Glen Norton | Minnetonka Divorce Lawyer

We recently had a case where the parties were sophisticated business people. Their issues were child custody with parenting time and complex finances. Finances were complicated because one of their businesses was owning rental real estate. The economy has rebounded since it crashed in 2008 but their business was crippled during the crash and limped along for several years. Therefore, the financial discussions were long, detailed and very painful for people who are used to good success. Luckily their other jobs allowed them to support themselves and their children, but how do you divide a financial nightmare? We used the collaborative process and we had the attorneys and the parties talking together right away without arguing so we could plan how to come out of the situation in a way that was best for everyone, including the kids. A traditional case could have encouraged the parents to try to blame the other for the business losses, and try to come out of the case as the person primarily caring for the kids and also in a financially stable position. That would have meant the other parent was stuck sinking in financial quicksand with no relief in sight for many years. Our solution in the collaborative process was to hire a financial neutral with deep credentials. He met with the parties, without the lawyers present, and saved them the cost of the billings from the attorneys as finance was sorted out. Everyone could trust and completely disclose to the neutral who could help them as a family in transition. The neutral found a way for them to leverage the equity in their homestead, while still using the home, and also let the person not living in the homestead not be on that mortgage note. This made it possible for the person not in the homestead to take more of the business liability and resolve it, and then begin rebuilding assets. Both will have a homestead much sooner than if we litigated over marital homestead, debt, and custody. The special arrangements that we could only negotiate by working together, made it possible to not lose the homestead. The family saved attorneys' fees. They came through the process with respect for each other, and the efforts they each have contributed to the family survival. They are able to co-parent, sharing time with the kids as a functional team. They are without the anger and hatred for each other that would come from fighting out a blame game. The kids do not have to walk on eggshells when talking to either parent. I have had this very same kind of facts in a case that went through the traditional system. The parties are still at odds years later. They hate each other for what happened. They came out of that process nearly bankrupt. The kids are still on edge when talking to one of the parents. It is true they are two separate unique families, but the case facts are very close to alike, while the results were opposites. This may not forecast how your unique case will go, but I do encourage all parties who can be reasonable with one-another, even though they are no longer a couple, to consider the collaborative process, and to work together to get out of a mess they made together. Sometimes that is impossible for one of the parties to be reasonable, and it is those impossible cases that fare better in the traditional system. Some case facts herein may be conflated to protect client identities.

Cases
Recently we had a case where one party was an aggressive litigator. She refused to respond to requests for information necessary to complete the case. The parties were disputing child custody, child support and parenting time. Both parties had their proposals declined by the other during settlement efforts. The court limited what information needed to be shared and ordered a response on all of the other material requested. One party still failed and refused to answer, despite our full answers to their requested information. We brought a motion to the court to preclude opposing party from presenting anything for evidence or argument at all in trial. The court responded that the judge was instead considering how long that party would spend in jail for violating the discovery order. The case settled that day, on favorable terms much like what our client proposed in the settlement negotiations by the attorneys. The other party avoided jail. Ultimately, that party had to reimburse our client over ten thousand dollars of the fees spent in order to force the disclosure of the necessary information. We can't promise that your case will result in this large a reimbursement of your litigation expenses with a difficult opposing party, although there are several theories upon which such a claim may advance. We will always seek justice for you in whatever form is appropriate. Some case facts herein may be conflated or changed to protect client identities.