What Can Happen When You Stop Steering the Process
This post is not about why my divorce happened. It isn’t about my ex-wife, personal conflict, or assigning blame. It is also not a critique of the legal system or our attorneys.
This post is about the divorce process—specifically how divorce process problems can drift away from common sense, how attorney incentives can unintentionally drive outcomes, and what I learned (expensively) about the importance of staying actively involved rather than assuming the professionals will naturally steer things toward the most efficient resolution.
If you are facing a divorce, or even just contemplating one, my hope is that this gives you a clearer understanding of what to watch for and how you can protect yourself.
Background: When the Divorce Process Becomes the Problem
My divorce took place in Minnesota and followed what initially appeared to be a straightforward path. We had been married a long time, there were no minor children involved, and the division of property was uncomplicated. Minnesota law is clear about community property and the circumstances under which spousal support is appropriate. Given our long marriage and the differences between our incomes she was entitled to support.
Planning
Before starting the process, I sat down with an attorney and walked through the process and likely outcomes. Minnesota is a community property state so everything would be split evenly. In Minnesota, support is calculated by starting with reasonable expenses (a budget) and subtracting her income, from investments and potential employment. If her income does not cover her budget then support should fill the gap. The “potential employment” is an important qualification. That means what the spouse is capable of earning based on education and experience, not what they are currently earning. We estimated spousal support based on realistic living expenses and earning capacity. The number we arrived at was reasonable, manageable, and consistent with the law. Given that foundation, I expected a relatively quick resolution.
The Process Started
With what I thought was a reasonable plan in place, I started the process. Because we thought that we could settle in a couple of months, my attorney did not file anything with the court. That gave us more flexibility, but in the end, it cost me.
I brought my ex-wife into the attorney’s office so that he could explain the process to her. After explaining the process, he was very clear that she needed her own representation and recommended an attorney in the area. At the time, I thought that was generous of him. I’m sure that he recommended a qualified attorney but his choice contributed to what happened next.
My expectation of a smooth, uncomplicated process unraveled almost immediately once opposing counsel became involved.
The property division was never the issue. It was resolved early and without much friction. Just a couple of back and forth messages about how much a car was worth, etc.
The problem became spousal support. The initial support demand that came back bore little resemblance to what my attorney and I had estimated or to my actual financial reality. The first support demand exceeded my take-home pay and was over 4 times our estimate. I was voluntarily paying her temporary support that was about 30% greater than our estimate. They wanted more but I refused.
It seemed like the opposing council was playing with a different set of rules. The initial budget they presented was anything but reasonable and completely different from her actual expenses. When it came to the income side, my ex was working at a job that she enjoyed but was very much underemployed.
Process Grind
From there, the process turned into a months long back-and-forth involving lawyers, outside professionals, and increasingly large legal bills. At one point our lawyers suggested mediation similar to what the court would have required. We tried it and it was a total waste of time. Her attorney focused on my income, which was not relevant. The only positive from the session was that my ex-wife agreed to a job capability assessment.
What made this especially frustrating is that nothing fundamentally changed during those middle months. No new facts emerged. No legal principles shifted. Yet costs continued to mount while progress remained elusive.
One aspect that I did not realize was that because we had not filed anything with the court, the valuation of assets was never frozen. If we had filed, the asset values used for the split would have been frozen as of the filing date. Because we took so long the value of assets like my 401(K) went up significantly, and it was eventually split evenly.
Settlement
Eventually, after many months and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the matter was resolved not in a courtroom, but during negotiations that lasted only a few hours. The opposing council decided that they wanted to go to court to demand that the judge set the temporary support payment.
At the same time I was tired of paying legal bills. I was not seeing any progress and the thought of what it would cost to go to court pushed me over the edge. I told my attorney that I wanted to have a settlement conference, which is a meeting between the couple and their attorneys to negotiate a settlement. He suggested that we wait a little bit longer because, prior to going to court, he could depose my ex-wife. The deposition allowed him to question her, under oath. Anything she said would be admissible in court. He was confident that he could finally get the information we needed to close things out.
On the day of the deposition, my ex and her attorney showed up along with a court reporter. But instead of starting the deposition, her attorney made us a settlement offer. The offer was for half of the property plus a one-time payment that covered support. I ran the numbers, and the one time payment was very close to what I would have paid in support through retirement. We countered with a slightly lower payment and arrived at a final number. My attorney wrote up a settlement agreement, and by the next day we had a signed agreement. He presented it to a judge who signed it and we were done.
Conclusion
The final support amount ended up almost exactly where we thought it would land at the very beginning. By the time everything was finalized, the divorce had cost over $42,000 in legal bills.
Going into the process my ex-wife and I were still talking. Once the opposing council got involved, all communication became adversarial and combative. Before the start of the process I had a very good relationship with my in-laws. By the time we were done those relationships were destroyed. Since then, my ex-wife and I have reached the point where we are friendly to each other. When we host family get togethers with my daughter and her family, my ex is invited and often attends.
What I Would Do Differently
Looking back, there are several things I would change—not because the outcome was unfair, but because the path to that outcome was unnecessarily expensive and draining.
First, I would insist on an early settlement conference with both attorneys and both parties present. I would want the attorneys to explain, together, how the law applies and what realistic boundaries look like before any serious negotiation begins. Shared understanding matters. When each party hears things separately, optimism and fear can grow unchecked.
Second, I would set a firm deadline for resolution and make it clear that if no agreement were reached by that point, formal court filings would follow. Filing is not about escalating conflict; it establishes structure. It sets valuation dates, limits uncertainty, and prevents the process from drifting endlessly while bills accumulate.
Third, in a situation like mine, I would decline voluntary mediation. Mediation can be valuable in many cases, but here it added cost without moving the needle. When the legal framework is clear and the disagreement is narrow, mediation can become an expensive detour rather than a shortcut.
Finally, I would insist that each party independently select legal representation. Even the perception of attorney-to-attorney alignment can influence how aggressively a case is pursued and how long it drags on. Independence and clarity of incentives matter.
Lessons Learned
In hindsight, most of the damage did not come from the divorce itself, but from divorce process problems that compounded over time while no one was responsible for slowing things down.
One of the most important lessons I took away is that attorneys are hired to protect legal interests—not to optimize the overall financial outcome for both parties combined. There is no built-in incentive for anyone in the process to say, “This fight isn’t worth the cost.” If clients do not ask that question themselves, it often goes unasked.
Another lesson is that legal costs are rarely weighed against the settlement itself. In my case, after months of negotiation and staggering expense, we ended up very close to where we started—minus tens of thousands of dollars that went to attorneys rather than either party.
Most importantly, I learned that hiring professionals does not mean you can disengage from the process. Clients who do not understand how decisions affect timing, leverage, and cost often pay far more than they expect, even when the final outcome looks reasonable on paper.
Final Thoughts
My ex-wife and I are on good terms today, and this experience is not something I carry with resentment. It was educational—just far more expensive than it needed to be.
Divorce is difficult enough on its own. When the process itself becomes the most damaging element, something has gone wrong.
If you stay informed, insist on transparency, and actively manage the structure of the process—not just the emotions surrounding it—you dramatically increase the odds of arriving at a fair outcome without unnecessary financial and emotional damage.
That, ultimately, is what I wish I had understood at the beginning.
