In Part I of Equitable Does Not Mean “Equal”, I discussed how a couple whose financial goals were very different during their marriage reached an agreement when they ended the marriage despite having different ideas as to what each thought was “equitable”. In part two, I will introduce you to a couple who had similar goals while married but who found themselves in different places financially once they decided to end their marriage.
Rob was 8 years older and had already retired when Cheryl informed him that she wanted a divorce. During the discussion on how they would divide their assets, Rob stated that, although his retirement accounts were larger than hers, he did not feel it would be fair for Cheryl to take anything from his accounts since he was no longer working and needed all that money to live on, while she was still working and could continue to grow her own retirement accounts.
Cheryl, on the other hand, did not feel it would be fair to leave the marriage with less than half of what they had worked for together over the 25 years they had been married, which included Rob’s retirement accounts.
As we discussed their goals and interests, it became clear that neither of them wanted to become involved in a court battle between attorneys. While part of the reason for this was to save the many thousands of dollars they would surely spend, a more significant reason was that they wanted to maintain a civilized relationship with the other for the benefit of their almost grown children. In fact, they had recently shared Thanksgiving dinner and wanted to be able to continue to celebrate the holidays together in the future.
With this in mind we were able to fashion an agreement that allowed Rob to keep his retirement accounts intact in exchange for providing Cheryl with a life insurance policy with a cash value that would be of more use to her than him in the future. As a result, they were able to reach an agreement that, while it might not have been exactly “equal”, felt “equitable” to each of them.
In both of these cases from Part 1 and Part 2, had the couples chosen litigation, they would have likely ended up with a distribution that may have been “equal” but which would have left each of them dissatisfied. Mediation allowed each couple the flexibility to create an agreement that took into consideration their needs, thus making their agreement truly Equitable.
Feel free to ask any questions, to comment, or to request more information in the Comments Box below. Also, please forward this blog to anyone you know who would be interested in its topic.
Share with Friends:
Need More Information?
To schedule a free phone or video consultation, complete and submit the form below, email us at [email protected], or call 518-529-5900.
How True Dan. The Courts don’t have the time to create a thoughtful Agreement like you did. Your holistic approach in mediation is what we are all about. A couple can work together with an experienced mediator to reach an Agreement where both spouses get what is important to them. Maybe different than what a Court might decide, but more important the couple decided, with your help, what was equitable. Great job
Hello Dan, your story highlights the value that mediation provides couples in allowing them to devise flexible and creative solutions to issues that may not receive similar attention or treatment in court. Thanks for sharing!
Dan how great that the couple were the ones that were satisfied with the final decision that met their personal goals after having input and saving a great deal.