthe sentence.
What does the second half say?
If it's available and I'mparaphrasing, but it generally
isn't available.
Shawn Weber (42:40):
Well, and marital standard of living is one of 15
factors, right, yeah, the lastfactor being one that you always
point out, mark.
Mark Hill (42:47):
Anything the judge thinks is important, exactly,
yeah, and I've had people saywell, it sounds like you could
do anything.
I go bingo now, you understand.
Can we negotiate please?
Yeah, well, anchoring slowsthings down too.
I go bingo Now, you understand.
Shawn Weber (42:59):
Can we negotiate please?
Yeah, well, anchoring slowsthings down too.
I mean, if you anchor on aconcept that you only have half
information about, yeah, thatcan screw you up.
All right, guys.
Well, we did it again.
We did indeed.
Hopefully the people listeningare getting something out of
this.
We know you're out there and weappreciate you.
Mark Hill (43:20):
Yes, indeed, and if you have questions, please reach
out to us.
We'd be delighted to addressany issues that you are
concerned about during theprocess.
Bring us your, bring us yourquestions.
Peter Roussos (43:34):
At the very least , guys, with today's episode, at
the very least, if they use itjudiciously and with discretion,
they got a good joke.
Exactly, they got a good jokeout of this.
Shawn Weber (43:47):
Oh, I would say a meta.
You know a mediocre joke,you're so hard on yourself well,
every good dad joke I'velearned this from being a father
every good dad joke needs tocause physical pain and long
(44:07):
long groans we need to starttiming.
The zone the groans on my dadused to say ooh, that's a double
groaner, alright.
Well, if they had questions foryou, how would they get a hold
of you?
Ooh, that's a double groaner,all right.
Well, if they had questions foryou.
Peter Roussos (44:24):
How would they get ahold of you, Peter?
My website peterrousoscom,that's
P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom.
Contact me on that website.
Mark Hill (44:38):
And my website is packdivorcecom, short for
Pacific Divorce ManagementP-A-C-D-I-V-O-R-C-Ecom.
Again, we have a contact formand a lot of useful information
on there regarding divorce.
Shawn Weber (44:51):
And if anybody wants to get a hold of me,
likewise my website,weberdisputeresolutioncom.
Weberdisputeresolutioncomthat's Weber with one B.
Like the grill dispute, like wehad a fight and resolution.
Like we solved itcom.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the Three Wisemen of
Divorce Money, psych and Law.
(45:12):
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe.
Leave us a review and sharewith others who may be in a
similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
(45:34):
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
Health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
(46:25):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.