Watch the Video
Read the Video Transcript
Typically, when you’re dealing with high asset cases, you have a fairly complex, or can have a fairly complex marital balance sheet, i.e., identification of what all assets the parties have. And when you get into the upper stratosphere of the higher net worth cases, they’re probably involved in perhaps a closely held business, they may have certain private investments, they may have deferred comp or executive comp that has some complexities to it. So the most typical thing you’re dealing with is trying to understand what the assets are, and then you get into issues of valuation. If you’re dealing with a business, you’re more likely going to have to hire a valuation expert who can assign a value to that. There may be tax implications associated with the various assets.
All of these things go into trying to assess the balance sheet and make sure you understand what it is you’re dividing. Another issue that we commonly run into is what I would say a perception when it comes to these types of cases. And that really depends on which side of the case you’re on. If you have the moneyed spouse, so to speak, there’s a perception that the person who created the wealth is largely responsible for that and it would be fair and equitable that they would keep the lion’s share of that. Whereas on the other side, you have a spouse who perhaps didn’t work. Maybe they were a homemaker, maybe they didn’t participate in the active creation of the wealth. But does that suggest that their non-economic contributions are less valuable than the economic contributions? So if you have the non-moneyed spouse, you’re typically up against this perception that if there’s enough money there, you don’t really need half, you just need enough. Which does create this debate of what’s more valuable, economic or non-economic contributions. And I’ve obviously been on both sides of the issue.