Divorce attorneys reveal the craziest settlement calls for

A $20 million divorce unraveled over a paltry $49 toaster oven.

In one other case, a girl had a tanning mattress moved out of her marital dwelling and into her lodge room mid-divorce — to maintain up appearances, clearly.

Then there was the person who tried to say a sofa. Not for consolation, however as a result of it was the place his spouse had caught him dishonest together with his mistress.

These requests will not be outliers; they’re fairly widespread. And divorce attorneys say the extra insignificant and unusual the ask, normally, the extra emotional and contentious the cut up.

“The most common fights I see are over stupid, inexpensive items,” divorce legal professional Paul Talbert advised The Post. “Spouses will get into these knock-down, drag-out arguments over old mugs, pots and pans, cheap dining room tables, and couches worth next to nothing.”

While divorce stays a defining power in American life, greater than 1.8 million individuals split in 2023 alone — attorneys say that many settlements grow to be one thing else totally.

A closing battle for management, resentment, manipulation or revenge.

Hanging framed within the convention room of his New York workplace, an indication reminds divorce lawyer James Sexton’s purchasers, “It’s not about the pasta,” a reference to one of the most iconic lines within the Bravo-verse. In his observe, Sexton says that’s what divorce settlements boil right down to.

“It’s very often not about pasta,” Sexton advised The Post. “It’s about the thing under the thing.”

Trivial treasures

A yellowed sixth-grade yearbook that had been accumulating mud in a submitting cupboard grew to become the focus of heated letter exchanges after it “disappeared,” Sarah Jacobs, a New Jersey-based divorce legal professional, advised The Post.

Jacobs even recalled a consumer’s dispute over a “beloved wooden spoon,” allegedly a household heirloom — that nobody used.

For some, the justification is sensible — why purchase one thing once more? But, in actuality, attorneys say, the disputes hardly ever contain cash.

“At one point, we were debating the value of a half-full bottle of dish soap that was left under the kitchen sink,” divorce legal professional Nicole Sodoma advised The Post of a memorable case.

“I often find it’s not about the object — it’s about what it represents, or the outsized importance it takes on when your sense of fairness is being challenged.”

Lifestyle clashes

Sometimes the requests are about preserving a way of life that the wedding enabled.

Attorneys describe purchasers combating to retain entry to non-public jet memberships, airline factors, and even nation membership bonds — perks tied to a way of life that, by definition, is ending.

In some instances, the battle turns into about shared areas as an alternative.

“I’ve had people include provisions that their ex can’t go to a certain restaurant ever again,” Sexton mentioned. “It’s a place they used to go together — and the thinking is, ‘I don’t want to see you there if I still go.’”

Pets as pawns

In many divorces, pets grow to be the central level of emotional warfare.

“I once had a multi-millionaire guy worth about $400 million in my conference room, look me in the eye, and he said, ‘The dog is the ball,’” mentioned Sexton.

Other attorneys have seen related dynamics play out. In one case, a pair spent extra time testifying over the possession of a small field turtle they discovered whereas tenting than they did dividing the belongings of their horses, which have been price over $1 million.

Brian Mayer, a household regulation legal professional in California, advised The Post of a settlement by which each events would moderately have custody of the golden retriever than their kids.

That emotional weight has led to an increase in so-called “petnups” — agreements that decide animal custody preparations earlier than battle escalates.

“Pets are no longer considered mere property,” mentioned Debra Hamilton, a mediator and principal at Hamilton Law and Mediation PLLC. “They are family members, companions and emotional anchors.”

Control freakouts

Lawyers agree that almost all of those asks, albeit excessive, normally boil down to manage. Or the final alternative to inflict ache on a former companion, with requests starting from banning an ex from sure social areas to dictating future relationships.

“I’ve seen people try to impose restrictions on new dating partners, even requiring approval after a certain period of proving monogamous dating with that new partner,” mentioned Sodoma.

Sexton has seen equally excessive provisions.

“You’re never allowed to discuss me with your cousin, or you have to take down every photo of us from social media,” he mentioned.

At instances, the aim isn’t decision — it’s disruption.

Duane Cocker, a household legal professional in Washington, advised The Post of a pair who fought over a $40 shelf from Walmart. It grew to become the ultimate sticking level within the divorce — not due to its worth, however as a result of, as he put it, one partner “wasn’t done fighting.”

The different wished it for a special purpose: to burn it.

Why does it occur?

For individuals going by a cut up, generally the intention is solely to throw a grenade and watch what occurs, and generally it’s merely about delaying the inevitable.

The habits is definitely not that stunning, some specialists say. Divorce, significantly contentious ones, may be the final alternative to exert leverage over somebody who as soon as mattered deeply.

“Relationships often end with the same passion they began,” mentioned Sexton. “If you don’t have children together, then as soon as the papers are signed, this is over,” he provides.

‘Chump factor’

“I often see divorce negotiations become intensely focused on relatively small items or accounts that don’t materially affect the outcome,” mentioned Katherine Miller, lawyer and writer of “The Emotionally Savvy Divorce: Smart Negotiations for a Clean Break.”

She describes the phenomenon because the “chump factor” — the worry of trying just like the one who bought taken benefit of. Once that’s in play, individuals fixate on a selected merchandise, not due to its worth, however due to what giving it up appears to say.

From the skin, it appears irrational. In actuality, it’s about recognition, id, and never desirous to really feel just like the “one who lost.”