state? = Montana
Wife wants to use a mediator to avoid attorney costs. Just beginning divorce proceedings; not filed yet; and I'm just learning and trying to get help as divorce was unexpected: she wants it, saying we no longer match. No kids involved: settlement is just about assets division and possible alimony (from her to me).
I know mediation is a good thing but I'm worried that no matter how unbiased, mediator may be sweet-talked to side more in her interests? Because wife is way better at that than I. Wife comes off as VERY sweet and is also a trained talker - therapist - persuasive; whereas I'm quiet unassertive type. She went thru an ugly bitter divorce 10 years ago (against an Attorney) and now likely to be VERY assertive after the previous one.
I believe that I could simply not sign mediation agreement if I didn't agree with it?, but more likely just get railroaded or guilt tripped if I was to do that. Like, "you agreed to mediation".
I'm 53; together 9 years; wife earns 250k-gross per year while I took early retirement a year ago. So now she will continue her 250k job while I am unemployed/ no income and no (small) pension till age 60. I am wanting her to keep our couple nice properties plus her business property, worth vicinity of 1-million equity; and just want a fair financial division otherwise, such as at least 50-50 of marital assets.
She's already making jibes such as "I didn't think I needed a pre-nup", "just go out and get a job; why should I support you", etc.; and downsizing how much she should owe me.
So, opinions please -- as many as care to share. Normally I would have thought that of course we could try for uncontested agreement with a mediator, but for a less assertive type such as I, am I better off hiring attorney to protect my interests? I had an initial consult with one; although with all this mess I hadn't slept the night before and wasn't too sharp that day.
Am I being a shmuck for possibly wanting a lawyer (meaning, probably contested), versus mediation?
Wife wants to use a mediator to avoid attorney costs. Just beginning divorce proceedings; not filed yet; and I'm just learning and trying to get help as divorce was unexpected: she wants it, saying we no longer match. No kids involved: settlement is just about assets division and possible alimony (from her to me).
I know mediation is a good thing but I'm worried that no matter how unbiased, mediator may be sweet-talked to side more in her interests? Because wife is way better at that than I. Wife comes off as VERY sweet and is also a trained talker - therapist - persuasive; whereas I'm quiet unassertive type. She went thru an ugly bitter divorce 10 years ago (against an Attorney) and now likely to be VERY assertive after the previous one.
I believe that I could simply not sign mediation agreement if I didn't agree with it?, but more likely just get railroaded or guilt tripped if I was to do that. Like, "you agreed to mediation".
I'm 53; together 9 years; wife earns 250k-gross per year while I took early retirement a year ago. So now she will continue her 250k job while I am unemployed/ no income and no (small) pension till age 60. I am wanting her to keep our couple nice properties plus her business property, worth vicinity of 1-million equity; and just want a fair financial division otherwise, such as at least 50-50 of marital assets.
She's already making jibes such as "I didn't think I needed a pre-nup", "just go out and get a job; why should I support you", etc.; and downsizing how much she should owe me.
So, opinions please -- as many as care to share. Normally I would have thought that of course we could try for uncontested agreement with a mediator, but for a less assertive type such as I, am I better off hiring attorney to protect my interests? I had an initial consult with one; although with all this mess I hadn't slept the night before and wasn't too sharp that day.
Am I being a shmuck for possibly wanting a lawyer (meaning, probably contested), versus mediation?
Last edited: