Funny, I sort of concluded it was pointless to "protect what I could." Look, she's going to get about half of everything. No matter how hard I work, she's not going to get "zero" or anything close to that. And I wouldn't want that anyway, not really fair to her.
So what is the upside of me "protecting what I can" in a divorce? I mean, unless there is something really awry, like explicit dissipation of assets, am I really going to come out ahead?
And on a related note - these private detectives who do research for divorce cases, documenting infidelity. What the heck is the point in that? It seems like it would be useful only to make the betrayed spouse feel vindicated. Infidelity is not grounds for divorce in most states (it's no fault), and neither is it grounds for a difference in financial awards, as far as I know.
So what is the point of all the fighting over money in divorce courts?
I've looked at this, and I just can't see the point. These attack-dog divorce attorneys are dinosaurs, they have no real purpose these days. "Fighting" in a divorce has few effects, all undesirable: it engenders bad feelings in the spouses, and it transfers wealth out of the marriage and into the attorney's pocket.
I'm not saying we all shouldn't be careful. It's good to hire an attorney, it's good to get an accountant to make sure everything is clear. But "protect the assets". I mean, come on. It's a huge loss, no matter how successful I am at "protecting" the assets. It's often not worth the attorney's fees. I know my wife is spending more than she is likely to retain. How dumb is that? Spend $100 to get $20.
