How much does a contested divorce actually cost?

[Anonymous]

My divorce in MD was contested and cost about $200,000 for the first settlement (split about 50/50). After he stopped paying alimony and child support, I had to spend another $40,000 to go back to court and have his salary garnished. I was not working at the time, so the attorney fees came out of our joint assets. I had to pay for the entire $40k when we went back to court. Initial settlement would have been 50/50, but he spent down our assets maliciously while we were separated, so I got about 70% of the remaining assets, including 100% of our IRAs. I think this was very unusual, and the high costs were related to his high income level and the complexities of the case.

[Anonymous]

How old are your kids, especially the youngest? I'm guessing that if you've been married twenty years, the youngest is at least in high school and child support won't last for long.

There's really no reason to hire a lawyer and waste money that could go to you and the kids on that. Just offer 50/50 split of marital assets and child custody, assuming at least one of your kids is still under the age of 18.

Things you'll need to spell out in addition to the above: College expenses for kids, who carries them on health insurance, who claims them for taxes, whether you can afford a house that is big enough for all that are still at home, extraordinary expenses like special camps and travel sport teams, and so on.

Once you file for divorce, he can't actually stop you from going through with it. So, you don't need a lawyer to make him comply. In DC, you can use the mediators they have on staff and they are incredibly competent and helpful. This is what I did in my divorce even though we could have afforded to pay lawyers. (I'm a lawyer myself.) I just got a feel for what is the standard settlement and worked from there. You need to put some thought into things like how you want to handle holidays and schedules for when the kids are with you or him. Make sure to give yourself a full two weeks in the summers for times you want to vacation with them. My sister failed to do this and her ex would constantly block her ability to travel by asserting his every other weekend rights. Also, be careful about dividing vehicles. If you owe a balance on a vehicle, make arrangements for it to be paid off before it is allocated to you, unless you're fine with making the payments yourself.

My current partner got screwed by the Maryland courts in his divorce. They awarded the ex wife who had been a SAHM with their two kids half of all of his assets, not just what he'd earned during the marriage. Be careful to avoid that by drawing up clear financial documents for the court to review.

Child support is based on a formula in DC, but it tops out at about $150K or so, which doesn't provide much guidance to middle class families. MD might be the same. I don't know how it works when one spouse how no income history though.

You'd be wise to consider getting yourself a job before filing anything. You'll have to do this anyhow, but it will be harder when you're on your own. Use family assets to pay for any credentials or training you might need ASAP.

[Anonymous]

OP sounds like a martyr.

You didn't 'need' to step off your job track so your DH could focus on his. You wanted to; you and he may have decided together it would make your overall lives easier. You benefited from you staying home, because you just didn't have to work as much, be as busy, and hustle as much as if you had stayed working. Men and women work full time all the time with kids. Staying home and working PT is an unnecessary luxury.

Second, your DH can handle 50% schedule. You are not the only person on planet earth who can meet your teenage children's needs. Given your 20 year marriage, why would any of your children need a nanny?? Even if they did, why is this a reason for your DH to not get 50/50? Nannies and childcare are fine; tons of people augment raising their kids with outsourcing.

Move past thinking of yourself as the martyr, the only good parent, the one who deserves money and children.

Accept 50/50 and save yourself $100k. And move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds like a martyr.

You didn't 'need' to step off your job track so your DH could focus on his. You wanted to; you and he may have decided together it would make your overall lives easier. You benefited from you staying home, because you just didn't have to work as much, be as busy, and hustle as much as if you had stayed working. Men and women work full time all the time with kids. Staying home and working PT is an unnecessary luxury.

Second, your DH can handle 50% schedule. You are not the only person on planet earth who can meet your teenage children's needs. Given your 20 year marriage, why would any of your children need a nanny?? Even if they did, why is this a reason for your DH to not get 50/50? Nannies and childcare are fine; tons of people augment raising their kids with outsourcing.

Move past thinking of yourself as the martyr, the only good parent, the one who deserves money and children.

Accept 50/50 and save yourself $100k. And move on.

You act like the partner who is working doesn't benefit from having a SAHP. Which is completely insane. I would have loved to be the bread winner but my earning potential was not very high. I would much rather work 10 hours a day, come home to a clean house, cooked meal, rarely do laundry and just get to enjoy my kids like my partner does. I would love to not bear the brunt of 99% of our SN kid's issues. I would love to be able to accept invitations for happy hours or dinners without thinking about it because my partner is our rock, keeping the family together. You all act like working FT with a SAH spouse is soooo hard. No, it's a wonderful luxury to be able to focus on your career too. We both chose a lower-stress life where we each sacrifice and we each benefit. If you don't see it as a team, you shouldn't be married and you absolutely shouldn't have kids.

[Anonymous]

Recently got divorced in Maryland and it cost me about 5K total. I initiated the divorce by filing with the court myself (I am not a lawyer, anyone can do this), xspouse didn't want it and hired expensive lawyers to fight me, I hired a reasonable priced lawyer and told them to just get it done asap. Not dragging out the fight (and expense) was worth giving up some of the things I wanted. In the end we mostly split kids and assets 50/50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds like a martyr.

You didn't 'need' to step off your job track so your DH could focus on his. You wanted to; you and he may have decided together it would make your overall lives easier. You benefited from you staying home, because you just didn't have to work as much, be as busy, and hustle as much as if you had stayed working. Men and women work full time all the time with kids. Staying home and working PT is an unnecessary luxury.

Second, your DH can handle 50% schedule. You are not the only person on planet earth who can meet your teenage children's needs. Given your 20 year marriage, why would any of your children need a nanny?? Even if they did, why is this a reason for your DH to not get 50/50? Nannies and childcare are fine; tons of people augment raising their kids with outsourcing.

Move past thinking of yourself as the martyr, the only good parent, the one who deserves money and children.

Accept 50/50 and save yourself $100k. And move on.

You act like the partner who is working doesn't benefit from having a SAHP. Which is completely insane. I would have loved to be the bread winner but my earning potential was not very high. I would much rather work 10 hours a day, come home to a clean house, cooked meal, rarely do laundry and just get to enjoy my kids like my partner does. I would love to not bear the brunt of 99% of our SN kid's issues. I would love to be able to accept invitations for happy hours or dinners without thinking about it because my partner is our rock, keeping the family together. You all act like working FT with a SAH spouse is soooo hard. No, it's a wonderful luxury to be able to focus on your career too. We both chose a lower-stress life where we each sacrifice and we each benefit. If you don't see it as a team, you shouldn't be married and you absolutely shouldn't have kids.

I didn't say the working partner didn't also benefit from having an easier life. They both benefit from having an easier life. But women who lean out of work need to stop saying that the only reason they did that was to support their spouse's career. That's just not true. You did it so that you and your spouse could have less stress. SAHMs need to stop acting like they don't benefit from staying home. If they didn't benefit, women would never choose to stay home and put themselves in a financially precarious position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mine cost me about $36K. We did not litigate. It was an abusive marriage. He did not want custody of a young child (too much work and would impinge on his earning) and there was negative information about him that he did not want made public.

Why did it cost this much with all that he was trying to guard against? How long did it take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds like a martyr.

You didn't 'need' to step off your job track so your DH could focus on his. You wanted to; you and he may have decided together it would make your overall lives easier. You benefited from you staying home, because you just didn't have to work as much, be as busy, and hustle as much as if you had stayed working. Men and women work full time all the time with kids. Staying home and working PT is an unnecessary luxury.

Second, your DH can handle 50% schedule. You are not the only person on planet earth who can meet your teenage children's needs. Given your 20 year marriage, why would any of your children need a nanny?? Even if they did, why is this a reason for your DH to not get 50/50? Nannies and childcare are fine; tons of people augment raising their kids with outsourcing.

Move past thinking of yourself as the martyr, the only good parent, the one who deserves money and children.

Accept 50/50 and save yourself $100k. And move on.

You act like the partner who is working doesn't benefit from having a SAHP. Which is completely insane. I would have loved to be the bread winner but my earning potential was not very high. I would much rather work 10 hours a day, come home to a clean house, cooked meal, rarely do laundry and just get to enjoy my kids like my partner does. I would love to not bear the brunt of 99% of our SN kid's issues. I would love to be able to accept invitations for happy hours or dinners without thinking about it because my partner is our rock, keeping the family together. You all act like working FT with a SAH spouse is soooo hard. No, it's a wonderful luxury to be able to focus on your career too. We both chose a lower-stress life where we each sacrifice and we each benefit. If you don't see it as a team, you shouldn't be married and you absolutely shouldn't have kids.

You could have hired a nanny and housekeeper and gone back to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$250k in Maryland so far. I have no idea what ex-w has paid but it's less than that. Her only offer was 0/100, but in the end I got 50/50 kids and assets but had to fight over ever bit of it.

A friend of mine had a divorce in Maryland just like OP's. The legal fees were not very expensive because he offered her a huge bribe--an upfront settlement plus generous child support and alimony--to accept 50-50. His lawyer told her lawyer, "take it or leave it, if you don't accept this generous offer we'll spend the next two years in court." He got to keep the house, and paid her half of the equity, and they stayed out of court.

It was interesting that she was willing to "sell off" time with her children for cash. When the kids got older they chose to only live with their dad.

If she gave him full custody, it would be selling off the kids. Women demand 100% custody for the child support.

This. My ex could care less about having the kids with her and in fact they lived with me all week and she took them to dinner when she decided to stay in town. She only wanted the child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand women that make pennies and have 3 kids. Why wouldn't you want to hold onto that money if you could?

I would think about it another way. How bad must things be that a woman with 3 kids and little financial security is looking to divorce rather than sucking it up and staying?

+1
So much judgement here for the woman wanting to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine cost me about $36K. We did not litigate. It was an abusive marriage. He did not want custody of a young child (too much work and would impinge on his earning) and there was negative information about him that he did not want made public.

Why did it cost this much with all that he was trying to guard against? How long did it take?

Because lawyers are expensive AF.

[Anonymous]

Why do people contest if it is in most states almost 50% / 50% split.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$250k in Maryland so far. I have no idea what ex-w has paid but it's less than that. Her only offer was 0/100, but in the end I got 50/50 kids and assets but had to fight over ever bit of it.

A friend of mine had a divorce in Maryland just like OP's. The legal fees were not very expensive because he offered her a huge bribe--an upfront settlement plus generous child support and alimony--to accept 50-50. His lawyer told her lawyer, "take it or leave it, if you don't accept this generous offer we'll spend the next two years in court." He got to keep the house, and paid her half of the equity, and they stayed out of court.

It was interesting that she was willing to "sell off" time with her children for cash. When the kids got older they chose to only live with their dad.

This is a very weird post. The law says (barring special cases) that custody and assets are to be split 50-50. So your divorce was expensive because your wife was demanding more than the law provides, not because of some kind of special circumstances. In your friends case, the opening offer was not a “bribe” but was a reasonable offer based on what a judge would decide. The mom in that scenario did not “sell off” her kids for cash. She accepted an offer on custody and assets that reflected what a judge would decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$250k in Maryland so far. I have no idea what ex-w has paid but it's less than that. Her only offer was 0/100, but in the end I got 50/50 kids and assets but had to fight over ever bit of it.

A friend of mine had a divorce in Maryland just like OP's. The legal fees were not very expensive because he offered her a huge bribe--an upfront settlement plus generous child support and alimony--to accept 50-50. His lawyer told her lawyer, "take it or leave it, if you don't accept this generous offer we'll spend the next two years in court." He got to keep the house, and paid her half of the equity, and they stayed out of court.

It was interesting that she was willing to "sell off" time with her children for cash. When the kids got older they chose to only live with their dad.

This is a very weird post. The law says (barring special cases) that custody and assets are to be split 50-50. So your divorce was expensive because your wife was demanding more than the law provides, not because of some kind of special circumstances. In your friends case, the opening offer was not a “bribe” but was a reasonable offer based on what a judge would decide. The mom in that scenario did not “sell off” her kids for cash. She accepted an offer on custody and assets that reflected what a judge would decide.

In Maryland (which everyone in this reply chain is talking about), assets are not "to be split 50-50." Maryland is an "equitable distribution" state, which means the judge can distribute assets in any way they think is fair. That may normally be 50-50, but there's nothing in Maryland law that says there needs to be a 50-50 split. Likewise, there's no law in Maryland that says custody has to be split 50-50. Instead, like many states, Maryland courts decide custody matters based on the "best interests" of the child. Again, the best interests of the child might be a 50-50 split, but it might not.

You're not wrong that the court outcome is likely to be a 50-50 split unless there are special circumstances, and that an expensive fight that results in a 50-50 split probably would have resulted in a 50-50 split without an expensive fight. But that's not because the law (in Maryland) requires a 50-50 split.

Sources:
https://www.peoples-law.org/property-disposition-divorce
https://www.peoples-law.org/child-custody-maryland

[Anonymous]

Lawyers or not, it will most likely to be 50/50. Judge will get tired of the games.