When negotiating items of unequal value, each spouse may be motivated to maximize the value of what they need for security, whether it is the home or the pension. If the home and the pension are of equal value, there is no problem. If they are unequal, the couple can look for "tie-ins". For example, the husband could pay the wife maintenance equal to the difference in value between the home and the pension (after taxes). Or, if the wife's asset is of greater value, the wife could offer the husband a percentage ownership interest in the residence for a later sale. Experienced family law practitioners can come up with other examples of "tie-ins".

Suggest to your client that a cooperative approach has many advantages. To emphasize this, I tell a client that, "by making your spouse feel more secure, wealthy, or happy, you can in fact increase your own security in the settlement. By contrast, causing your spouse a humiliating defeat will actually harm you because the case won't stay settled for long". The spouse will soon be seeking a change in the terms of the contract. Problems might also show up later in the form of withheld access to the children.

A cooperative approach, on the other hand, leads to a final conclusion of the deal. About 10% of the cases I see involve a divorced person who either gets too good a deal or too bad a deal in the previous divorce action, and now wants to reopen the action. For some, this "bad deal" can perpetuate the conflict for as long as, in one instance, twelve years, with resulting adverse emotional and financial effects on the children as wel las on the parties. All the more reason to have a reasonable settlement wherein neither side wins or loses too much.

Back to Cooperative Phase Menu