As many know, I practice divorce law. I also recently watched the red pill documentary on Hulu - definitely worth the watch, although it addresses the MRA side as its primary focus. Some of the stories got me thinking about the financial inequality in many cases working against men - even more than what I'd previously believed (though for reasons beyond what's explained in the documentary).

So, I decided to try an experiment in court and my client was on board. Rather than just explaining, I'll make it fun and give you an abbreviated approximation of the transcript.

RELEVANT STATUTES

As background, the law in my state specifically says: "Each spouse shall be considered to have contributed equally to the production and acquisition of marital property." Now, at first glance this looks like it shouldn't affect spousal support, but the spousal support section has the following two among other factors: (1) " The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage," and (2) "The relative assets and liabilities of the parties, including but not limited to any court-ordered payments by the parties." Because the equal contribution law so heavily ties into these factors, it is imputed in our case law as a spousal support rationale as well.

Our case law also specifically says that a primary purpose of spousal support is to equalize the standard of living of the parties. Because of the equal contribution presumption, the court must assume that the value of the wife's house work is equal to the husband's financial contribution.

Other jurisdictions may not have parallel laws, but for those that do, track with me. Even if you don't, the principles might still apply.

THE HEARING

Within that statutory framework, I was handling a textbook case - guy's the breadwinner for 22 years, wife stayed at home and took care of the kids (not at issue because the youngest will be 18 in a few months). I had my client (guy) on the stand and coached him to try this new line of testimony for the first time ...

  • Q: Do you agree with Ohio's equal contribution law that this court should presume your wife's contribution to your joint standard of living was comparable to yours?

  • A: No [I let him explain why for a bit, since the presumption is technically rebuttable]

  • Q: Do you understand that the court has the ability to make a decision under the statutory framework regardless of everything you've said? [This question could have ticked off the judge, but it was worth the risk to set the stage.]

  • A: Yes

  • Q: Under that framework, what do you believe would be an appropriate allocation of support?

  • A: Well, if both of our contributions are considered equal, then to maintain both of our standards of living, I should give her 50% of my paycheck after the divorce just like I historically did during the marriage, which would be $4,748.55 per month ... and she should come over everyday and do all of my housework, laundry, cooking, etc., just like she historically did during the marriage.

  • Q: Now, legally the court can't compel behavioural performance, as that would be too akin to forced labor. So, what alternative do you suggest?

  • A: Well, if after the divorce she doesn't have to maintain her contribution to the marriage, i shouldn't have to either - at least to the same value as her contribution. So, if our contributions are deemed equal by law, then if she doesn't have to contribute X value in service, I shouldn't have to contribute X value in financial support. By making me pay any support, that would be an acknowledgement that our contributions to the marriage were not equal.

  • Q: And if the court decides to proceed on the presumption of unequal contribution? [Hand out an exhibit and have it marked]

  • A: I prepared this document [he authenticates it] demonstrating the variety of services she performed during the marriage and how much it would cost me to pay someone else to do these things, and relevant classified ads as proof of the market rate.

  • Q: And what is the significance here?

  • A: I'm expected to work to the same degree as before and now also to do everything around the house that she used to do, so I'm doing my job and hers. She won't likely be expected to work given her years out of work and her age, so she'll just have to take care of her house and collect my check - her job but not mine. So, to even the lifestyle balance I should get a discount in support by the cost for me to get that housework done, otherwise our lifestyles wouldn't be equal. [We then calculated that difference and proposed a new number that equated to around an 85/15 split of the joint income, other factors involved too.]

The judge (female) let out an audible "Huh" with a bewildered tone like she'd never thought about that before.

THE RESULT

Result? My county has almost never deviated from their 50/50 to 55/45 split range (one of the worst in the US). In this case the judge did a 67/33 split in my client's favor, which is unprecedented.

My interpretation is that if she went too much more in my client's favor she couldn't justify it against historical case law and would get reversed on appeal. So, she found a middle ground that would preclude reversal, given that there are other counties in my state that will do a 65/35, so it's not totally beyond historical precedent in other jurisdictions in my state.

This isn't necessarily a groundbreaking argument (and it's far from perfect), but this judge had clearly never considered it before - and it may have just changed how she allocates support in other cases going forward, giving the other judges a precedent to follow in her footsteps as well.

Conclusion? Maybe you can't get a prefect result, but a novel argument (at least from your judge's perspective) can go a long way with appropriate documentation to back up the math. This is the best result I've seen from any argument yet (other factors notwithstanding). Don't give up hope.