Second Time's The Charm?: Understanding Remarriage Rights with Attorney Kara Chrobak
Moving Forward: Understanding Second Marriages and Divorce Stigma
Family law attorney Seth Nelson and Pete Wright welcome guest Kara Chrobak to explore the complexities of second marriages and divorce stigma. Chrobak, a Colorado-based family law attorney specializing in high-net-worth cases, brings valuable insights into how society's views on multiple marriages impact relationship decisions.
The conversation examines why prenuptial agreements become increasingly important in subsequent marriages, particularly when children from previous relationships are involved. Seth explains how prenups can actually demonstrate commitment rather than distrust by allowing couples to thoughtfully plan their financial future.
The hosts and Chrobak dive into estate planning considerations across multiple marriages, addressing how life insurance policies, beneficiary designations, and asset distribution become more complex with each relationship transition. They explore practical solutions like aliquot reductions in life insurance policies to balance obligations to current and former spouses.
Key Insights:
Prenuptial agreements can protect children from previous marriages while allowing couples to build shared assets
Estate planning requires careful coordination between divorce agreements and current relationship needs
Setting healthy relationship boundaries should be celebrated rather than stigmatized
The conversation reinforces that divorce—whether first, second, or subsequent—doesn't represent failure but rather demonstrates the courage to make healthy choices. Listeners gain practical insights into navigating complex legal and emotional terrain while maintaining focus on building positive future relationships.
Links & Notes
Got a question you want to ask on the show? Click here!
-
'Pete Wright:
Welcome to How to Split a Toaster: A Divorce Podcast About Saving Your Relationships from True Story FM. You think it's hard to split a toaster once, try splitting it three times.
Seth Nelson:
Welcome to the show everybody, I'm Seth Nelson. As always, I'm here with my good friend, Pete Wright. Today we're tackling a topic that sits at the intersection of love, law, and do-overs. Second marriages, and the lingering stigma around divorce. Whether you're on your second, third, or seriously reconsidering just your first marriage, we're diving into the complexities that comes with remarrying emotionally, legally, and financially, and why it's high time that we retire the notion that divorce is a failure.
Joining us today is Kara Chrobak, a family law attorney who doesn't just understand the fine print of prenups and estate plans, she's also keenly aware of how celebrity divorces and cultural narratives shape the way we think about starting over. Kara, welcome to the toaster.
Kara Chrobak:
Thank you. I'm excited to be here.
Pete Wright:
Well, we'll see if we can fix that.
Seth Nelson:
Yes.
Pete Wright:
How did you end up thinking about the whole stigma of multiple divorces? How does that set the table for your practice?
Kara Chrobak:
Obviously, Seth, just like you, I deal with divorce all day, every day, and so naturally I'm going to not find it to be as significant as maybe the general public does in the course of one's life. But I do think that there is a big stigma around divorce, and I think it's important that divorce not be framed as a failure. I think that it's actually a very courageous course correction for life. And I think that normalizing healthy choices, even when they're really hard, is an important part of our job is to ensure that people recognize that what they're doing is what's best for them.
Pete Wright:
I love the idea that there is this whisper about second, third, fourth divorces. I happen to be in a position where my mom, who is a widow, has... I can't believe I'm saying this on a podcast, but she's got suitors, y'all.
Kara Chrobak:
I love it.
Pete Wright:
And not just one, but she is ready to get out there as a septuagenarian.
Seth Nelson:
I noticed the plural when you said it, it had the S on the end.
Pete Wright:
It is deeply disquieting as the son, but I am excited for her. Really, it's amazing. But when I talk to her, there is this neighborhood whisper around, "Oh, well, I can't. He's been divorced four times. Of course, that means..." That means what? That means he's an unsuccessful human being? He's just not good at relationships? He's using divorce as a roll the dice kind of tool that takes marriage unseriously? How do we frame this idea of what it means?
Seth Nelson:
Or he's just on some divorce attorney's frequent flyer program.
Pete Wright:
Right. Are there points?
Seth Nelson:
I have little punch cards that have a heart with an X through it, like at the donut shop.
Pete Wright:
Okay, okay. But in all seriousness, take that on.
Kara Chrobak:
Yeah. I guess my experience watching people go through divorce for a career, I have concluded on my own, and Seth I'd love your feedback on this, that you never know what life is going to throw at you. You can never possibly go into a marriage anticipating what life will look like four years from now, because life throws you curveballs. I think that successful marriages can be successful because they withstand the storm. But even the strongest ones, things could go awry. And you never can anticipate that.
I think that to frame a second or third marriage in the lens of that this person's bad at relationships or they're bad at being married, or they don't take it seriously, I don't think that's fair, nor do I think that really accounts for life's challenges. I think that being a little bit more forgiving to people who are honestly making really hard brave choices for themselves to better themselves, YOLO, you only get to do this one time. And so, your mom, get out there and get those dates. Be happy, because that's really what we want at the end of the day anyway.
Seth Nelson:
I would agree with that. I also think that it's very important to understand that sometimes people stay married and delay a divorce because they're so afraid of the divorce process. When you have someone that's gone through the process, and then maybe on the second marriage they have a prenup and the process is not scary, they know what's going to happen, it does make it easier to say, "I'm out." I think there's that just practicality and psychological aspect of it.
Usually in second marriages, sometimes there's a child born of the marriage and sometimes there's not. If there's not, it's even easier to say, "I'm out." There's the push and pull into what I think Kara is wisely saying, that's just life is happening when you're at different stages. Now listen, if you're going out on a date with someone who's been divorced four times, yes, people will say that is "the red flag", but no one's saying that you have to marry this person. You're not going from date to walking down the aisle.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, because they've been divorced four times doesn't mean you are the fifth.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. And you can only get divorced if you get married.
Kara Chrobak:
That's true. That's true. Or you might be the fifth, but that's also your call. [inaudible 00:06:10]-
Pete Wright:
But that's also okay. Right.
Kara Chrobak:
Yeah.
Pete Wright:
Is what we're saying.
Kara Chrobak:
There's no shame in that either. I think there's just been a huge cultural shift in the past few decades in terms of the sanctity of marriage and how critical it is to just stay together for the sake of whatever, versus recognizing your own personal boundaries and what's going to be best for you. And taking real measure of what's going to be better for you, for your children, regardless of making sure that other people see you as being a married couple happy.
Pete Wright:
I think that's a really interesting observation, Kara, because I don't know that I would've said that. That there is a shift toward sanctity of marriage that is somehow counter to the increase in divorces that we have happening in the West. Isn't that still true?
Kara Chrobak:
That there's an increase in divorces?
Pete Wright:
There are more divorces, but culturally there's a drive toward people being more purist about marriage?
Kara Chrobak:
I don't know that I would say... I've heard the statistic about the increase of divorces, but I am not a statistician, or statistician, however you pronounce that. I don't know what that currently is, I can only speak from my own personal observations. I haven't seen that as an increase. I don't know, Seth, if you have.
Seth Nelson:
Well, I hear the same stats, that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. But if you're getting married a second or third time, there's a higher likelihood. And I do believe that is statistics are accurate. What those numbers don't tell you is there's such broad generalizations, and they don't tell you the reasons for the divorce. So we say, "Oh, that's horrible, man. I really wish that number was lower, and it was 10%." Let's just say. Does that mean that if the other 40% were in domestic violence relationships that we think they should have stayed there? Of course not.
The stats don't really tell the story. And they don't talk about, well, you know what, 50% of marriages end in divorce, 5% is because of domestic violence. Another 5% is because of mental health issues. Another 5% is because of addiction issues. Which, everyone's going to say, "That's 15%, you should get out." And so, without knowing those underlying reasons, then it's really hard to put any real merit or stock in those statistics.
Pete Wright:
Part of the reason I wanted to go down that particular road is because I'm interested in the cultural narratives that are defining the pieces, the bits of shame that keep people stuck. And part of it's because on this season we've had rabbis, we've had Catholic priest, we've had people talking about various different gatekeeping mentalities, or models, that have an opinionated position on divorce. And I'm curious how you have seen the couples that you deal with navigate those narratives of traditionalist shame as they work toward not just their first but multiple divorces. Does that make sense?
Kara Chrobak:
It does. What's hard is that by the time they've come to me, they often have already coped with a lot of that shame. I think that by the time they're calling up their divorce lawyer, they've made that choice. I think what you're asking about is probably the six months prior to the decision to call me when they're really navigating the shame and the guilt. But I will say that another consideration is, and I hear this one all the time, is that "I should have gotten out much sooner, I was staying together for the kids." I hear that all the time. And I'm not a therapist, so I couldn't possibly weigh into the value of that thought process, but I do hear that probably more frequently than any other type of an explanation for why you stayed longer than you should have.
Seth Nelson:
And on that explanation I ask them, do you think your children deserve to see what a healthy relationship looks like? And they always say yes. I say, "Are you in a healthy relationship?" "No." "Do you want to feel the way you feel now, two years from now?" "No." "Do you want your children to see this type of relationship for two years?" "No." Well, then you got to get the ball rolling, right? Now, sometimes they make the very, very well-thought-out, conscious choice, "My kids deserve to see a healthy relationship, but they're so young and my spouse suffers from alcoholism, that I'm going to stay here because it's more important to keep them safe physically and protect them from the demons that come out when the alcohol comes out than it is to see what a healthy loving relationship is." And they'll make that choice.
Sometimes they'll stay in until the kids are 12, 13 because they're old enough to say, "I'm not getting in the car." Or, "Dad's slurring his speech." Or, "Mom fell asleep on the couch again at three in the afternoon." And I have certainly had clients that had said, "Yeah, I wanted to get divorced 30 years ago, but I wanted the children to be self-sufficient on their own." So this isn't just in college, this is in their careers, they're now married. That's what some people have told me, because they wanted to make sure they were really set. And those are individual choices that people make. And I never judge those choices. I judge the choices Pete makes all the time. [inaudible 00:12:08]-
Pete Wright:
Most of the time.
Seth Nelson:
Not this. Yeah.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. What do we learn from the headlines? You both have done celebrity level divorces. What are we normalizing by way of watching Ben Affleck get divorced again? There is something to [inaudible 00:12:29]-
Seth Nelson:
He's getting divorced again? I don't even know. I don't even know anymore.
Kara Chrobak:
It's over. They're done. They got divorced.
Pete Wright:
Okay, they're done. All right.
Kara Chrobak:
Yeah. What are we normalizing? I think that what the public sees, it's twofold. On one hand, I think they're seeing that these people with private planes and glam squads are going through the same type of heartbreak that everyday people in Missouri are experiencing. And so, on one hand they see that the chaos is also something that you can't escape that regardless of your privilege. But on the other hand, I think one thing that we can learn from a lot of these divorces is ways to do divorce with dignity and with privacy in a way that really protects the family and the sanctity of the relationship even after the divorce is over.
The first example is Ben and Jen, or Brad and Angelina, and how public that was and how that was just very dramatic. And it was in the headlines and it was very public, and they were slinging mud. And then the flip side of that is think about Jessica Simpson is getting divorced right now and it's been very quiet, and they seem to have a prenup and it's very streamlined. And there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of fighting. And I think that the public can learn a lot from observing how you can do that in a very private and dignified way.
Seth Nelson:
I would agree with that wholeheartedly. And you want to be in court and hear the judge say, "This is how it's supposed to happen. If you're going to go through divorce, I'm so thrilled that you guys worked out a parenting plan." I'm glad that we're here in Hillsborough County in Florida, we have a case management conference, a meeting with the judge approximately 90 days after a case gets filed. And to show up to that hearing and the judge says, "Great job, you're done in three months." Or, "I know you got some stuff to work out, but you don't need me for anything. Your lawyers have gotten everything done and you told me you're getting along and the kids are doing well." That is the goal if you're going to go through the process. And it takes four people to make that happen, the two clients and the two lawyers. Because the lawyers can mess it up too.
Kara Chrobak:
Totally.
Seth Nelson:
It takes four people to problem solve and land the turbulent plane safely. That's the goal. And quickly. But any one of those four can mess it up.
Pete Wright:
Two points. One, I'm just finding out about this Jessica Simpson thing right now in real time.
Kara Chrobak:
Oh, man.
Pete Wright:
I don't even know what to say. I'm so sad. I still [inaudible 00:15:12] haven't gotten over the Nick Lachey breakup, and that was 20 years ago.
Kara Chrobak:
Totally. I know.
Pete Wright:
I feel for her. Okay. Well, [inaudible 00:15:19]-
Kara Chrobak:
... Kevin Costner got divorced? Do I need to go all the way back to the beginning of 2024 for you?
Pete Wright:
Probably. I try to hide from so much of that.
Kara Chrobak:
Fair.
Seth Nelson:
This is why I love not understanding or knowing anything about pop culture.
Pete Wright:
Yeah.
Kara Chrobak:
Just call me, you guys. You can just [inaudible 00:15:35]-
Pete Wright:
Look, this is a language Seth does not understand. We've got more points coming.
Seth Nelson:
It's almost like when you're talking to your dog, they hear blah, blah, blah, and then the dog's name. That's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing blah, blah, blah and people's names that I don't really know who they are. But that's fine.
Pete Wright:
I want to position a little bit, because people listening to this by and large are people who are exploring the idea of divorce, they don't know what to do, and they're terrified of the divorce process. And if in some way they are coming to this by way of a second or third divorce and trying to figure out, "Oh my God, how do I handle this again?" I would like to talk through some of the legal and financial lessons that you have for the next divorce. Can we do that? Starting with our favorite, the prenup and postnup. To what degree do these matter more or less, or indifferently, compared to the first marriage?
Kara Chrobak:
I would say, on a general level, that they matter more in a second marriage. Because more often than not you're having family with the first marriage. I'm drawing a lot of assumptions. But assuming you have children in the first marriage, a prenup for the second marriage is going to be significantly more important for many reasons. One, you then can protect and make sure that the children from the first marriage are being taken care of in the event not only that you were to get a divorce, but also if you were to die. And another reason why a prenup makes sense in the second time around is because then you've learned.
I can't tell you how many clients I have who call me up after we're done with our divorce and they say, "I'm getting married, I need a prenup." And every time it's because they've learned what the experience looks like, they understand the value of the streamlining, and they recognize how much easier things would've been had we had a prenup to begin with. I think that I'm a big proponent of prenups generally, but definitely in the event of a second marriage, and especially if you have children from the prior marriage, prenups are paramount.
Seth Nelson:
And here's the thing about prenups that people don't really understand, is they see it as a negative. How can you be getting married and saying, hey, if things don't work out, this is the contract I want you to sign? If things don't work out, there's already law and there's already a contract between you on what's going to happen if things don't work out. It's called Florida law or Missouri law, or any state. They have the law on how you divide things, what happens with the money, what happens with alimony. All you're saying is, "Hey, if we get divorced, instead of using the law in the state of Florida, let's come up with our own plan. And let's make it where we don't have to pay the lawyers. Let's limit the areas of dispute in litigation."
And I mean limit them right down to, if we get divorced and someone files for divorce, and when that filing gets served or someone accepts service, so it's in the court file, that's the day we're going to use to value the marital home. Because now you don't have to go argue about the day you're going to value the marital home. The way you can limit paying attorneys in and of itself is worth it.
Pete Wright:
Well, I just want to say, here's the thing I just heard you say that I feel like is new to me. Which is, we already have law to define what happens when you get a divorce, and that's your state's law. That's a huge thing. And I think it works directly to counter the assumption that a prenup is a thing that's like a get out of marriage free card. It's a thing that says, well, you have a prenup, so you must not be taking the marriage seriously. In fact, what I'm hearing is if you have a prenup, you're taking the marriage much more seriously. Is that fair?
Kara Chrobak:
I actually had never really thought of it like that, but I love that perspective. And, yes, I would think it is fair.
Pete Wright:
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. He hates it [inaudible 00:19:49] when the guest agrees with me and says I'm right.
Seth Nelson:
So much.
Pete Wright:
Thank you.
Seth Nelson:
I'm sorry, Kara. He had to do that. That was just... Keep going, Kara, I interrupted. I'm sorry.
Kara Chrobak:
I lost my train of thought in the celebration, but I just resoundingly, yes, I agree. I love your perspective on that. I do agree that states have their own laws. I always tell people when they come to me, they want a prenup, I explain what the state's law is. And then if it feels okay, then you're good with the state's law, so you don't need a prenup. If that feels fair and right to you, there's no need for a prenup. But more often than not in the second relationship, third relationship, and you explain the state's law, it does not feel good. It does not feel right or fair, and so that's when a prenup makes a lot more sense.
Seth Nelson:
And the other thing about a prenup, and Kara I'd be interested to hear your point, and you might not agree with this actually. But I tend to draft prenups differently than most lawyers that I've seen. Because a typical prenup, just generally speaking, Pete, husband keeps his income and his assets, wife keeps her income and her assets. The problem with that is if you live your life as a married couple, you might not keep such clear lines of separation. You might buy a beach house and put it into an LLC for asset protection, but it has both your names on it, even though the husband might've put in all the money for it and then the wife might've bought the furniture for it. You start commingling things and it hollows out the legal document based on your actions over 10, 15 years.
What I have started doing is saying, I don't care whether money is co-mingled or not, I want you as a married couple to be able to take advantage of filing jointly taxes, of having stuff in shelters for asset protection. There's all these things you can do that if you have a prenup, it might limit you. Because you're like, oh, if we get divorced, they're going to get part of it then.
What I do is say... I'm making up numbers now, and let's say I'm representing the non-money spouse, and Kara's representing the money spouse. Kara comes to me and says, "Seth, my client is now worth $10 million, and your client has $100,000. And she's been saving and she's a public school teacher. And she's been working for four years and she's actually doing well. But compared to my client, it's a huge disparity. And their income potential is different, everything's different." And I said, "Well, why don't we do this? If in the first five years they get divorced," and you can put any time frames on this in any amounts, "my client will get 10% of the combined net worth, or $500,000, whichever is less." 10% or 500,000, whichever is less.
And what that does, if they think that's a fair deal. Upon divorce, five years from now, the husband, the money spouse, instead of going into litigation and trying to figure out what the 10% is, can write a check for $500,000 and be done. And you don't have to worry about commingling.
Now, there are other aspects to this that you might want to consider. Well, let's say that the wife in my hypothetical wants to keep the house, and the house has $100,000 of equity. You can say, okay, she can keep the house, but that 100,000 of equity comes off of her 5,000. So you can make arrangements for different items. Especially if there's a second child born. Then you're going to say to the husband, you want your kid to be in the house that they were in, don't kick her to the street. But it's easier to have those conversations when you're getting married as opposed to later when you're getting divorced. Kara, what do you think about that concept?
Kara Chrobak:
I have seen that concept, and I do think that there's some value to it on many levels. In addition to giving a formula, a set formula, you also, at least in Colorado, we have alimony or maintenance, or spousal support. And so, if you show that they're getting a lump sum payout, that could help undermine claim for spousal maintenance. So it would be beneficial from that perspective too. The only concern I would have with that is I still feel like you might risk the LLC commingling debacle anyway because people get lazy. And so, I would still want to have a carve out for that. But at a general level, I like it.
I also tell people all the time, this is just my own personal philosophy, so take it for what it is. But I think it's really hard to go into a marriage and have everything be his and hers. I think that makes it very hard to build a good solid foundation financially for a marriage, because there will never be ours. It'll always just feel like it's his and hers. I think that whenever you can create marital property or a mechanism for the creation of such property, I always think that's a good idea. Because I also think, in addition to making people feel good, you also can hopefully try to dissuade the parties from trying to challenge the prenup in the future. Because they're not as incentivized to say, "I'm going to try to challenge this because it's not valid," if they're going to get a big payout anyway. So the more that you can incentivize them to work together and not be interested in trying to challenge things, I think it's a win-win-win for everybody.
Pete Wright:
A related question, and I think this leads to just a broader question about estate planning. But starting with the prenup, what is best practice for a prenup for, I guess all your related marriages? As you go through a number of marriages, are you updating those prenups with any regularity? Is that one of the documents like wills and trusts and dealing with beneficiaries that you have on deck to say, okay, things have changed, we need to go back and adjust this? Is that a thing we're doing?
Kara Chrobak:
Yeah, I would say it does happen, or you'll have amendments to it or you'll have certain supplements to the agreements in prenups. In marital agreements, I would say it's less common. I'd say updating your estate planning, not the prenup is paramount. Obviously, making sure beneficiaries are current and updated. You do not want to have a situation where you forget to update your insurance policy and your ex-husband gets the house if you were to pass away. Making sure your beneficiaries are updated is critical, making sure your will is updated and is a living document is critical.
And then prenup, I would say is more case-by-case as the situation changes and whether there's a basis for the need to update a prenup. For example, your LLC example of buying a house. That situation would be an opportunity to go back and say, "Hey, we need to figure out how we're going to divide up this LLC that owns this house." Or, "We need to revise this because this is not working." There's always the option to do that, but I would say it's not as important as the beneficiaries being updated in the will.
Pete Wright:
Okay. Seth?
Seth Nelson:
I concur.
Pete Wright:
Okay. Speaking of estate management, estate planning and estate management for the second, third, fourth divorce, I imagine it gets increasingly complicated. What is your mental model for approaching helping people who are finalizing their third divorce on making sure those documents are up to speed, and doing so in a way that acknowledges that love and life evolve and that there are a lot more people who are stakeholders?
Kara Chrobak:
This question relates to when the divorce is finalized, then how do you update their estate planning? I just want to make sure I understand what you're asking.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. Because I'm imagining that the things that you are going to change on the third divorce are going to affect the people who may have been referenced in the estate documents on the second divorce and the first divorce.
Kara Chrobak:
Yes.
Pete Wright:
How do you think about that?
Kara Chrobak:
It's a fair question. For example, say you have the first divorce and you have a life insurance policy that you need to maintain for the purpose of child support for your children from your first marriage. And then the second divorce, you have a different life insurance policy that you need to maintain for your spouse from the second marriage is maintenance. Then you have a third marriage and you're trying to figure out the estate planning documents, and what life insurance is needed and how much is needed to cover all these different obligations.
How I would handle that, is I would make sure that you have an understanding of all of the different court orders in play to make sure that you're abiding by the first divorce's court orders, the second divorce's court orders, et cetera. And then, I'm not an estate planning attorney myself, and so meeting with an estate planning attorney and the client to go through it all and ensure that the boxes are being checked properly and everything is speaking to one another, I think is always very helpful.
Seth Nelson:
This actually goes to one of the provisions that I advise my clients to put in if they're getting into a marital settlement agreement regarding life insurance. And it's one of my favorite words, Pete. It's aliquot. It's an aliquot reduction. Which, I told you I knew you'd like it. Let's say you have a child [inaudible 00:29:20]... Exactly. Let's say you have a child support obligation that mathematically you're going to pay $100,000 over the next 10 years. I'm just making up numbers. So you have term life insurance policy for 10 years, $100,000. The way I advise my clients, and if the other side says this I'm totally okay with it, that every year you can get an aliquot reduction, is a reduction in your $100,000 term because the child support, the child only needs $90,000 for the next nine years, or $80,000 for the next eight years.
It's $10,000 a year, so you can reduce it along the way. And let's say it's being left directly to the child and then it's in a trust. Well, that's one thing. But if it's directly to your former spouse, most people don't want to give their spouse a windfall, because they don't trust they're going to actually spend it for the kid. I've literally had clients that had that, let's call it a $500,000 policy, and they were allowed to reduce it year after year. And as they did that, they just changed the percentage of beneficiaries every single year, and then they got divorced a second time. So they had that same policy, but they just had to keep the beneficiaries changing. And it's a very easy way to do that as opposed to going out and having to get new policies and new policies and new policies.
Kara Chrobak:
And there's a word for it, I never knew the word. Now I'm going to have to Google that and make sure I'm including it in my [inaudible 00:31:06]... I certainly am familiar with the concept, but now I know it's called aliquot. So you-
Seth Nelson:
I'll send you the provision.
Kara Chrobak:
Please do.
Pete Wright:
It's my new favorite thing. I have to imagine that the more divorces you accumulate, the more frustrating it is to be further and further from the center of this particular, I don't know, pyramid of insurance. Or pyramid of estate potential windfall. Are people getting upset at this point? Do you get calls from the first ex-wife saying, "You've just carved off another percentage of what I was getting."? Does that not happen?
Seth Nelson:
You get calls saying, "I want confirmation that the insurance policy is in still full force in effect." Because they know, hey, they just got remarried. I bet you this guy's changing the policy. So going all the way back to your settlement agreement, if you really want to have control over that life insurance policy, you should be the owner of the policy, because only the owner can make changes. And if a premium's not paid, the owner will get notice.
Kara Chrobak:
Can I interrupt you? The husband and wife divorce, husband's a moneyed spouse, he has a child support obligation. It's his life that's being insured.
Seth Nelson:
Correct.
Kara Chrobak:
So you make it the wife be the owner of the policy?
Seth Nelson:
The wife is the owner of the policy, the former husband-
Kara Chrobak:
This is a Dateline episode waiting to happen though. I feel like clients would be like, "Ick, ick, ick, I do not want my ex-wife to own my life insurance policy, and then be the beneficiary of it."
Seth Nelson:
Right. What they're saying is, "I'm afraid they're going to whack me." But it's not the ownership that gives the incentive to whack somebody, it's the beneficiary. Right? That's why Pete is not the beneficiary on any of my policies.
Kara Chrobak:
100%. There is risk involved.
Seth Nelson:
But here's the trade-off, Kara. If I really press for this and my client really wants it, then I tell my client, pay for the policy. And then all of a sudden the money spouse is like, "All right." But that way you know it's in place and you know it can't be changed. And I would also get with your local life insurance carrier or broker and ask them for language. Because lawyers think they're clever, and then it goes to the insurance company and they're like, "No, we're not doing that." And they're not part of the document, of the marital settlement agreement. They're not part of the divorce case. The court has no power to force a different entity to abide by an agreement that they weren't part of.
Pete Wright:
It's fascinating. And I think if there's one thing that I am learning is that there are systems in place to deal with these complex issues and to make sure that everybody in the history of the divorce tree... Is it divorce tree? Is that a thing? Can we make that a thing?
Kara Chrobak:
Yes. Yeah, let's do it.
Pete Wright:
That everybody can be treated fairly in the process. That there is a way that the law seeks to make everybody feel not necessarily happy, but at least to some extent whole.
Seth Nelson:
Or 50% of whole.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. Or half. They can feel half.
Kara Chrobak:
I think if you visualize a pie, and so your first marriage ends, so the pie gets split in half, and you each get one half of the pie. And then you get married again, you effectively have one half of a pie, and then you divide that into quarters. And so then you have a quarter, where your ex-spouse got the whole half. And then you have the quarter, and then you get married a third time, and then you have one-eighth, and your spouse still has that half. That's probably not going to make you feel super whole.
Pete Wright:
No. But if you look at it that instead of splitting a single pie in half, you're splitting it in half but then you have two pies. And the other spouse, the first spouse has a whole pie of themselves, it's just a slightly smaller pie. Right now you're just splitting less to make new pies, they're just very small pies. They're Russian nesting pies is what we're talking about.
Seth Nelson:
Russian nesting pies.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, you're welcome. You guys can use that in court if you want, both of you. It's fine. It's fine.
Seth Nelson:
It will be ultimately a crumb.
Kara Chrobak:
Great.
Pete Wright:
This is, as always, illuminating. And I want to back to what you said at the very beginning, Kara. Which was that people making bold decisions, bold choices about their future for their own well-being, taking that ownership is something that we should celebrate, not shame.
Kara Chrobak:
Totally.
Pete Wright:
And divorce is what it is.
Seth Nelson:
To say it another way, I think boundaries are healthy. Boundaries are healthy in all relationships. And when you set a healthy boundary on how you're going to be treated or how you expect a marriage to work as a couple. For you, it's different for every couple. But if those boundaries that are healthy are not being respected, why would you stay in that relationship?
Pete Wright:
Right.
Seth Nelson:
You're just hurting yourself. And I'm not advocating the divorce process, I'm advocating healthy boundaries. And what do you need to do to be clear about your boundaries? And how do you do that without making someone defensive? But if they are defensive, how do they work on not being defensive? There's a lot of communication issues that go along with that. But absolutely, that I think everyone should really focus on what's healthy for them. And if it doesn't work with your partner, then you call Kara.
Kara Chrobak:
It doesn't mean you failed. Any of those, divorce, second marriage, any of it. It's starting over. It's focusing on what's next, and it doesn't mean you failed. It's part of life, and everybody deserves happiness.
Seth Nelson:
Absolutely. And you walked that earth with that person for so many years. And I ask my clients this all the time, "If you knew the shit show you're in now," right? "If you knew that when you were walking down the aisle or you were waiting for her to come down the aisle, but you still got your two kids, would you have done it?" And they all say yes.
Kara Chrobak:
Every time.
Seth Nelson:
Except this one guy, he said, "Not a chance in hell."
Pete Wright:
Are there do-overs? Are there take backs? Hey, speaking of things that take courage. When we scheduled this, Kara, you were doing one thing. And now, as of this week as we record, you're doing something completely different. And I want to give you a chance to plug what you're doing, talk about your practice. Where can people go learn more about you?
Kara Chrobak:
Yeah. I recently started a solo practice, it's called Bespoke Law LLC. It is a Colorado-based high net worth and ultra net worth family law practice. And so, to the extent that there's anyone out there and advisors real estate professionals, estate planning attorneys who are just looking to build their network, or anybody who's looking for an attorney, come find me on LinkedIn. I'd love to connect.
Seth Nelson:
That is really exciting. Congratulations.
Pete Wright:
Really, congratulations. Huge. I love celebrating big moves. And thank you everybody for downloading, listening to this show. We sure appreciate your time and attention. Don't forget, you can send us questions. Head over to HowToSplitAToaster.com. Click the button that says "ask a question" and it'll come to us. You can be completely anonymous if you like. If you just want to tell your story and hear what the lawyers think of it, we are here to listen. HowToSplitAToaster.com, get those in. Listener question episodes are coming.
On behalf of Kara Chrobak and Seth Nelson, America's favorite divorce attorney, I'm Pete Wright. And we'll see you next time right here on How to Split a Toaster: A Divorce Podcast About Saving Your Relationships.
Outro:
How to Split a Toaster is part of the True Story FM podcast Network, produced by Andy Nelson. Music, by T. Bless & the Professionals and DB Studios. Seth Nelson is an attorney with NLG Divorce and Family Law, with offices in Tampa, Florida. While we may be discussing family law topics, How to Split a Toaster is not intended to, nor is it providing legal advice. Every situation is different. If you have specific questions regarding your situation, please seek your own legal counsel with an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Pete Wright is not an attorney or employee of NLG Divorce and Family Law. Seth Nelson is licensed to practice law in Florida.
