Yes indeed. Some years ago, I worked in the IT department of a law firm with a very high-end matrimonial law department. They basically wouldn’t accept a client without a net worth at a minimum of eight digits, and they had quite a few clients with nine or ten-digit net worths.
Or, of course, spouses of such individuals. Because then they could get legal fees as part of the settlement.
It was really only the billionaires (or their soon-to-be-ex spouses) who would go to trial, because the stakes were high enough to make the astronomical legal fees a worthwhile investment.
Northern Piper, I missed this story when you told it last May. I hope your lawyer friend and his worthy opponent billed accordingly!
I don't think a lot of people realize that for we plebes, the guidelines for how a judge is to rule in a dissolution case are highly formulated, at least in California. The judges run software based on the income and expense data, the length of the marriage, how many kids, etc. This approach ensures there are not wild variations for similar circumstances of divorcing couples. Most of the time, the outcomes are quite predictable in everything except visitation schedules, no matter what the attorneys argue.
Most of the time.
The more things change, the more things stay the same! That’s how they did justice back in Old Testament days! Was this judge’s name Solomon by any chance?
Story I heard: Litigants fought over the allocation of a large-ish financial account. They both wanted it all, of course. The judge ended up dividing it half-and-half. What a surprise. They could have done that themselves without going to court.
Then the parties’ lawyers each sent their respective clients a bill, each for half the amount of that account.
Yes, same in Canada - there’s a table for child support - your income, spouse’s income, number of children… Most courts will absent a compelling reason award joint custody - i.e. “you both have a say, you figure it out.”
Some clever lawyer go her knickers in a twist seeing that when she received child support, it was considered her income. Usually, this was good - it was an income transfer usually to the lower-earning spouse, less net tax. But the court agreed with her (it’s the children’s, not yours) so now all child support is after-tax payments.
And, of course, all existing child support agreements were affected.
Not to mention the fellow who got filthy rich long after the divorce, the wife went back for much higher support. and won.
Most communal property is just that - absent a (reasonable) prenup property used communally, except sometimes family small company shares and inheritances, is split 50-50.
The firm for which I used to work (mentioned a few posts upthread) had a case like that. Can’t say the name, of course, but an aging entertainer, long past his prime, got divorced. Everything was worked out, done, final.
But then said aging entertainer had an unexpected career resurgence, and made a ton of money. The now ex-wife came back for another bite at the apple.
She lost. She got nothing.
I’m not a lawyer - I was an IT drone at this firm - so I can’t comment on the law or the legal reasoning. But the lawyers involved all said she never had a shot, she was ill-advised by her lawyer, who told her she should go for it, and presumably billed her quite a bit.
A firm I worked at in Canada had a round of layoffs many many moons ago, so they offered a sweetened retirement deal to allow some people to decide on retirement. However, Canada has a requirement that pensions are communal property, so for a few “lucky” souls, the offer had to include contacting the ex years after the divorce and telling her that she was entitled to extra, even though her expected share had been bought out.
Mine almost did, literally up to the last minute. The ex was demanding money that I didn’t feel she was entitled to, and I was fighting it all the way, and also for custody of the child. It got to the point that she was being served with whatever the hell it is that people are served with when they are going to trial – a summons, I guess, – when I decided to call it off. It turned out to be too late to stop the actual serving of the paperwork, but my lawyer told her to just ignore it, it wasn’t happening.
In the end, it was a great decision. Neither of us spent all that much on lawyers’ fees, she dropped her demand, and we agreed on joint custody. My son lived with me for a number of years, and with her for many more, with free visitation back and forth whenever he felt like it. Over the years we (the ex and I) developed a very close and amicable relationship. Divorces are terrible things, but if it had to happen, it couldn’t have turned out better. In retrospect, I think we were both being hot-headed at the beginning. And amicable decisions made between reasonable people are always infinitely better than court-ordered arbitration.