Although it certainly sounds nice (as well as being an optimal outcome in any marital dissolution), the answer to the above-posed headline query in today's blog post basically answers itself, given the unique considerations that exist in every divorce.
Some divorces in Minnesota and nationally are prominently marked by civility and transparency.
A divorce commentator in a recent Forbes article duly notes that, while "money is only a part of the overall equation" operative during the divorce process and following dissolution, it is certainly on the "A" list of top considerations.
This blog post is about interesting information on the so-called "new rising class" and the implications for divorce cases. It is probably fairly safe to say that any reader of today's entry is not one of the reportedly 492 billionaires living in the United States. That wealth threshold spells the tiniest gateway through which, collectively considered, an infinitesimal number of uber-rich Americans squeeze through.
Here is a central bottom line embraced by a family law columnist recently in a nationally penned article focused upon high-earning women who are considering a divorce: Get legal help.
It might seem a bit cynical to note, but media masters of course love the recent tidbits flowing out in the spiking chatter surrounding the entertainment super couple often termed "Brangelina."
A legal commentator in a CNN article written some time ago points to a number of material -- and recurrent -- mistakes he has seen committed by impending ex-partners in high-asset divorce cases. He notes that "almost all of [them] can be prevented with good legal counsel."
Experienced family law practitioners have been working with diverse nuclear families for many years.
"[D]ashed on the rocks of reality."
Here was the rub for many Minnesota advocates seeking change to state law addressing post-divorce spousal maintenance payments: their belief that their ex-spouses receiving alimony while cohabiting with financially contributing new partners would not remarry to avoid the risk that incoming payments would be legally cut off by virtue of that event.