The threshold of "bothering"

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cool river

New member
(disclaimer; certain details may have been fudged to help maintain some privacy)

This is a quote from Tayken in the thread entitled "ex is holding my property hostage." My questions are below.

"The threshold of bothering should be what it would cost you to fight it out in court (265-800$/hour) versus the actual value of the "stuff".

A motion is a good 3 days of legal billing... Do the math... Is the stuff worth that much to fight over?

....

Don't fight over even 50,000$ in Family Court... The cost to get the 50,000$ is usually 0$ once the lawyers bills are paid."


This sounds like great advice. BUT what do you do when the issue is not something that will be finalized (like property division) but when it's about ongoing support amounts.

My ex is self-represented. It costs him/her nothing to quibble over piddly things. It costs me a lot because I have a lawyer. No chance of me self-representing. My choices are to give in to what he/she wants, on an ongoing basis ("settle" over and over again), or fight back about the piddly amounts on the off chance that maybe my ex will be reprimanded for unnecessary litigation or ordered to pay costs (either that or we’ll both be deemed crazy and high-conflict), or maybe stop doing it in the future because it was too stressful and I put up a fight. I just want it to be settled—it was supposed to have been settled already. Where do I draw the line? What works best with high-conflict people? Any general advice? (PS, i have read Splitting by William Eddy. It doesn’t really deal with how to make a choice about how to decide whether to fight, just how to fight).
 
Two Words: "Maintenance Enforcement".

Get the final order to the hands of the local enforcement authority (FRO or equivalent) and then call it a day.

If the ex routinely battles over section 7 or similar, simply get a motion in place to include an estimated amount each year, or stop asking for them to contribute.

That way if they want to adjust the support amounts, they either have to be reasonable about it and show all the required stuff (which then would be an on consent filing), OR be stupid and go to court. As long as YOU asked for the required info and were refused, just make sure you ask for costs every single time.

Eventually the courts will get tired of it and start making the other party pay your fees. Your other recourse is to get them deemed a "vexatious litigant" and make it so they need the leave of the court to file any motions. This is very hard to do, but start gathering your evidence. :D
 
cool river said:
This sounds like great advice. BUT what do you do when the issue is not something that will be finalized (like property division) but when it's about ongoing support amounts.
Click to expand...

You can apply a similar formula to the "emotional cost" of dealing with it as well. Is the level of stress and possible therapy after you get the right numbers worth the 150$/hour of therapy that you will need to get over it?

Your lost time in court, your lost time sending emails, your lost time with your child debating it.

Penny wise... Pound foolish. Your emotional well being should be as important as your financial well being. Keep them balanced.

My ex is self-represented. It costs him/her nothing to quibble over piddly things. It costs me a lot because I have a lawyer. No chance of me self-representing.[/quote]

What does your lawyer tell you? A good lawyer will tell you when to cut your losses. Again, balance your emotional cost and financial cost together and see of the financial gain is really worth it to deal with.

Now, a gross imbalance on support payments... Something worth dealing with but, again.

250/hour lawyer for 21 hours = 5250 (not including HST)
5250/increase in support per month (say 250$)= 21 months to recoup loss through support increase.
150/hour for therapy from the conflict for 10 hours = 1500 (not including HST)

Your net loss on the action to increase support is -71.42 for 21 months.

One would question if it is really worth the battle?

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
Question for you; What kind of 'on-going support amounts' issue are you dealing with that would require litigation to take place? FRO will enforce the CS amount that is in the Final Order but year to year the CS amount changes.
What my husband does is determine the adj. amount at Income Tax time and send his ex the adj amount for the year. In 2011 for example the month adj. amount was $60/month so he sent his ex a cheque for $720 which covered the adj. amount for the year. This is on top of what FRO gives the ex per month.

Cheers, Fam Law
 
NBDad: all the court ordered provisions are being followed. Here's an example of the kind of crap that's going on: think of the discussion that's taken place here on this forum about simple offset amount for a payor being divided in two--that it makes more sense. He/she is finding reasons to satisfiy him/her self that there's been a material change of circumstance, and now arguing that we should be applying the "rules" in a different way--e.g., half offset. (S)he's goals are to either convince me that they're right, or convince the Court, or convince the SYstem that the system is wrong. I'm the easiest target so he/she is trying that first. Tayken's thoughts on "emotional cost" are right on the money--so I'll have to go study that more. So if you have any further thoughts on that line, that would be great.
 
Dear Fam Law: yes if only it were so easy as that. He/she wants to challenge/create conflict. See my post to NB dad with an example of the kind of crap i'm getting from the other end. We already have a court order in place and it's being followed, but it's no longer "good enough" for him/her.
 
From Tayken: "You can apply a similar formula to the "emotional cost" of dealing with it as well. Is the level of stress and possible therapy after you get the right numbers worth the 150$/hour of therapy that you will need to get over it?...keep them balanced...what does your lawyer say?"

Right on. There's an emotional cost to not fighting and to fighting. There's a possibility that spending 20K on a whole bunch of trivialities might be worth it if it shuts him/her up for the long term--not finanicially, probalby, but emotionally. Because I'm concerned that the more I give in, the more he/she will come back for more. Lots of evidence of that.

RE: lawyer: I switched lawyers. So don't have an answer yet. But yes, have gotten an opinion about when to give in, about other stuff, so I'll make sure I get the assessment from this new one. I have a suspicion that it's going to be "go for it" simply because it's an ongoing payment.

Can I send you a private message so I can give more details? (not sure how to send a private message.). Perhaps your experience with all sorts of litigation stupidity will be able to shed some more light? Whatever you like.
 
cool river said:
From Tayken: "You can apply a similar formula to the "emotional cost" of dealing with it as well. Is the level of stress and possible therapy after you get the right numbers worth the 150$/hour of therapy that you will need to get over it?...keep them balanced...what does your lawyer say?"

Right on. There's an emotional cost to not fighting and to fighting. There's a possibility that spending 20K on a whole bunch of trivialities might be worth it if it shuts him/her up for the long term--not finanicially, probalby, but emotionally. Because I'm concerned that the more I give in, the more he/she will come back for more. Lots of evidence of that.

RE: lawyer: I switched lawyers. So don't have an answer yet. But yes, have gotten an opinion about when to give in, about other stuff, so I'll make sure I get the assessment from this new one. I have a suspicion that it's going to be "go for it" simply because it's an ongoing payment.

Can I send you a private message so I can give more details? (not sure how to send a private message.). Perhaps your experience with all sorts of litigation stupidity will be able to shed some more light? Whatever you like.
Click to expand...

Going to warn you about lawyer shopping... The other party is counting how many lawyers you change. They will raise the issue with the judge. There is a little known "truism" about litigants that change lawyers too much... They are generally high-conflict. Be very careful that you don't swap lawyers too much.

Don't try to anticipate what the other party or lawyer in the litigation is going to do. It will drive you nuts.
 
^ I had 3 lawyers in total. And EX's lawyer DID point that out once. First one was a mistake. Very "new" and actually said "just sign this/that - everybody lies - don't you want this to just go away?" Second one was great but had his plate full and no legal assistant - I know he was relieved when I told him I was switching lawyers. He's a great guy. We still talk on occasion. The 3rd one was an excellent Family Lawyer with 3 decades of experience and was a better "fit" for my case.

I can look back now though and see that I was in a total panic at the beginning. I likely was not very "fun" to deal with, largely due to the fact that I was petrified and had no idea of the legal process.

Hindsight is 20/20. Easy to see now there's a long list of things I should have done differently. I would have saved money AND emotional expense. Sanity and mental/emotional well-being is far more important than anything else. I feel that litigation and the stress of it affects everything including of course, our ability to be the best parent that we can be.
 
Last edited:
cool river said:
...My ex is self-represented. It costs him/her nothing to quibble over piddly things. It costs me a lot because I have a lawyer....
Click to expand...

Just a comment on that.

I am self represented, my ex is on her 3rd lawyer.

It may not cost me money, but it costs me a lot of time and a lot of stress. I would never quibble over piddly things using the legal system. I wish I could afford to pay a lawyer - that would be easier than self representing and less stressful.

If my ex was forced to self represent, we would have a final agreement in place by now. She would not quibble over piddly things (she also would not make things up (aka lie) as much I believe as I think her lawyer indirectly encourages misrepresenting the truth).

That being said, I will defend myself when being wronged, and because I have no lawyer fees to pay, I won't feel like I'm being taxed for my ex's unreasonable actions. But I would never undertake action for something unless I thought I could win and that it was worth it - there is a big cost of fighting even if I have no lawyer to pay.
 
Billm: yes there's certainly a time and stress cost to pay. But my ex has loads of time, and is channeling all their stress into anger against me. I'm glad you have the perspective about not fighting over piddly things. That would be so much easier.
 
I had to change lawyers. Last one didn't have time for me (waited weeks and even months for responses) and didn't know what was going on, the day before an "urgent" court date instigated by my ex. That was pretty stressful. First one was too new to go to court but worked well for me for the non-court stuff. I need someone experienced and that knows what's going on, now that there are court motions against me and the distinct possibility of court (again) to actually *get* divorced.
 
May_May said:
billm-Have you always self-represented ? or did you start with lawyers and then switch ?
Click to expand...

I phoned many lawyers, interviewed 3, picked 1.

I gave him 3K as a retainer, talked to him for an hour or so.

I have always represented myself though, which my ex's lawyer had a hard time letting go of - she kept wanting to talk to my lawyer, but my lawyer was not representing me, I just wanted him in case I felt I needed him.

That was about four years ago (yes, I'm still not divorced!). My lawyer gave me back about $1300 recently because I had not used him in years.

We have split all our assets, and I pay support, and we have a minimal agreement signed. I have given my ex a SA that I wrote (starting with a kit), which my lawyer said was the most comprehensive SA he had ever seen and said it was fine (my ex's lawyer wants me to pay her half the cost for her to write another - no thanks).

So I'm waiting for my ex at this point.

My ex has filed an application in the last 6 months asking for over 100K back support and adjustment to equalization. I responded, we went to a case conference. Recently she has said she just wants more SS moving forward - so that shows how valid the 100K claim was.

I came to this forum a long time ago and realized that many people start with a lawyer, spend a bunch of money, and then when they are out of money, they self represent.

I decided to skip the run out of money part and represent myself - though I have not been to court. If I went to court I would represent myself though.

I have learned alot here and I have all my ducks lined up - in answering the application and making the conference briefs I have already put together all my facts and statements - its mostly just cut and paste from here on in.

Its really hard to stomach paying someone $450/hour!! (the lawyer I picked). Also, I know all the detail way better anyway, and due to my profession I'm good at documentation, math, and reasoning.
 
Thanks for the info billm...I'm so far removed, and have so little experience with the legal system, I fear I'd be eaten alive.

I have been successful in my profession because I am verbal, factual, detailed, analytical, and not afraid of conflict. Everyday I have to provide 'proof' of all tasks so it's easy for me to get my head around providing factual versus 'guesstimates'. HOWEVER...I am not so successful in my personal life as far as the separation goes, continuing with some of these traits due to my lack of 'expertise' in this area. I'm at least aware of it, and using a lawyer.

I am doing as you did, I am very detailed/factual...so when I presented my financials, and the errors I found in my exes financials, it was all provided in a tabbed binder. My financials have each 'item' numbered, and backup/proof information on that numbered tab. Including a table of contents on one page broken down by pre-marital (debts, assets), and marital (debts, assets), and date of separation (debts, assets).

I did the same with my exes (the little he provided, which isn't enough) and started with his, a number beside each one that was in error, and a table of contents, and numbered tabs with proof of the errors.

My lawyer and her assistant were very complimentary, and impressed with the level of detail, even asking in some instances how I found some of the 'proof' to counter some of my exes 'guesses'. It has saved me many many many hours of charges from the lawyers office as it was clearly organized and detailed.

I hope that after the main parts of this are over, the confidence comes, and any continuing actions I could deal with on my own after the divorce is final. You guys/gals are awesome here for sharing all of your experiences, knowledge, and thoughts...it gives me hope I might be able to master my way through this eventually !

Cheers...
 
cool river said:
NBDad: all the court ordered provisions are being followed. Here's an example of the kind of crap that's going on: think of the discussion that's taken place here on this forum about simple offset amount for a payor being divided in two--that it makes more sense. He/she is finding reasons to satisfiy him/her self that there's been a material change of circumstance, and now arguing that we should be applying the "rules" in a different way--e.g., half offset. (S)he's goals are to either convince me that they're right, or convince the Court, or convince the SYstem that the system is wrong. I'm the easiest target so he/she is trying that first. Tayken's thoughts on "emotional cost" are right on the money--so I'll have to go study that more. So if you have any further thoughts on that line, that would be great.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting they are trying to half the offset. This has been done but, only at a smaller level and the decision would be hard to leverage possibly. If you are the one seeking to do the 50% of the offset split it is going to be a hard battle and not worth the cost to fight it.
 
Penny wise... Pound foolish. Your emotional well being should be as important as your financial well being. Keep them balanced.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with this statement more - and along the way has been a constant reminder of the true cost of divorce. It is everything we lose in our lives as we strive to defend "our rights" or achieve what we feel is justification or "what is morally right. I shall admit I have fallen off the emotional scale it has stopped hurting but it has at least allowed me to understand all this has nothing to do with the truth, only what you have more than 55% chance of proving. There is no fair, there is no vindication there is not even... (OK. This I admit I am still working on because all I have seen is hurt and pain.)

Why do I post here I think has to do with some of the things that have been brought up like petty, a litigant that just will never stop no matter the cost and will continue to come up and forever be a thorn on our side and I feel this to be true and we have not even started yet. Is there ever a full unquestionable trust in the council of your opponent? - Never. How about in our our lawyer? I would say a healthy never but a good lawyer will say No and a smart litigant must always weigh their position (thank you hadenough for filling in a small hole in my "do i have it figured out" - I think my answer is no so to be smart you must keep your eyes wide open).

So I have worked so hard at figuring out the truth as it occurred right under my nose, but my lawyer wisely pointed out that the only truth in family court is the pone in which we can prove. But what do you do when one takes this all to heart - documents and statements back up all and then what comes back is a (I made three colour categories BS, Big BS and finally Really Big BS x 10) There was not much uncloured paper but there was some, her name, we were married and a few other "details").

So what do you do with a party that has not one foot to stand on so tries to all things which have no proof, a lawyer that is willing to work with issues that have nothing to do with no fault divorce - he should know this. But yes I am negligent for having bad knees for some twenty years and I required surgery when it finally popped 3 years ago.

Like may_may I to have a background in technical admin it is too bad that today I can barely get the papers in the folder! I accept this, also that it took many (10) months to find, figure organize and understand what I had - Ex's reply - her lawyer accepted lies, unsubstantiated claims with no proof to back up any claim in her reply (thank you for warning me) to copy everything I could find - including her issues. A week earlier, I will admit for obvious reasons that my Doctor asked me to sign myself into the hospital then 8 days 24/7 to reply to her crap, had a lawyer that first couldn't believe but was impressed with what I had to back up the "truth to the dollar". I am emotionally spent, beyond exhausted and sit here thinking what other choice do I have - if I don't do for me nobody else will, my life and future with at least a little bit of dignity depends on it.

So for me I return to Tayken's wise statement penny wise pound foolish - I believe. I believe that my circumstance - I won't get to work two jobs to work my way out of a "bad" settlement. So I do have a delimma - the the truth that can be backed up with records, her access card for the removal of 40K in just a few weeks comes to mind..... and there are a half dozen or so issues that meeets the lawyers prerequisite of I know where it physically is today.

Thanks for gettting this far - My delemma is the lawyer - the only one I could find has the trait of saying one thing and then another - how long it woould take support to commence - first it was three months, then a couple more, then no I can't bring SS up on a case conference - I told him I can't survive on, I can't even plan on your changing - upping every time when you knew if you haven't put anything before the court yet as you had said 5 months ago - I am running out of everything while you give me stories. I know I will know my case more than any lawyer, but is it right to half to supply the same folder of information to back up a claim and actually insert it into the paperwork? there is another dozen examples and I just do not know what to do.

I have tried so hard to be "not a difficult", as it turns out, Applicant (with a smile, like our 20 year partnership she relied on me to get IT done - so this is her request and..... but to hear from his sole assisstant that she will not touch my file anymore as "it is too complicated??" WTF? - I know he has tried very hard to keep my costs down but now $300 an hour for every item that normally would be deferred at no cost is now typed by a $300/hour lawyer - How can he keep his billables in check now? Explains why I sit there as he types and farts around with the computer - at least his assisstant was honest when I asked her. Somewhat at a loss - I just am loosing faith in "the truth"?
 
Tayken said:
Are you suggesting they are trying to half the offset. This has been done but, only at a smaller level and the decision would be hard to leverage possibly. If you are the one seeking to do the 50% of the offset split it is going to be a hard battle and not worth the cost to fight it.
Click to expand...


No, not actually. It's an example of the kind of stuff that's being thrown my way (asking me to pony up). Stuff that's not been proven in court, that might make sense, given a certain logic, but that is not standard. My ex is convinced he/she is right. No, it might not worth it for someone represented by a lawyer to seek these things. But it doesn't hurt ex financially to go to court, being self-represented. He/she is demanding several different things like this--all related to home-made calculations for ongoing payments. And it's up to me to do it his/her way...or fight in court. (As I mentioned before, i'm trying to not give away too many facts because there's a high chance ex is lurking in here.)
 
cool river said:
No, not actually. It's an example of the kind of stuff that's being thrown my way (asking me to pony up). Stuff that's not been proven in court, that might make sense, given a certain logic, but that is not standard. My ex is convinced he/she is right. No, it might not worth it for someone represented by a lawyer to seek these things. But it doesn't hurt ex financially to go to court, being self-represented. He/she is demanding several different things like this--all related to home-made calculations for ongoing payments. And it's up to me to do it his/her way...or fight in court. (As I mentioned before, i'm trying to not give away too many facts because there's a high chance ex is lurking in here.)
Click to expand...

FYI - the offset method is not reasonable - its just done because the legal system is not very good at math.

Shared access (50/50) should result in CS that is somewhere between offset and half offset.
 
cool river said:
No, not actually. It's an example of the kind of stuff that's being thrown my way (asking me to pony up). Stuff that's not been proven in court, that might make sense, given a certain logic, but that is not standard. My ex is convinced he/she is right. No, it might not worth it for someone represented by a lawyer to seek these things. But it doesn't hurt ex financially to go to court, being self-represented. He/she is demanding several different things like this--all related to home-made calculations for ongoing payments. And it's up to me to do it his/her way...or fight in court. (As I mentioned before, i'm trying to not give away too many facts because there's a high chance ex is lurking in here.)
Click to expand...

The court will award costs against unrepresented litigants. They have as much obligation as anyone to know the law and understand it. There is some flexibility but, not if the other party is being absurd with their requests or their litigation of the other party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top