When a couple finally reaching a divorce settlement in a relatively peaceful manner, get caught up with greed, they experience its wrath and it eventually costs them more in the long run. When greed is involved no one wins except maybe for the lawyers who are involved.
Harry and Sally:
Harry and Sally were married for 15 years. They had 3 children and eventually moved from The United States to Israel after their first child was born. Before they were married, Sally came from a wealthy family and Harry came from humble means.
Sometime during their years living in Israel, Sally decided to become a more liberal modern orthodox Jew; where as Harry followed a more strict code. As a result, their marriage grew apart. There were several problems that marriage therapy could not solve and as a result they decided to peacefully dissolve the marriage. They verbally agreed to the terms of a divorce settlement which included full joint custody of their 3 children and an even split of the equity of their dwelling.
After only three meetings, without going to court, their lawyers drew up a tentative agreement. They also had agreed to schedule one additional meeting to finalize and sign the agreed upon divorce settlement. Before the final meeting took place, Sally’s lawyer called Harry’s lawyer to reschedule the meeting.
It was at that time when Sally’s greedy mother got involved. She decided that Harry should not receive anything from the property that her daughter and son in law owned. Within the following week, Sally sued Harry in Family Court requesting full ownership of their apartment. She felt that Harry should not receive any equity in the property because she felt that the property was primarily purchased using her family’s money. Sally had also filed a second lawsuit requesting full sole custody of their 3 children as well as an absurd amount of money for alimony. She based her claim on the fact that she stated that her husband, Harry, had been an absent and abusive father during the last ten years of their marriage.
These claims are not uncommon in divorce cases. Judges are fully aware that exaggerations and false claims usually arise during a messy divorce. During the court proceedings, the Judge asked Sally directly that if he were to give her full ownership of the property, would she sign the agreement to have joint custody of the 3 children.
Not surprisingly, she immediately answered yes before her lawyer could stop her. This was the answer that the Judge was looking for to determine that Sally was more interested in the money then the welfare of her children. The Judge then asked both parties to go out of the courtroom and try to reach an agreement.
They did not reach an agreement and was granted a 15 day extension to allow both parties to negotiate one.
Agreement:
After only a few days, they reached a mutual agreement which is as followed;
The property will be divided unequally, 60% for Sally and 40% for Harry,
The property would be sold by the lawyers and the money divided as stated above.
A symbolic child support amount of $350 per month would be paid by Harry and they agreed on full joint custody of the 3 children.
The Judge accepted this agreement stating that it was the best solution for the children. But in fact, it was the best deal for the lawyers and a not so good deal for their clients.
Let’s look at the facts of the case:
Sally’s mother had previously given her daughter a down payment of $100,000 as a gift for the couple to purchase a $600,000 apartment in Israel. The couple had taken out a mortgage of $500,000. The couple equally paid the mortgage for the past 12 years out of their joint income. The apartment was sold for $720,000.
Since the Judge had appointed both lawyers as liquidators of the asset. They were paid 1.5% each (out of the price of the property). Additionally the VAT was paid (a total of $26,000),
Sally had to pay an additional $8,000 for lawyer’s fees for her 2 court cases.
$720,000 (sale of apartment) – $300,000 (the remaining mortgage) – $13,000 (half of liquidator’s fees) – $8,000 (extra lawyer’s fees) = $399,000 x 60% =
Sally received $239,000 dollars.
If Sally’s mother did not get involved she would have received
$720,000 – $300,000 (the remaining mortgage) –$2,000 (original lawyer’s fees) = 418,000 x 50% =
Sally would have received $209,000 dollars
A total of $30,000 dollars less than the actual agreement. It would appear that it was the right move for Sally but if you take into consideration what happened next, it really was not.
Sally foolishly spent most of the $239,000 almost immediately and her mother refused to give her any more money. After being forced to sell their apartment, Sally was forced to rent an apartment for $1000 per month. She was receiving $350 per month for child support for her 3 children from Harry, but she could not make ends meet at the end of each month.
The relationship with the children deteriorated with all the fighting. The children eventually rebelled against both parents. Both parents blamed each for the demise in the relationship with the children. As a result, Sally decided to re-open the custody case and ask for sole custody. This cost her another small fortune and put her into debt.
The results of this case are typical
Good for the lawyers, bad for the clients and tragic for the children!
The moral of the story:
Human Nature has no limits on greed. It seems like the wealthier people are, the more they desire.
But, if you are a caring giving person, good things will happen to you. Good deeds always generate more good deeds.
