![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
Not only did they pike the wrong guy, they piked the wrong word
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-561313-100x100.png\")
@coren: You misunderstand. Klearly she has joined the growing movement to remove 'c' from the English language, just as I have. Down with redundant konsonants! Viva la K!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-258324-100x100.png\")
@U-235: Maybe she had to give up the white shoe polish as part of the divorce decree, and didn't have enough for the \"c\". Who knows?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-8966-100x100.png\")
Another tip is to consider marriage counseling. Studies from the early 90's showed that if couples tried marriage counseling before divorce that their divorce bills were on average lower than those who didn't try counseling.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Call me old fashioned, but how about suggesting they seek counseling from a marriage counselor and try to reconcile their differences? Surely they were in love enough at one point to get married; why not try to find that again? Certainly it's cheaper than divorce.
I'm not some religious nut or someone with pie-in-the-sky aspirations either. My parents divorced and I think it was the right decision. But I think sometimes it's the first option, not the last one, and that scares me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-387761-100x100.png\")
@tedyc03: Most people think of marriage the same way they think of objects: dump the old model and get the newer, better looking model.
Without delving too deeply into the psychology of relationships, if people were looking for a friend as a spouse rather than judging by looks, romance, sex or money, most divorces wouldn't happen. Arranged marriages last too because the people in those cultures accept that they have to work through their problems.
It may not be as initially exciting, but people would be more willing to resolve their differences if the marriage is based on mutual respect, rather than, \"What am I getting out of being with him/her?\"
A real life incident that has entered common folklore proves my point:
[www.reuters.com]
@tedyc03: Why assume they haven't? Or, how many times do they need to try counseling and reconciliation?
There's a difference between \"If you are occasionally faintly unhappy in your marriage or you're thinking about that really hot blonde down the hall, here's how to save money on the divorce that you should run right out and get without giving it a second thought\" and \"If you have weighed your options and decided on divorce, here's how to save money.\"
And, although this is not the norm, \"having been in love at one point\" is not always enough to justify even making the effort. I was definitely in love with my husband when we married. Fast forward 47 months: At the time I filed for divorce, there was a requirement that anyone seeking a divorce where children were involved had to attend a mandatory three-month \"last ditch\" series of marriage classes/counseling before filing the divorce petition. I absolutely refused, and fortunately I had an attorney who was well-known and respected enough to be able to explain my situation to the judge and request an exemption. When the judge confirmed the police reports and the records of my individual counseling, the requirement was waived.
Sometimes mandatory counseling is a good and prudent thing; in other cases, it requires a victim of physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse to try to \"work things out\" with his/her abuser/rapist.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-88249-100x100.png\")
@bibliophibian: I think you kind of missed his point to blurt out your own problems. The reason why divorce rates are so high is because a lot of people want instant results. A small percentage of those divorces try to make an effort to get counseling.
Sure, some divorces such as yours are justified to happen quickly, but there are definitely way too many people who just would rather skip the effort and end it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-802739-100x100.png\")
@tedyc03: Heck, most companies do offer some sort of free counseling plan that will cover 10 or so visits of any kind - personal, marital, drug, alcohol, financial, etc.
It's one of those benefits people forget they have.
So... basically, don't be an ass?
@ilves: A lot of people still need to hear that advice. Even when being an ass is clearly the more expensive route.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-816950-100x100.png\")
Marriage is an at-will contract. Either party should be allowed to leave at any time for any reason, or no reason at all...and have to support themselves 100% afterwards, without regard to gender.
The mutual property of offspring division should be considered as a separate issue entirely.
@The-Lone-Gunman: Nice in theory. But when one spouse gives up their career to support the family at home, because they both agree at the time that is what's best for their family, then that person has given up years of career advancement and education and may not be able to support themselves and possibly their children if the marriage ends.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
@outoftheblew: Since the female usually is the one in that position, getting the children as she usually would is fair compensation. In any case, if one partner gives up his/her career in the expectation of life-long financial support, the marriage contract needs to be amended to reflect both partners' agreement to their new responsibilities. As it is one partner often gives up a dead-end career that s/he dislikes, while expecting substantial child-rearing duties to still be performed by the working partner, and then exaggerates his/her sacrifices when petitioning for divorce.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
\"Also try to get a provision in a divorce agreement that allows you to revisit child or spousal support later on without having to file a new lawsuit, she says -- which will save time and money.\"
Excellent idea to save some money but expect that you still will have to go to court to prove less/more support issues...
All these tips are great... if there isn't massive venom in the divorce proceedings.
Good luck trying to work this out with an immature couple, or a man/woman scorned who wants to hurt the other partner as much as possible.
I didn't read the article so this may have been mentioned, but from my own personal experience, I would add: Try to get a copy of your soon-to-be ex's credit report as part of the (usually mandatory) financial statement before finalizing the financial agreements (who pays what bills, etc), especially if you live in a community property state.
I learned the hard way, after my divorce, that \"community property\" refers to ANYTHING acquired during the marriage, be it an asset or a debt. My ex-husband had debt - credit cards and loans - that I had no idea even EXISTED, much less had ever co-signed on. When he stopped paying them, the collectors started calling me. I was outraged that they'd try something so obviously illegal as telling me I was responsible for his bills - then I checked with my attorney, and then with a bankruptcy attorney, and I learned that because he opened them during the course of our marriage, I WAS liable for them, exactly the same as if I'd signed for them.
There isn't really anything you can DO about it if they have bills you didn't know about - a creditor doesn't care what a divorce judge says, and if they can come after you they will. But, if you have it as part of the divorce decree that \"he'll pay these bills and she'll pay those\" and then s/he doesn't, and you wind up having to pay to protect your credit rating, there is at least the *possibility* that you can have him/her found in contempt of court and that s/he will be ordered to pay you back.
And I second what Econobiker said - most of the time, especially if it's child support, you're going to have to go to court to have the modification made official. If you can work out the terms of the modification beforehand, yes, you can save money because you're not having to pay lawyers to duke it out - and if you're savvy enough you can even do the forms and go in and represent yourself, so that you'll only pay the filing fee and court costs but no attorney's fees. But, if you want any kind of legal protection behind it the change, it has to be court-ordered.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-72607-100x100.png\")
Whoa I don't buy the stat that the divorce rate is \"usually higher during economic recessions,\" from the stats I have seen it usually falls during those times. There are two reasons, one is that couples batten down the hatches and get this spirit of we can get through this together in the face of new economic hardships, that makes what ever was stressing them before seem less important. The other reason is that divorce is expensive, so that tends to make people wait until times improve. Also once times improve, or it has been sufficiently long enough in the tough times, the divorce rate returns and sometimes even spikes.
@mzs: One other reason people may hold off on divorcing when the economy is weaker: if the couple has a house to sell and the market is down, they might wait until they can sell it at least for more than they owe on it, if not for a profit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1797-100x100.png\")
Divorce is often an especially raw deal financially for men. And I say this not just as my personal opinion, but as a syndicated advice columnist who gets a lot of letters about the aftermath of marriages.
If you don't want to have children, why marry? You can do up a partnership document so you can visit each other in the hospital, etc. My boyfriend and I have been together for almost seven years, and we have no intention of marrying or living together -- which is probably why we're still so happy together (although I don't value relationship tenure for tenure's sake the way many do). The bottom line: I don't need a relationship contract and neither does he. He's a lot of fun, and a great person, so I keep seeing him, and apparently, he sees something in me, too.
@Amy Alkon: Health insurance - we got married only because my health insurance company is a Catholic organization that discriminated against non-married couples.
If we were Canadian or had a more progressive health insurance company, we would be living together (in SIN!) for the beginning of our ninth year...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-416127-100x100.png\")
If you have no kids and have no property, you can save yourself the heart-ache and get a posting divorce. At least, I was able to in Texas, where family law is notoriously complicated.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83308-100x100.png\")
My grandparents got divorced for financial reasons in the 1970s. The got got a legal divorce, lived in separate houses, and just didn't tell the Catholic Church. They had lunch together every day, and eventually my grandfather went into bankruptcy, and so did the son he ended up living with because they have the \"bad with money\" genes. Before my grandmother died, she got a new Lincoln Continental every year for the last 10 years before her death. They started out even in the divorce, and ended up in such different places. Once they got a divorce, they didn't fight about money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-176244-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332258-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343837-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505958-100x100.png\")
As usual, blanket information that doesn't necessarily work for every state. Maryland, for example, requires that during a divorce process that both sides live at different residences for a full year before separation and then divorce can be granted.
So the article is saying be flexible and friendly? Just going to go out on a limb here, but if the couples were flexible and friendly to begin with, odds are they wouldn't be going through the divorce.
@OtterOtter: It never said anything about them being friendly. It only mentioned flexible.