He wants me to sign a post-nup

[Family Court Strategies: When Your Partner Has BPD OR NPD Traits.]

My r/s with BPDh has been getting progressively worse over the past few months and has become intolerable because of his increasing anxiety and the always present tension. Today he told me that he doesn't have any hope and he believes that I am just using him for his money. He said that everyone in his life is just using him to get something out of him. He said that he doesn't want me to be in contact with his family, because he doesn't trust me not to trash him. He communicates very little with his family.

He said a gazillion more negative things that hurt me to the core, with a stone cold blank stare of no emotion, then he finished it off by saying that he needs to be realistic that our 15 yr marriage may not work out and that I will probably go after him for spousal support. He said that he needs to protect himself and if I want him to continue supporting me that I should think about signing a post-nuptial agreement so that I know I'll be taken care of. He said otherwise my future is uncertain. I started crying and wouldn't let him continue.

About a month ago, he looked me straight in the face and said that he doesn't love me anymore, and that he doesn't even like me. After a few personal put-downs, he left the house and didn't come back until after work the next day. He wouldn't tell me where he was "because he was afraid that I would try to find him".  The next day when he came home from work, he was carrying roses and gifts, and got down on bended knee to apologize.  He was sweet until the weekend, then back to Mr. Nasty. Every weekend from then on has been horrible when he's in the house.

Just venting. I'm reeling from his request for me to sign a post-nupt, even though I've been thinking about leaving for quite a long time. Its hard to take the leap.

[Gimme Peace]

My r/s with BPDh has been getting progressively worse over the past few months and has become intolerable because of his increasing anxiety and the always present tension. Today he told me that he doesn't have any hope and he believes that I am just using him for his money. He said that everyone in his life is just using him to get something out of him. He said that he doesn't want me to be in contact with his family, because he doesn't trust me not to trash him. He communicates very little with his family.

He said a gazillion more negative things that hurt me to the core, with a stone cold blank stare of no emotion, then he finished it off by saying that he needs to be realistic that our 15 yr marriage may not work out and that I will probably go after him for spousal support. He said that he needs to protect himself and if I want him to continue supporting me that I should think about signing a post-nuptial agreement so that I know I'll be taken care of. He said otherwise my future is uncertain. I started crying and wouldn't let him continue.

About a month ago, he looked me straight in the face and said that he doesn't love me anymore, and that he doesn't even like me. After a few personal put-downs, he left the house and didn't come back until after work the next day. He wouldn't tell me where he was "because he was afraid that I would try to find him".  The next day when he came home from work, he was carrying roses and gifts, and got down on bended knee to apologize.  He was sweet until the weekend, then back to Mr. Nasty. Every weekend from then on has been horrible when he's in the house.

Just venting. I'm reeling from his request for me to sign a post-nupt, even though I've been thinking about leaving for quite a long time. Its hard to take the leap.

[Matt]

What options do you see for yourself now?

Do you think it's an option to just wait and see, or do you want to take some steps?

The first time I considered that my marriage might end was when my wife's behavior got really extreme - violence and accusations.  I talked to a lawyer but decided not to take any steps.  At least I was able to learn in one 30-minute meeting how things basically work in my state, so I knew what paths things could take.  But at that time I didn't see a need to take any legal steps - I still had some hope for the marriage... .  

[Gimme Peace]

We have been through two lengthy separations (we lived in a different state) and the last one I filed for divorce. Reconciled a month before it would have been final. That was a year and a half ago, and here we are, right back to square one, nothing is any different except that we had a brief honeymoon period after reconciliation.  That was not easy, as I took him back

when he was seeing another woman and it took 2 weeks before he broke it off with her. Later he said that he never had a relationship with her at all, that I imagined it.

I have researched the laws concerning legal separation and divorce, and I'm sure he has too. This is a community property state so I think he's scared as he makes much more money than I do.  My adult son with disabilities lives with us (from previous marriage), and that makes it all more complicated. BPDh and I have been talking about "making other arrangements", but today was the first time he actually verbalized splitting up and having to pay me. He is financially driven and very tight with his money, so this will not go across very well. The other times we separated, I didn't ask for anything and that was one of the reasons that he was still nice to me. I know if I ask for support, he will turn very nasty very quickly.

Right now I can't support myself and my son without his help, and he knows this. He's the kind of person who will find out what you need, then do his best not to give it to you, while telling you how much he wants to help you.

[Rose1]

Don't sign a post nup. Would it actually be legally binding? Doubt it unless challenged in court anyway. He can just walk away from it. To be honest, most of us a caught by surprise. We would do much better if we were a bit more strategic and filed first, let the courts decide (for those of us who are women - often a better outcome).

After 15 years of washing his socks etc I doubt that any court would see you as just being "after his money". His behaviour is very bad though - would it be possible he is again seeing someone else? Bad behaviour often accompanies it.

Sorry you are going through this -sounds like not much hope left for the relationship.

[tog]

Don't sign anything-unless you are in a position to support yourself in a good manner and would rather not fight over money but just be done with it.

There are many people on here that are willing to fight in court for what's fair, but many others who will take less just to avoid the fight. You have to figure out what's right for you. Consult a lawyer and find out what he's likely to be told he has to pay you in court. Then make a decision whether to go for that or sign for less than that so that he feels like he "won".

PwN/BPD and money will fight to the death in court. He could end up costing you everything in legal fees and emotional stress and if it doesn't matter much to you, it might be easier to take less and move on.

JMHO.

[Gimme Peace]

After 15 years of washing his socks etc I doubt that any court would see you as just being "after his money". His behaviour is very bad though - would it be possible he is again seeing someone else? Bad behaviour often accompanies it.

Sorry you are going through this -sounds like not much hope left for the relationship.

I have suspicions that he is either seeing someone else or wants to see someone else. There is very little sex anymore and instead I'm told that I can't meet his needs. I've found electronic receipts from out of town restaurants and even a hotel receipt on the same day, when I was not there. He has not been in idealization phase for a month and a half now. Projecting his mistrust onto me a lot. We've had severe fidelity issues in the past.

The fact that he is even bringing up an endgame is a new territory. He's never talked about divorce or legal agreements before. He's looking towards the future.

I won't sign a post-nup. No way.

[Forestaken]

My uBPD+dOCD+s2bxw made me write a 3 page post-nup and sign and date it.  Next day, I wrote another letter invalidating the first, took it to a notary, and signed it.  I don't know how the courts would see any of it because:

Lucky for me, when she left, I found the first one and gave it to Mr. Shredder.

[Rose1]

   That tells us how useful they are - sounds like it might have a place in placation.

[Gimme Peace]

Well today he had a major dysphoric episode and says he has given up, but "still wants to be married". I know this is just because he doesn't want to pay support in this community property state. The end is coming.

[Forestaken]

fear of abandonment. That's it. But what they don't understand is that people don't abandon them, they push people away.  There's a difference.

My uBPD=DOCD+s2bx called her brother's wife a slut and wonders why he is bothered by that because it could be true.  When I filed, she told the kids that everyone abandons her.  She just doesn't get it and neither will he.  He will go back to his old behavior in a couple of days. no doubt

Be strong

[livednlearned]

What are your next steps? My L told me filing first is advantageous, but I think that was because custody was involved.

If you have lived with him for 15 years, there's a good chance he will have to pay you alimony for 5-7.5 years. And if you were in a state like mine, the fact he has had affairs would mean the courts would award you even more.

Because you have already filed, and did so in a way where you didn't ask for anything, I would recommend finding an L who will really fight for you. Nons tend to be self-sabotaging when it comes to divorce, and we need Ls who will not roll over and allow us to walk away destitute.

[GustheDog]

My uBPD+dOCD+s2bxw made me write a 3 page post-nup and sign and date it.  Next day, I wrote another letter invalidating the first, took it to a notary, and signed it.  I don't know how the courts would see any of it because:

Lucky for me, when she left, I found the first one and gave it to Mr. Shredder.

I'll jump in because I understand contracts (but I don't practice family law and I probably don't practice in your jurisdiction - I'm sharing general principles only), but I've never been married so I can't even begin to understand the stress this sort of situation can exert on a person.

That said, is anyone who's been asked to sign such a putative "post-nup" (HappyPlace, Forestaken, etc.) actually interested in such an arrangement?

For you, Foresaken, your second letter would have had little to no effect in the event that a court found the earlier agreement enforceable.

But that itself is unlikely because the entire notion of a "post-nup" is probably not a validly formed contract.  To be enforceable, a contract requires something called "consideration."  The simplest way to understand this is in terms of each party passing something of benefit to the other party (i.e., quid pro quo, or benefit-of-the-bargain).  Otherwise, it's just a promise to make a gift, and a promise to make a gift is *typically* revocable at the will of the donor.  The consideration involved in the initial post-marital asset-distribution arrangement (i.e., what happens to your stuff if you divorce), whether you had a pre-nup or not, was the marriage itself - you take him for life, he takes you for life, etc.  You each give up something of value and receive something of value in return (even if life with a BPD is sometimes of questionable "value".  That's consideration in a nutshell.

A post-nuptial agreement would probably be void (or voidable) for lack of consideration.  You would be modifying the original marital agreement by agreeing to give your spouse more but you would not be receiving any consideration from their side of the bargaining table.  Moreover, executing such a document because your spouse tells you that "he needs to protect himself and if I want him to continue supporting me that I should think about signing a post-nuptial agreement so that I know I'll be taken care of," could be the basis of a strong undue-influence/duress defense, which would also render the agreement unenforceable.  And that's only if it was found to be enforceable *in the first place* (which, as I noted, it probably would not be due to lack of consideration).

If I were in this situation, I would refuse to sign any such document unless I could live with the outcome AND the agreement contained:

(1) a provision explicitly stating that the writing represents the final, fully-integrated agreement for the distribution of ALL marital property; and

(2) a preamble describing the purpose of the agreement as a means to ensure a quick and efficient settlement of the marital estate.

This would be more likely to be enforceable because the consideration would be the spouse giving up their right to challenge who gets what (which, along with eliminating lengthy proceedings, is a benefit to you), and you are giving up the presumably larger share of the estate that you'd have been entitled to if you hadn't executed the "post-nup."  Ordinarily, this should be sufficient consideration.

Even so, there are still many unique reasons why this type of agreement may not be enforceable (e.g., maybe your state has a statute that holds such contracts unenforceable as against public policy).  Who knows?  Only a lawyer in your jurisdiction could tell you that.

I guess what I'm saying is: Be very careful and don't allow yourself to be bullied or emotionally blackmailed.  Once the judgment has been entered, it's done.

[ForeverDad]

I've heard that pre-nups, etc generally have to have separate lawyers involved so both parties are informed of their rights and the consequences.  Whether two people can do it on their own and have it enforceable in your state or locality is a legal question for a local family law attorney.

[GustheDog]

I've heard that pre-nups, etc generally have to have separate lawyers involved so both parties are informed of their rights and the consequences. Whether two people can do it on their own and have it enforceable in your state or locality is a legal question for a local family law attorney.

Quite likely that's the advisable route.  But anyone who signs a purported contract is subject to being hailed into court on the other party's attempt to have it enforced, and it very well could be, even if written on a napkin.

But that's the main point - don't sign, or even orally agree, to anything, especially under emotional pressure, before seeking advice from independent counsel.

[Rose1]

Hi Gusthedog - a question. I was under the impression that contracts are valid through two routes - one by offering consideration, the other by mutual agreement and witnessed signature. Is this not correct? I thought that a contract could be enforced if both parties had agreed to the terms and signed in front of witnesses.  DH's exBPDw's lawyer tried to enforce a Michigan court ordered alimony agreement (you could argue agreed to under duress as the court basically said sign or you will get sanctions) in Texas since there had been mutual agreement.

On research DH found that the agreement was reached in Michigan without the presence of a GAL which is mandatory in a person with mental illness in Michigan. The contract was therefore null and void and invalid. Didn't stop Michigan from issuing an arrest warrant. But it did stop Texas from enforcing a contract.  There was obviously some form of consideration if somewhat onesided as DH did not stand to gain anything from the contract except pauperhood which I understand may not be a desirable outcome for a lot of people. Michigan however consider it almost inevitable and a fair consequence of seeking a divorce .

[tog]

I would think that a better alternative for you would be to go to an attorney and propose a settlement that is fair (for you) or even gives him slightly more than what the court would give him, but is executed through attorneys. I can't imagine that what your H thinks is "taking care of you" will be the same as what the court thinks in that matter (knowing how pwBPD think: "I get 99%, you get 1%. Fair!"

[GustheDog]

Hi Gusthedog - a question. I was under the impression that contracts are valid through two routes - one by offering consideration, the other by mutual agreement and witnessed signature. Is this not correct? I thought that a contract could be enforced if both parties had agreed to the terms and signed in front of witnesses.

Hmm, you may be confusing a contract with terms/conditions affirmatively imposed by a court order.  As mentioned, I don't practice in this area, but, as you've illustrated here yourself, there can be considerable variation across states with respect to divorce and family law.

Anyway, a contract is just an agreement between two or more parties that is *enforceable* in court - it's one or more promises that you can *force* someone to keep (or compensate you for breaking) if it comes down to it.  With very few exceptions, all contracts require consideration.

Another prerequisite to forming a valid contract is that the parties to the contract be legally competent.  One type of legal INcompetency is mental illness (along with minors, the unborn, etc.)  A person adjudged to be mentally ill by a court lacks capacity to contract.  This is the reason for the GAL you mentioned.  

But you need more than just a mutual agreement to form a valid contract (which is necessary for validity, but not sufficient in itself).  It sounds like what you're dealing with is courts being inconsistent and not necessarily the law.  For example, if a court says: "Reach an agreement by 9 am tomorrow," and you show up at 9 am with an agreement and the court approves/enters judgment on that agreement - the terms of that court-sanctioned agreement *are* legally binding but that document is not a "contract" (note that it *could* meet all the preconditions of a contract, but need not under these circumstances).  :)oes that make sense?

And if the pressure was coming from the court, that's not duress.

DH's exBPDw's lawyer tried to enforce a Michigan court ordered alimony agreement (you could argue agreed to under duress as the court basically said sign or you will get sanctions) in Texas since there had been mutual agreement. On research DH found that the agreement was reached in Michigan without the presence of a GAL which is mandatory in a person with mental illness in Michigan. The contract was therefore null and void and invalid. Didn't stop Michigan from issuing an arrest warrant. But it did stop Texas from enforcing a contract.  There was obviously some form of consideration if somewhat onesided as DH did not stand to gain anything from the contract except pauperhood which I understand may not be a desirable outcome for a lot of people. Michigan however consider it almost inevitable and a fair consequence of seeking a divorce .

What your DH was trying to do in Texas was enforce an ORDER, not a contract.  See the difference?  The Michigan ORDER was void and unenforceable (in TX) because, in the Texas court's view, the Michigan court erred when it entered judgment in the absence of the GAL's oversight (i.e., the TX court was saying MI failed to follow its own rules).  In issuing the arrest warrant, a Michigan judge apparently disagreed.  This has less to do with the underlying document and more to do with courts of different states reaching different conclusions about the legal effect of the failure to have the GAL included in the settlement discussions.

[Matt]

I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is, that in divorce cases, the divorce itself can be considered "consideration".

What I mean is, if both parties desire to end the marriage, and if they agree on terms for ending the marriage, and sign the papers, then each party is getting something out of it, even if one party ends up with every penny, and 100% sole custody (both of which are very rare).

Even in that extreme case, where one party wins on every issue, if both parties sign the papers, then both are getting something they have chosen - an end to the marriage.  Otherwise, presumably - except in the case of mental illness or duress by somebody other than the court - they wouldn't sign it.

In another example, if I sign papers promising my kids $1 each on their birthdays, and they promise nothing in return, then that's a pure gift, and there is consideration for them ($1 each) but no consideration for me.  But if I sign papers giving my wife all our money and property, and sole custody of the kids, and when she signs and the judge signs, the marriage is ended, we both get consideration - she gets the money, the stuff, the kids, and an end to the marriage, and I get an end to the marriage.  Not equal, maybe not fair, but it is (if I understand correctly) consideration for both parties.

With pre-nups and post-nups, my understanding is that there is always consideration for both parties - an attorney would be negligent to let his client sign an unenforceable agreement! - even if one party gets all the stuff.  Because both parties, presumably, have an interest in continuing the marriage for some period of time, and the purpose of a pre-nup or post-nup is to enable them to be married, under terms they're both OK with.  So if both parties want to get married, and agree to the terms of that marriage, then they get consideration - marriage - plus maybe one or both of them get money and stuff, which is further consideration.  In the case of a post-nup, they're already married, but presumably they have agreed that it's best for them both to have some financial stuff settled - maybe they think it will let them both sleep at night - so even though the financial considerations may favor one party or the other, they both are getting something from it - a way forward for the marriage.

[GustheDog]

I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is, that in divorce cases, the divorce itself can be considered "consideration".

What I mean is, if both parties desire to end the marriage, and if they agree on terms for ending the marriage, and sign the papers, then each party is getting something out of it, even if one party ends up with every penny, and 100% sole custody (both of which are very rare).

Even in that extreme case, where one party wins on every issue, if both parties sign the papers, then both are getting something they have chosen - an end to the marriage.  Otherwise, presumably - except in the case of mental illness or duress by somebody other than the court - they wouldn't sign it.

In another example, if I sign papers promising my kids $1 each on their birthdays, and they promise nothing in return, then that's a pure gift, and there is consideration for them ($1 each) but no consideration for me.  But if I sign papers giving my wife all our money and property, and sole custody of the kids, and when she signs and the judge signs, the marriage is ended, we both get consideration - she gets the money, the stuff, the kids, and an end to the marriage, and I get an end to the marriage.  Not equal, maybe not fair, but it is (if I understand correctly) consideration for both parties.

With pre-nups and post-nups, my understanding is that there is always consideration for both parties - an attorney would be negligent to let his client sign an unenforceable agreement! - even if one party gets all the stuff.  Because both parties, presumably, have an interest in continuing the marriage for some period of time, and the purpose of a pre-nup or post-nup is to enable them to be married, under terms they're both OK with.  So if both parties want to get married, and agree to the terms of that marriage, then they get consideration - marriage - plus maybe one or both of them get money and stuff, which is further consideration.  In the case of a post-nup, they're already married, but presumably they have agreed that it's best for them both to have some financial stuff settled - maybe they think it will let them both sleep at night - so even though the financial considerations may favor one party or the other, they both are getting something from it - a way forward for the marriage.

I think you're probably right, Matt.  I'd still put up a fight on that issue if the agreement was terribly one-sided, though.

Anyway, back to what you were saying - courts can find consideration in funny places.  In commercial agreements, for example, courts often allow subsequent modifications to the original K (e.g., 500 widgets this month instead of 750) by finding consideration in each party relinquishing their right to enforce the *previous* agreement.

Or, as to your kids, you're right - no consideration in that example.  But if you said you'd pay them $100/mo. if they promise never to date a pwBPD, theoretically this is a valid K.  Forbearance of a legal right or privilege - here, to date a pwBPD - usually suffices as consideration.

I didn't think about that angle, but, yeah, the consideration of a post-nup is "freedom."

[Matt]

I did have the experience of signing an agreement, and then getting out of it, without too much trouble... .  

After we separated, I was very upset, and hoping to save the marriage.  I consulted an attorney, but didn't retain him, even after my wife filed for divorce.  I kept thinking we could fix things.

Without fully realizing what I was doing - not because I wasn't able to understand, but because I was so upset - I signed an agreement for custody, which gave my wife primary custody, and me every-other-weekend.  Later, our marriage counselor told me about BPD, and that she believed my wife had it.

I told my lawyer, who asked what kind of custody settlement I thought would be best, and we decided to file a motion for a Custody Evaluator, to see if I could get primary custody.  But I had already signed that away!

So I said, "But that was before I knew my wife was mentally ill."  And my lawyer said, "Exactly."  She told my wife's attorney, "There is new information which is relevant to the kids' best interest - the marriage counselor advised my client that Ms. Matt probably has a mental illness, so we want to get a diagnosis, so the court can take that huge factor into account."  My wife's attorney fought it briefly, but then gave in, because (my lawyer told me) if the issue went before the judge, the court would rule in our favor.

So... .  the agreement I had signed in good faith was set aside, because of relevant new information.

But I think that only happened because, in a custody fight, what's at issue is not fairness to the parties, but rather the best interests of the kids.  Setting aside that agreement wasn't very "fair" to my wife, but it was in the kids' best interests... .  

(The Custody Evaluator diagnosed my wife with BPD and other stuff, and we settled on 50/50, which has morphed into primary custody for me.  A good outcome, mostly.)

[GustheDog]

I did have the experience of signing an agreement, and then getting out of it, without too much trouble... .  

After we separated, I was very upset, and hoping to save the marriage.  I consulted an attorney, but didn't retain him, even after my wife filed for divorce.  I kept thinking we could fix things.

Without fully realizing what I was doing - not because I wasn't able to understand, but because I was so upset - I signed an agreement for custody, which gave my wife primary custody, and me every-other-weekend.  Later, our marriage counselor told me about BPD, and that she believed my wife had it.

I told my lawyer, who asked what kind of custody settlement I thought would be best, and we decided to file a motion for a Custody Evaluator, to see if I could get primary custody.  But I had already signed that away!

So I said, "But that was before I knew my wife was mentally ill."  And my lawyer said, "Exactly."  She told my wife's attorney, "There is new information which is relevant to the kids' best interest - the marriage counselor advised my client that Ms. Matt probably has a mental illness, so we want to get a diagnosis, so the court can take that huge factor into account."  My wife's attorney fought it briefly, but then gave in, because (my lawyer told me) if the issue went before the judge, the court would rule in our favor.

So... .  the agreement I had signed in good faith was set aside, because of relevant new information.

But I think that only happened because, in a custody fight, what's at issue is not fairness to the parties, but rather the best interests of the kids.  Setting aside that agreement wasn't very "fair" to my wife, but it was in the kids' best interests... .  

(The Custody Evaluator diagnosed my wife with BPD and other stuff, and we settled on 50/50, which has morphed into primary custody for me.  A good outcome, mostly.)

I enjoy hearing stories like this.  Glad the system seemed to work for you, at least in this instance.

Although, in addition to the fact that you signed before you knew she had BPD, you also said yourself that you signed "[w]ithout fully realizing what [you] were doing."  That in itself is a defense to formation.  Any mental defect or impediment in place at the time the contract is executed that would prevent a party from thinking through things as a reasonably prudent person would can arguably void a contract. . . Arguably.

[Rose1]

Thanks GustheDog - gives some insight. I was required to understand contract law but in a commercial sense and also in Australia - as an accountant and not a lawyer, and there may also be slight differences between us.  Also we used to refer the hard stuff to the lawyers.

I understand the concept of capacity - this is why I was so surprised that Michigan did not comply with their own laws (which we found out about later). At the time it was very strange that all lawyers and the judge kept the "mental illness" thing very quiet - at least in public. DH was warned not to bring it up otherwise it would be even worse for him than it already was.  It was a very strange situation - rushed in some ways, delayed in others, threatened, rulings that contravened local authority laws and just learn to deal with it, deliberately go through accounts and make a temporary ruling that is guaranteed to go to bankruptcy (it's only temporary, you can manage - went for 4 years). One of the most bizarre things I have ever seen (from a distance) and seemed to me at least to contravene a whole lot more than just a few laws. There was conflict of interest as well (that one I do know about  ), collusion amongst the lawyers and judge and mediator - etc etc.  The arrest warrant is still in place despite DH speaking to the lawyer for the Michigan family court (go figure why they would need one). He was told it seemed he had a case against his exw and sue. He suggested he had a case against Michigan and was told that any attempts to take Michigan to court under constitutional right infringement would be very strongly defended and counter charged.

In the end it was all too hard and he got what he wanted by moving to Texas and by Texas agreeing that the ruling was not binding, and by leaving the country.  Waste of time and money to do anything about it and we have no pressing need to visit Michigan. BTW his exw's lawyer was going to go for it under contract law, which he then dropped on further investigation.

It was certainly an education and I still don't understand some of the stuff the judge did - it's almost like they were all in collusion to milk the party with the money - far be it for me to be cynical. We did see a lot of complaints in the net - that particular judge and court especially. Nothing was done with the best interest of the child in mind - DH had custody but insufficient funds to provide for him. Even a query as to leaving some funds for emergency medical stuff - DSS had broken his leg, was just brushed off - you manage, W needs alimony, you need to pay for her and for your residence, you need to repair the residence so it can be sold, she doesn't have to do anything despite malicious damage, no financial retribution for that and identity fraud, no time given to pursue the bank for fraudulently allowing her to open credit cards in his name, just cash in your KRA and pay it by next week.  Anytime there was a dissent or request for time, or a comment by DH regarding the unfairness of the arrangement he was further threatened with court action, contempt and jail.  His exw was also in contempt repeated but was dealt with either by ignoring it or getting DH to cough up more or try and talk sense to her. Eventually judge changed the divorce to a separation so exw could have his healthcare. It was truly the biggest travesty I have ever seen.

Oh well, it worked out in his favour - going to Texas was great, Ex's lawyer ended up confirming his story to the judge, judge did the divorce on the spot, no alimony awarded as he was out of work and had already been separated for 4 years and paid. Plus the separation ruling backfired as it allowed him to change jurisdiction. Arrest warrant was issued well after the divorce was final in Texas, listed him as a deadbeat dad (no child support ever levied, only alimony - Michigan lumps them together so State department is interested) and sent a wanted poster to members of his family and other acquaintances. That backfired too as all he got was offers of support. It was all very stressful at the time but 4 years later, starts to have a funny side.

The lesson is - if you are male, keep in mind the old country and western song "All my exes live in Texas" and get out of Dodge (Michigan) asap. 

[GustheDog]

The lesson is - if you are male, keep in mind the old country and western song "All my exes live in Texas" and get out of Dodge (Michigan) asap. 

That is all some rather complex litigation for one little divorce!  Sheesh.

That's interesting about how you felt the Michigan courts were biased.  I actually attended law school at Michigan - never heard any horror stories about the state courts, though.  Maybe I just wasn't listening.

[ForeverDad]

At the time it was very strange that all lawyers and the judge kept the "mental illness" thing very quiet - at least in public. DH was warned not to bring it up otherwise it would be even worse for him than it already was.

Hoping this isn't too muck of a diversion from the topic at hand... .  the "mental illness" thing is a two-edged sword, it can hurt or help depending on the situation and whether it would be misused.  Mentioning mental illness can hurt in that you can be accused of mud-slinging, or worse, be told to pay more or longer alimony for a supposedly disabled person.  It can help - maybe - if the other parent is seen as abusive or neglectful but typically behaviors have to be extraordinarily extreme to attain that threshhold.  (My son's GAL recently listed a long list of ex's poor behaviors yet still wanted to make only very minimal changes in my favor but changes which would make my life even more complicated, just one issue being increased in-person exchanges, another is moving parenting time around as a 'fix' but seeming designed for non-custodial parent to continue receiving child support.)

[Rose1]

Yes it is FD - he was told clearly that if mental illness was raised the state would see him liable for her for life as opposed to social security. In fact at one point judge suggested social security to her as giving her more money than alimony. Exw said no "wanted exh to pay" and judge just awarded life time alimony. DH was told that in Michigan if the woman asks she gets. No correspondence will be entered into.

This seems bizarre given the nature of life today - women are no longer kept creatures. But apparently Michigan law is such that this is still the case - no idea if that is true or was used to browbeat. DH's lawyer was supposed to be best for high conflict and caved in, made deals behind his back with the judge. Of course she told him she had no choice because of Michigan law.

His exw was told to get a job and told the judge face to face she didn't want to get one. Judge told her she works at age 65 and to get a job. Ex had no intention of doing that and didn't look - no contempt of court. Nothing touched her, nothing was held against her although the court records show she vandalised the house to the tune of $10000, charged $40k to fraudulent credit cards in DH's name, refused to allow realtor to show the property, refused to sign anything etc etc.  Eventually realtor had her thrown out of the property and DH who was living in a trailer with son was allowed to move back in so he could fix it up on his negative income.  In the meantime his trailer was made available for exw to use - since she didn't want to take it to a trailer park she was ordered to put it at the bottom of the garden. Local authority laws said no connection to services. Judge said, go the the YWCA for showers. Like that was going to work. When the toilet filled up, she locked it in mid winter, took the key and hightailed it to mother. Left the van with bags of rubbish, full cistern, no key. DH towed it to Texas and spent days cleaning it out once everything thawed out.

Like I said, move to Texas.