There has been much ado about the effects of the economy on divorce.
Those who need to sell the marital home to fund their fresh start may now feel imprisoned in their marriage. With greater frequency, those unable to sell their home are forced to continue to cohabit with their spouse.
The Daily News featured a story about when a couple cannot afford to separate for which I was interviewed. Follow the link to read the article.
Last week’s article in the NY Times about how difficult divorce has become as a result of the housing crisis has stirred up quite a bit of debate.
The Times notes that:
In a normal economy, couples typically build equity in their homes, then divide that equity in a divorce, either after selling the house or with one partner buying out the other’s share. But after the recent boom-and-bust cycle, more couples own houses that neither spouse can afford to maintain, and that they cannot sell for what they owe. For couples already under stress, the family home has become a toxic asset.
In LadyBlog Theodora Blanchfield opines that the difficulty in liquidating the marital home is a good thing. She writes:
. . . I think any other obstacle to divorce is actually a good thing. Combine that with the housing crisis, and you might actually have people thinking twice about buying a home they can’t afford or marrying someone they’re not in love with. For being a single girl living in New York City, it might be a little Pollyanna-ish for me to say this, but when I marry, it’s going to be forever, and when I buy a house it’s going to be something I can pay off before I die.
This is a wonderfully optimistic view when entering into a marriage or even when purchasing a home. However, when marital difficulties arise or when one spouse unilaterally decides that he/she no longer wants to be married, any barrier to divorce has the effect of imprisoning the parties.
One of the commentators to Ms. Blanchfield's post best sums up the short-sightedness of her reasoning that the present economic conditions are somehow good for marriage.
When my wife decided a year ago that, after almost six fantastic years, she’d rather not be married anymore, we decided to try and fix things. It didn't work, and the housing crisis hit. Now, although we have no difficulty paying our mortgage, neither of us can afford to move out.
I thought I was marrying for forever too, and three years ago our house looked like a pretty good investment. We got a fixed rate so we were never at any risk of foreclosure. Now I am stuck living in a house with a woman who no longer loves me.
Ms. Blanchfield ignores the simple fact that barriers to divorce do not compel a couple to resume any part of the martial relationship. The obstacles merely lock the parties in a dead relationship and prevent them from moving on with their lives. The inability to sell the marital home or to untangle their finances imprisons an estranged couple under the same roof. How is this a good thing?
Last week’s article in the NY Times about how difficult divorce has become as a result of the housing crisis has stirred up quite a bit of debate.
The Times notes that:
In a normal economy, couples typically build equity in their homes, then divide that equity in a divorce, either after selling the house or with one partner buying out the other’s share. But after the recent boom-and-bust cycle, more couples own houses that neither spouse can afford to maintain, and that they cannot sell for what they owe. For couples already under stress, the family home has become a toxic asset.
In LadyBlog, Theodora Blanchfield opines that the difficulty in liquidating the marital home is a good thing. She writes:
. . . I think any other obstacle to divorce is actually a good thing. Combine that with the housing crisis, and you might actually have people thinking twice about buying a home they can’t afford or marrying someone they’re not in love with. For being a single girl living in New York City, it might be a little Pollyanna-ish for me to say this, but when I marry, it’s going to be forever, and when I buy a house it’s going to be something I can pay off before I die.
This is a wonderfully optimistic view when entering into a marriage or even when purchasing a home. However, when marital difficulties arise or when one spouse unilaterally decides that he/she no longer wants to be married, any barrier to divorce has the effect of imprisoning the parties.
One of the commentators to Mr. Blanchfield’s post best sums up the short-sightedness of her reasoning that the present economic conditions are somehow good for marriage.
When my wife decided a year ago that, after almost six fantastic years, she’d rather not be married anymore, we decided to try and fix things. It didn’t work, and the housing crisis hit. Now, although we have no difficulty paying our mortgage, neither of us can afford to move out.
I thought I was marrying for forever too, and three years ago our house looked like a pretty good investment. We got a fixed rate so we were never at any risk of foreclosure. Now I am stuck living in a house with a woman who no longer loves me.
Mr. Blanchfield ignores the simple fact that barriers to divorce do not compel a couple to resume any part of the martial relationship. The obstacles merely lock the parties in a dead relationship and prevent them from moving on with their lives. The inability to sell the marital home or to untangle their finances imprisons an estranged couple under the same roof. How is this a good thing?
Time Magazine questions, Will the Economy Kill Your Marriage?
A couple of weeks ago, I noted that as the economy worsened, my practice became busier. Time seems to confirm my observations and even offers some possible explanations for this phenomenon:
There's the lawyer theory, that money provides the soft fatty tissue that insulates the marital skeleton; once it's cut back and people get a good look at the guts of their relationship, they want out. And there's the marriage-counselor theory, that couples who were never quite on the same page in the checkbook finally get pushed off the ledger by endless bickering over their dwindling resources. And the therapist theory, that financial worries cause stress, stress can cause depression, and depression is a total connubial buzz kill.
The article notes that the recession affects the upper and middle classes differently. For the wealthy, the recession offers an opportunity to end the marriage at bargain basement prices as property will be distributed at lower valuations. The article points to the case of Summer Redstone to illustrate this point:
Sumner Redstone filed for divorce on Oct. 17, when his more than 16 million Viacom shares were at $18.85, down from $39.40 six months ago; his CBS shares had dropped about $288 million in value in the same period. . . Mrs. Redstone divorces a poorer man than she would have six weeks ago.
For the majority of the population, the principal marital assets, the 401(k) and the marital home have lost much of their value. Without equity in the marital home and encumbered by substantial credit card debt, the parties are oft left to fight about who gets stuck paying the bills. In some cases, unable to distribute the debt or sell the marital home, the estranged spouses are forced to become unwilling room-mates.
To put the recession and divorce in perspective, I am reminded of the punch-line of a bad joke –where “Pat” complains that the recession is worse than divorce. Pat, continues, “I lost half my assets but I still have my spouse.”
The other evening I had the pleasure of being on a panel to discuss the nuts and bolts of legal blogging at a continuing legal education seminar at the New York City Bar Association with three of the best bloggers out there: Kevin O’Keefe, Scott Greenfield, and Eric Turkowitz.
As Kevin noted in his blog, Real Lawyers Have Blogs:
We covered a lot of ground for the 50 plus in attendance. The program went 3 hours strong running from 6 to 9 PM. . .
We reviewed the basics of blogs, blog publishing platforms, better blogging practices, RSS and how to use it, the marketing of your blog, and little a social media.
Not missing a beat, one of the attendees, Andrew Barovick sent me a note that he blogged about a Cambodian couple who resolved their property settlement by literally dividing their marital home. In his blog, Doing Big Things, Barovick noted that
Half of the house remains on the original site, about 56 miles from Phnom Penh. The former husband has moved his half of the house off of the lot, to an undisclosed location. According to a local attorney, the splitting of the property does not constitute a legal divorce.
This is very reminiscent of the Taubs, who during the divorce, built a wall, divided their home in two and then barricaded themselves into their separate enclaves. I suppose this just proves that unique divorce solutions can be found worldwide. These neat solutions provide interesting fodder about which to blog.
Enter keywords:
