In my last video, I mentioned marital property as a part of the discussion of Equitable Distribution. In this video, I want to explain the difference between assets that are separate property and those that are considered marital property.

In my last video, I mentioned marital property as a part of the discussion of Equitable Distribution. In this video, I want to explain the difference between assets that are separate property and those that are considered marital property.
There are 14 factors that are used by courts and attorneys to determine an equitable distribution of marital assets. In mediation, the couple makes these determinations together. Taking the time to review the factors, however, you may find one that resonates with you, and allows you to make a proposal to your spouse that will take into consideration its relevance to you and explain why you think you should get the property distribution that you are proposing in your mediation.
{4 minutes to read} When I’m being mindful of what I’m saying, I can stop myself from using the word “but” after I’ve just apologized to someone. I recognize how off-putting that can be to the person to whom I’ve just apologized, and that it effectively negates everything that I said before the but.
When I really don’t believe I’m at fault, though, I may very well end up with an apology followed by “but I didn’t mean to do that because of......” Then I belatedly realize that I gave a non-apology apology and if I really intended to apologize, I will need to do it all over again — without any excuses.
So, I know from my own experience that it’s very hard to avoid using but, especially when strong emotions are at play. It’s a word that comes so naturally when you feel threatened and defensive.
I also know from my professional experience that when a client uses but in mediation, what is said after the but is all that the other person focuses on. That one little word can not only obliterate what had been previously said, but if you use but regularly, the other person may not even listen to what you say initially in anticipation of the but.
By way of example, I had a client recently who attempted to take responsibility for past behavior that she knew was hurtful to her partner. I could see that her partner was receptive to the words being said and his eyes began to show understanding. Then, came the but followed by an excuse for the behavior for which she was apologizing. At that point, the partner reacted even more negatively than before the apology. It would have been more productive had she not said anything at all.
The better approach — if you sincerely intend to apologize — is to just stop after the apology. If you can’t do that, then consider whether you are truly ready to apologize.
The danger of but in mediation isn’t limited to non-apologies for past behavior. It can also serve as an excuse for future behavior, as in “I agree that it would be good for our daughter to join the dance club, but I can’t afford it.” A better approach in mediation would be “I agree that it would be good for our daughter to join the dance club. Now, how can we pay for it?”
Eliminating the use of but can be a tall order, so a first step can be to recognize it in retrospect when you think about how a past conversation went. If it makes sense, you can try a redo, and if not, you can learn from it. Being in the moment and conscious of what you’re saying takes practice, and you will find that it is well worth the effort.
{4 minutes to read} In other posts, I’ve often touted the benefits of working with a financial professional, either together or separately, during a couple’s divorce mediation. In this post, I want to summarize the circumstances under which I think a mediation would progress most easily, and that is if both spouses worked with a financial professional who acts as a neutral.
While the training and expertise of the financial professionals would be the same, a financial professional working as a neutral is different from a financial professional who only works with one party and only supports that person’s interests. The latter situation might arise because one party feels that the other has a superior knowledge or acumen for financial matters, and that the less knowledgeable party needs more education or help than the other. In such a case, the financial professional is an advocate for that party and definitely should not be considered a neutral, any more than either party’s attorney would be considered a neutral.
A financial neutral in mediation is more akin to the role of a financial neutral in the interdisciplinary collaborative practice model. They would work with both parties and ultimately present complicated financial concepts in a simple, easy-to-understand fashion.
Here are some other reasons why working with a financial neutral is a good idea:
If you determine that a financial neutral would be well worth the cost, your mediator can suggest professionals who can fulfill this role.
{4 minutes to read} You and your fiancé have discussed the terms that you would want in your prenuptial agreement. You seem to be in agreement, so you feel that there is nothing to mediate and don’t see the need for a mediator when you could just have your lawyer draft the agreement and your fiancé can have an attorney review it. So, why involve a third professional and incur an additional fee when nothing is really in dispute?
You May Not Have Addressed Everything
Drafting Misunderstandings
Your attorney’s job is to represent your interests only, so if there is some leeway when drafting the agreement to use language that is more favorable to you, that is the language that would be used. While you may not even be aware of that drafting choice, your fiance’s attorney would certainly recognize such a choice of language and point that out to your fiancé. While you can explain that you didn’t direct your attorney to do anything like that, it would be best to avoid that misunderstanding and those hurt feelings with a more impartial drafting.
Avoid Attorneys Dictating the Process
A word to the wise — keep the misunderstandings and positions to a minimum and create your prenup with a mediator.
Prenups illicit very negative reactions, but there are a lot of valid reasons why someone would want a prenup and it doesn't have to mean that they think that your marriage is doomed to fail. You are going to want your marriage to be a collaboration and mediation is a collaborative way to create a prenuptial agreement.
To find out what you’re entitled to, you need to go to court. But going to court does not guarantee you will get what you want. When someone focuses on entitlement, there are usually some underlying emotions that need to be addressed. If those underlying emotions haven't been dealt with in a productive way, you're not going to be able to move forward in the positive way that you're looking for.
{4 minutes to read} At a recent conference for divorce and family mediators that I attended, I heard a panel consisting of judges, hearing officers and law clerks speak to the reality of the court process. Here are some of the negative consequences they raised:
Timeframe
Although there are rules that say the entire process in New York County would be “trial ready” in less than a year after filing, the reality is that it could be two years or more to get to that stage. This is especially true in a case in which there are extensive financial matters or parenting issues to be addressed.
In mediation, you control the time frame and the matter will proceed at a pace that you both want.
You are subject to the court’s mandate and control.
Judges make it painfully clear that they are in control of the courtroom, and by extension, in control of you and your family. They focus on pushing litigants to settle, but the terms are those that the judge believes each of you should accept. The judge will also let you know what could happen at a trial if you don’t agree to what the judge feels is a reasonable settlement.
In mediation, the focus is on getting to a settlement that meets each of your respective interests and the interests of your children. That might mean that the two of you agree on an option that is in the best interest of your family, but is very different from what a judge would suggest as a “reasonable settlement.”
Your children could be part of the court process.
If you cannot agree on a parenting plan, one of the judges was clear that he would order an attorney for the children; forensic psychological evaluations of the parents and the children; and then possibly a meeting between the judge and the children. This involves your children in a process that is at best intrusive for them and at worst, traumatic. Ultimately, the judge would weigh all of this in terms of making a decision as to with whom your children will reside and the access they have with each of you after a trial.
In mediation, your children are not present, and you retain the right to make decisions about where they reside and how you share access with them. If you can’t agree in mediation, there are some options for you to explore:
You can seek the input of a child specialist to help the two of you sort things out; or
You could have a child inclusive mediation process. This means that a mental health professional (MHP) who is trained in this process, would meet with you. In a safe place, the children are encouraged to talk about their experiences with their parents’ conflict, as well as their thoughts and needs regarding the future.
After that meeting, the MHP joins the parties for a feedback session and explains the child’s particular experiences and what may likely happen if there is no change in the child's experiences. Both the MHP and the mediator support each parent’s understanding of the impact they have on the children and their ability to change to a focus on co-parenting that enhances a more positive outcome for the children.
This is the opposite of a court process which is threatening to both the parents and the children.
There are definitely some divorcing couples who need to avail themselves of a court process, but for those who don’t, mediation provides a better process according to judges and court professionals who deal with it first hand.
{3:30 minutes to read} Both the clients and the mediator want to be sure that the first meeting is productive, both because of the cost involved and because everyone wants to feel that something was accomplished and momentum is building.
That’s why at the initial consultation I suggest clients to do the following before scheduling the first meeting:
Review the checklist I provide.
Enter budgets into the software.
Gather financial documents.
Good preparation not only helps mediation to progress effectively, but it serves to ease your concerns. Doing something constructive and practical is a good way to calm the nerves and relieve the stress that is inevitable when you begin this emotional and intimidating process.
{3:30 minutes to read} Separating from someone you’ve loved, trusted, and who, most likely, was your best friend, is an incredibly scary concept on a deeply personal level. On top of that, you are also likely worrying about how this will affect your children, as well as how you will afford to pay your bills. It’s completely understandable that you’re concerned and frightened by both the process and the future.
Add to that, how hard it would be to express your fears to your spouse, who had previously been your “go-to” person.
So, what can you do?
Once you’re more comfortable with your decision to separate, you can address the practical fears by seeking professional help geared towards addressing the legal process of separation.,
1. Meet with a Mediator
2. Meet with a Lawyer