Posted on

When you hear “The Federal Reserve raised interest rates,” it sounds like bad news—especially if you’re going through a divorce and trying to figure out what happens to the house.

But it’s not quite that simple.

Think of the economy like a car going too fast. Inflation means prices are rising too quickly. One of the Fed’s tools to slow things down is raising the rate banks pay to borrow money overnight.

That can make borrowing more expensive throughout the economy.

But here’s something many people don’t realize: The Fed does NOT directly set mortgage rates.

Mortgage rates are influenced by the bond market, inflation, the economy, and what investors believe will happen next.

So why could a Fed rate increase eventually be helpful?

Because one reason the Fed raises rates is to fight inflation. If inflation begins coming down, longer-term interest rates—including mortgage rates—could eventually improve.

And that can matter A LOT during a divorce.

Higher mortgage rates can reduce what buyers can afford. That may mean fewer buyers competing for homes, slower home sales, and potentially less pressure pushing home prices higher.

For a divorcing couple, that can change the numbers in several ways.

Maybe one spouse wants to keep the house and needs to refinance to remove the other spouse. Maybe the house needs to be sold. Maybe both spouses need to qualify to purchase new homes after the divorce.

The interest rate, home value, equity, support payments and wording of the divorce decree can all affect what is possible.

That’s why the house shouldn’t be an afterthought in a divorce.

Before agreeing that “she keeps the house,” “he refinances within six months,” or “we’ll just sell it,” it makes sense to find out whether the plan actually works financially.

Sometimes waiting could help. Sometimes acting sooner makes more sense. And sometimes a small change in how the mortgage or divorce agreement is structured can make a major difference.

Don’t Make a $300,000, $500,000 or $800,000 Housing Decision Based on a Guess.

I’ve been in the mortgage business since 1999, and I help divorcing homeowners understand their mortgage options before important decisions become permanent.

If you are going through a divorce—or you’re an attorney, mediator or real estate professional working with someone who is—give me a call.

Let’s look at the numbers before you decide what happens to the house.

About the Author

Dave Jamison is a divorce mortgage strategist and co-owner of Rainbow Mortgage Inc., an independent mortgage brokerage licensed in Minnesota, Florida, and North Dakota. With more than 26 years in residential lending—including 13 years as an underwriter for Fortune 500 mortgage institutions—Dave brings deep, practical expertise to complex divorce-related real estate matters.

What sets Dave apart is his underwriting foundation. Rather than approaching cases from a sales perspective, he evaluates them through the lens of how loans are actually approved—income calculations, debt ratios, reserve requirements, and documentation standards. This allows him to assess feasibility early in the divorce process, helping prevent refinance provisions that later fail and ensuring agreements align with real-world lending guidelines.

Dave and his wife, Gale, founded Rainbow Mortgage Inc. in 1999, initially serving borrowers with complex financial situations. In 2004, he began specializing in divorce mortgage planning, applying his expertise to support attorneys, mediators, and financial neutrals. Since then, he has spent more than two decades helping collaborative teams structure realistic refinance timelines, evaluate buyout options, and avoid post-decree mortgage breakdowns.

He is particularly skilled in analyzing self-employed income, support income, and multi-property scenarios—areas where legal and financial assumptions often diverge from underwriting standards. Known for his calm, direct, and non-adversarial approach, Dave provides clear, objective guidance that supports durable agreements.

David Jamison
Rainbow Mortgage, Inc.
Ph: 952-405-2090
www.RainbowMortgageInc.com

 

 

 

Posted on

Divorce after 50 involves a different set of financial stakes than divorce earlier in life. There’s less runway to rebuild retirement savings, more complexity in how assets have grown over decades, and often a spouse who has been out of the workforce far longer than anyone planned for. Most of the decisions in a divorce settlement can be revisited or adjusted over time. A handful cannot. Getting those few right, the first time, matters more than almost anything else in the process.

This holds true no matter which path a couple takes to get there. Whether the case is mediated, handled collaboratively, or litigated with each spouse independently represented, the financial mechanics underneath the settlement don’t change. Here are five decisions worth slowing down for, regardless of which room the conversation happens in.

  1. Not knowing your post-divorce budget

Almost everything else in a gray divorce settlement depends on this one, which is exactly why it tends to get shortchanged. Most people, married or not, don’t have a clear picture of where their money goes each month. That’s a manageable gap during a marriage. It becomes a much bigger problem when someone needs to prove, with real numbers, what they need to live on going forward, especially for the spouse who hasn’t been the one handling the household finances.

In Minnesota this support is called spousal maintenance (some states use the term alimony; it’s the same concept). Need must be demonstrated, and the other spouse must have the ability to pay. A spouse who underestimates their future budget, or who waives maintenance without a realistic number behind that decision, often can’t go back and ask for it later. In some settlements that waiver is permanent. Others are structured as reserved, meaning maintenance could still be modified later if certain conditions are met, but that’s not something to assume without it being spelled out clearly in the decree. If the money runs out five or ten years down the road, a permanent waiver is usually the end of the road, and inflation only accelerates how fast a fixed amount of savings loses ground.

This same budget also drives the decision about the house, whether Social Security timing matters yet, and how to fairly divide accounts with very different tax treatments. Even when maintenance isn’t part of the conversation, a realistic budget built before the settlement is signed, rather than guessed at afterward, is one of the more valuable things a divorcing spouse can walk into negotiations with.

  1. Dividing assets without accounting for the tax bill

Not all assets are taxed the same way when they’re divided, and treating a dollar in one account as equivalent to a dollar in another is one of the more common and costly mistakes in a settlement.

A 401(k) or a private-employer pension requires a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), a separate court order that must be drafted correctly and approved before any portion moves to a former spouse without penalty. Government, municipal, and military pensions use a similar but differently named order, since QDROs are specifically a private-sector concept; the mechanics are similar, but the terminology and the plan administrator’s rules differ. IRAs work differently still and don’t use either type of order; they’re divided through a direct transfer incident to divorce. The distinction matters because if the account owner withdraws or cashes out funds themselves instead of transferring them properly, the owner, not the receiving spouse, is the one who owes the tax and any early withdrawal penalty. This catches people off guard often enough that it’s worth stating plainly: whoever pulls the money out is the one who pays for it.

Brokerage accounts carry their own consideration, since assets with significant embedded capital gains can trigger a tax bill whenever they’re eventually sold, even though the split itself may be tax-free at the time of transfer. And the shift in filing status itself, from married filing jointly to single or head of household, compresses the income brackets each spouse now falls into, which changes the real, after-tax value of every account in the settlement. None of this needs to be resolved perfectly in the moment, but it needs to be on the table before assets are divided, not discovered afterward.

  1. Keeping the home without running the full numbers

The marital home is often the largest asset in a settlement, and the decision to keep it or sell it tends to get made emotionally long before it gets made financially. One spouse, often the one who wants to stay for stability or the children’s sake, may not have the ability to refinance the mortgage or buy out the other spouse’s share of the equity on their own.

The tax picture matters too. The capital gains exclusion on a home sale is $250,000 for a single filer and $500,000 for a married couple filing jointly, so whether the home is sold while still married or after the divorce is final can meaningfully change the tax outcome. And when one spouse keeps the home while the other receives an equivalent dollar amount in retirement accounts, that’s rarely an apples-to-apples trade; retirement dollars carry an embedded tax liability that home equity doesn’t, so a fair comparison requires tax-effecting both sides of that trade rather than comparing raw balances.

Underneath all of it is the budget question from the first section: can this person afford the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and upkeep on their post-divorce income? Sometimes the answer is yes. Often, running the full numbers reveals that keeping the house becomes a financial drag that outweighs the emotional value of staying, and selling turns out to be the more stable long-term choice.

  1. Claiming Social Security before running the numbers

If a marriage lasted ten years or longer, a former spouse may be eligible to claim Social Security benefits based on the other spouse’s earnings record, sometimes resulting in a higher monthly benefit than claiming on their own work history would provide. That same ten-year marker also opens the door to survivor benefits if the former spouse later passes away, which follow a different set of rules and can pay meaningfully more than the spousal benefit alone. There’s more strategy available here than most people realize: it’s sometimes possible to claim one benefit, survivor or retirement, while letting the other keep growing through delayed retirement credits, worth roughly 8% a year up to age 70, then switch to the larger benefit later. Getting that sequencing right depends entirely on the numbers and circumstances involved, and claiming the wrong way, or at the wrong time, can permanently close off the more valuable option. This is worth modeling out well before the benefit is needed, not in the months leading up to it.

  1. Letting beneficiaries and estate documents lag behind the divorce

This is the most common oversight, and one of the hardest to undo after the fact. Life insurance policies, retirement accounts, wills, powers of attorney (both financial and healthcare), healthcare directives, and trusts often still reflect a marriage that’s already ended, simply because updating them wasn’t part of anyone’s checklist.

Minnesota has a revocation-on-divorce statute that generally cancels a former spouse’s beneficiary designation once the divorce is final. It’s a useful backstop, but it shouldn’t be treated as a substitute for updating these documents directly. Statutes vary by state, coverage gaps exist, and the smarter, more reliable move is always to update beneficiaries and estate planning documents yourself in the weeks after a settlement, not to rely on a law to sort it out later. If something happens before that update is made, it usually can’t be undone.

Why this matters regardless of process

None of these five decisions depend on whether a divorce is mediated, collaborative, or litigated. They depend on whether someone with financial expertise is looking closely at the numbers before paperwork gets signed, starting with a realistic budget and carrying through every account, asset, and document that touches it. That’s true whether that expertise sits at the table as a neutral financial professional working with both spouses, or as an advisor supporting one spouse and their attorney through the process.

If you’re the one navigating this transition yourself, it’s worth asking your attorney or financial professional directly whether each of these has been addressed before you sign anything. And if you’re an attorney or mediator working with a client through a gray divorce, these are worth flagging early, well before the settlement is drafted. Once a divorce is entered into the court record, very little of it can be revisited, aside from modifiable items like child support or spousal maintenance review, and ongoing compliance between the parties. That’s exactly why these five decisions are worth getting right the first time.

Mike Miller, CFP®, CDFA®, is the founder of Integra Shield Financial Group and a member of the Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota. He works with individuals and families navigating retirement and divorce transitions. Anyone working through their own gray divorce is welcome to reach out. So are family law professionals looking for a financial resource for clients.

Advisory Services offered through Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor. Securities offered through Cambridge Investment Research Inc., a Broker/Dealer, Member FINRA/SIPC. Integra Shield Financial Group and Cambridge are not affiliated. Neither Cambridge nor Integra Shield Financial Group provide legal or tax advice.

About the Author

Mike Miller, CFP®, CDFA®, is the founder of Integra Shield Financial Group in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and a member of the Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota. He works with individuals and couples navigating retirement, gray divorce, and other major financial transitions, serving at times as a neutral financial professional in mediation and collaborative processes, and at other times as an advocate for one spouse working alongside family law counsel. Mike specializes in retirement income planning, Social Security optimization, and the financial complexities specific to divorce after 50. He’s a frequent speaker and educator on retirement income and financial well-being for both consumer and professional audiences.

Mike Miller, CFP®, CDFA®
Integra Shield Financial Group
Ph: (763) 201-1390
www.integrashieldfinancial.com

 

Posted on

One of the biggest mistakes we see during a divorce is trying to protect a low interest rate at all costs.

At first, it sounds like the obvious choice. But let’s see what it really costs.

The Situation

In 2020, you purchased a home with a $350,000 mortgage on a 30-year fixed loan at 3.25%.

Monthly principal and interest payment: About $1,523

Today: Your home is worth $550,000. You are keeping the home. You must pay your former spouse $100,000 for their share of the equity.

Now you have two options.

Option 1: Keep the Low Interest Rate

To avoid refinancing, you withdraw $100,000 from your retirement account.

Your 401(k) originally had $300,000 invested and has been averaging 6% annual growth.

If you leave the money invested, after five years your retirement account would grow to approximately:

$401,000

But after taking out $100,000, you only have $200,000 invested.

After five years, that account grows to only about: $268,000

The Real Cost Five years later…

Retirement account if you leave it alone: About $401,000

Retirement account after withdrawing $100,000: About $268,000

Difference: Approximately $133,000.

Most people focus on the fact that they “only” took out $100,000.

What they don’t see is that five years later, their retirement account is over $130,000 smaller than it could have been.

That’s the true cost of protecting that low mortgage rate.

Option 2: Refinance

Instead, let’s refinance.

Assume your current mortgage balance is about $304,000 and you borrow an additional $100,000 to buy out your former spouse.

New loan: About $404,000

Interest rate: 6.5%

New monthly principal and interest payment: About $2,556

That’s roughly $1,033 more per month than your old payment.

Yes, the payment is higher.

But your retirement account keeps growing.

The Lesson: Interest rates matter. But they aren’t the only number that matters.

We’ve seen many people make decisions based only on keeping a 3% mortgage, without realizing they may be giving up well over $100,000 in retirement savings over the next several years.

Every divorce is different.

Before you cash out your retirement to protect a low interest rate, make sure you’ve compared the true long-term cost of both options.

Sometimes the loan with the higher interest rate leaves you with more wealth in the long run.

About the Author

Dave Jamison is a divorce mortgage strategist and co-owner of Rainbow Mortgage Inc., an independent mortgage brokerage licensed in Minnesota, Florida, and North Dakota. With more than 26 years in residential lending—including 13 years as an underwriter for Fortune 500 mortgage institutions—Dave brings deep, practical expertise to complex divorce-related real estate matters.

What sets Dave apart is his underwriting foundation. Rather than approaching cases from a sales perspective, he evaluates them through the lens of how loans are actually approved—income calculations, debt ratios, reserve requirements, and documentation standards. This allows him to assess feasibility early in the divorce process, helping prevent refinance provisions that later fail and ensuring agreements align with real-world lending guidelines.

Dave and his wife, Gale, founded Rainbow Mortgage Inc. in 1999, initially serving borrowers with complex financial situations. In 2004, he began specializing in divorce mortgage planning, applying his expertise to support attorneys, mediators, and financial neutrals. Since then, he has spent more than two decades helping collaborative teams structure realistic refinance timelines, evaluate buyout options, and avoid post-decree mortgage breakdowns.

He is particularly skilled in analyzing self-employed income, support income, and multi-property scenarios—areas where legal and financial assumptions often diverge from underwriting standards. Known for his calm, direct, and non-adversarial approach, Dave provides clear, objective guidance that supports durable agreements.

David Jamison
Rainbow Mortgage, Inc.
Ph: 952-405-2090
www.RainbowMortgageInc.com

 

 

 

Posted on

When Minnesota couples choose Collaborative Divorce, they are choosing a process designed to resolve divorce without court, without escalation, and without unnecessary financial damage. At the center of this process is a role many people have never heard of—but one that often makes a significant difference in long-term outcomes: the Financial Neutral. A Financial Neutral does not advocate for one spouse over the other. Instead, the role is to provide objective, forward-looking financial guidance so both individuals can make informed decisions that support long-term stability. Many Financial Neutrals hold advanced credentials such as Certified Divorce Financial Analyst® (CDFA®) and Certified Financial Planner™ (CFP®), bringing a deeper level of financial insight to the collaborative process.

In Minnesota, Collaborative Divorce is a voluntary, non-litigation process where each spouse retains their own collaboratively trained attorney, a Financial Neutral is jointly engaged, and in many cases a parenting or mental health professional is included to support communication and family dynamics. Everyone involved commits to resolving issues outside of court. The Financial Neutral works for the process—not for either party—providing unbiased financial analysis, translating complex financial information into clear and understandable options, ensuring transparency and accuracy, and keeping the focus on long-term outcomes rather than short-term positioning.

The role of the Financial Neutral becomes especially important in gray divorce, which continues to rise across Minnesota. For couples over 50, financial decisions often carry permanent consequences. Many are navigating retirement that is already underway or approaching, pensions, 401(k)s, IRAs, and Social Security benefits, as well as long-held real estate and healthcare considerations such as Medicare and insurance transitions. A Financial Neutral helps couples understand not just how assets are divided, but how each decision impacts lifetime income, taxes, and long-term financial independence.

Within the collaborative process, the Financial Neutral brings clarity to complex financial decisions by preparing clear summaries of assets and debts, developing post-divorce cash flow and budget projections, and presenting side-by-side settlement scenarios. This allows both spouses to work from the same set of information and make decisions based on facts rather than fear. In Minnesota, where equitable division does not always mean equal and equal does not always lead to equal outcomes, the Financial Neutral plays a critical role in evaluating retirement sustainability, Social Security strategies, tax implications, and long-term healthcare costs. The focus is not simply on dividing assets, but on ensuring both individuals can maintain financial stability after the divorce.

Because the Financial Neutral is jointly retained, the process often reduces conflict, time, and overall cost. There is one shared financial analysis, fewer outside experts are needed, and less time is spent disputing numbers. This can significantly reduce legal fees and improve efficiency for both spouses. Just as importantly, the Financial Neutral supports better decision-making during what is often a stressful and emotional transition. By slowing the process enough to allow for thoughtful and informed decisions, the Financial Neutral helps ensure outcomes are aligned with long-term goals, which is particularly important in long-term marriages.

Collaborative Divorce in Minnesota is a team-based approach. The Financial Neutral works alongside collaboratively trained family law attorneys, and often with mental health or communication professionals, to support both spouses together. This integrated model helps align legal, financial, and emotional considerations so they work together rather than in opposition. As a result, many Minnesota couples choose Collaborative Divorce because it preserves assets that might otherwise be spent on litigation, encourages transparency and trust, allows for customized solutions rather than court-imposed outcomes, and supports respectful communication throughout the process.

Divorce does not have to be a financial battle. With the right structure and professional support, it can be a carefully planned transition. A Financial Neutral helps clarify complex financial decisions, reduce unnecessary conflict and cost, protect retirement and long-term financial security, and support informed, durable agreements. For many Minnesota families, Collaborative Divorce offers a respectful, non-litigation path forward that honors both the financial and emotional realities of divorce.

If you are considering divorce in Minnesota and want to better understand how Collaborative Divorce or mediation works—especially from a financial perspective—a conversation can be a helpful place to start. You don’t need to have everything figured out. You just need a place to begin. If it feels helpful, you’re welcome to schedule a confidential conversation to explore your options.

About the Author

Michelle Leisen, CFP®, CDFA® is the founder of Divorce Smart and a member of the Minnesota Collaborative Law Institute. With over 27 years of experience in financial planning and investment management, she serves as a Financial Neutral in Collaborative Divorce, helping couples navigate complex financial decisions with clarity and confidence. Michelle brings a thoughtful, client-centered approach, translating financial details into practical options that support long-term stability—especially in gray divorce. She holds a degree from the University of Minnesota and attended William Mitchell School of Law.

Michelle Leisen, CDFA®, CFP®
Mediator, Financial Neutral
Divorce Smart LLC
michelle@wealthplanninggroupmn.com | 612-419-9956
https://www.mydivorcesmart.com

 

 

 

Posted on

In divorce agreements, it is common to see language such as:

“Spouse A shall refinance the mortgage within 90 days and remove Spouse B from liability.”

On paper, that sounds simple.

In practice, it often fails.

As mortgage professionals working alongside collaborative attorneys and financial neutrals, we regularly see well-intended refinance provisions unravel — not because someone refuses to cooperate, but because the refinance was never financially viable under lending guidelines.

The Most Common Reasons Divorce Refinances Fail

  1. Debt-to-Income Ratios Don’t Support the Loan

Post-divorce budgets differ dramatically from pre-divorce budgets.

Even if the payment appears affordable on a cash-flow worksheet, mortgage underwriting follows strict debt-to-income ratios that may produce a different result.

  1. Self-Employed Income Is Calculated Differently

This is one of the most misunderstood areas in divorce planning.

Attorneys and financial professionals often evaluate income based on gross business revenue or owner draws.

Mortgage underwriting does not.

For self-employed borrowers, we use:

  • Net income after expenses
  • Add-backs (when allowable under guidelines)
  • Two-year averages (in most cases)

This can significantly reduce qualifying income compared to what appears on a tax return summary or financial affidavit.

A refinance that seems feasible using gross income may not qualify when evaluated using underwriter-calculated net income.

  1. Support Income Is Not Yet Usable

For conventional and VA financing, lenders typically require:

  • A documented history of receipt (often six months)
  • Consistency
  • Three years of continuance from loan closing

If deadlines are set before those requirements are satisfied, the refinance may be structurally impossible.

  1. Equity and Reserve Requirements

Buyout structures increase loan balances.
Loan-to-value limits may restrict options.

Additionally, many programs require post-closing reserves. Asset division during divorce can unintentionally eliminate the liquidity required for approval.

The Collaborative Opportunity

Refinance provisions fail not because of bad intent — but because mortgage feasibility wasn’t analyzed early enough.

A pre-settlement underwriting review allows the team to:

  • Set realistic timelines
  • Structure viable buyouts
  • Identify alternative options
  • Avoid post-decree surprises

Case Study

We had a client that was getting ready to sign the divorce decree…it was a collaborative case.  The client sent the decree to me prior to signing.  Upon review we noticed that the total income would not support the refinance.   In this case the divorce client was also getting support payments for a total of 10 years.  We were not far off…the solution was to front end load some of the support payments and reduce the overall term of the payout.  The attorneys and the client reviewed the suggestion and were able to make the numbers work and the client was able to get the home refinanced and complete the divorce.

Mortgage strategy integrated early strengthens the durability of the final agreement.

About the Author

Dave Jamison is a divorce mortgage strategist and co-owner of Rainbow Mortgage Inc., an independent mortgage brokerage licensed in Minnesota, Florida, and North Dakota. With more than 26 years in residential lending—including 13 years as an underwriter for Fortune 500 mortgage institutions—Dave brings deep, practical expertise to complex divorce-related real estate matters.

What sets Dave apart is his underwriting foundation. Rather than approaching cases from a sales perspective, he evaluates them through the lens of how loans are actually approved—income calculations, debt ratios, reserve requirements, and documentation standards. This allows him to assess feasibility early in the divorce process, helping prevent refinance provisions that later fail and ensuring agreements align with real-world lending guidelines.

Dave and his wife, Gale, founded Rainbow Mortgage Inc. in 1999, initially serving borrowers with complex financial situations. In 2004, he began specializing in divorce mortgage planning, applying his expertise to support attorneys, mediators, and financial neutrals. Since then, he has spent more than two decades helping collaborative teams structure realistic refinance timelines, evaluate buyout options, and avoid post-decree mortgage breakdowns.

He is particularly skilled in analyzing self-employed income, support income, and multi-property scenarios—areas where legal and financial assumptions often diverge from underwriting standards. Known for his calm, direct, and non-adversarial approach, Dave provides clear, objective guidance that supports durable agreements.

David Jamison
Rainbow Mortgage, Inc.
E: dave@rainbowmortgageinc.com | Ph: 952-405-2090
www.RainbowMortgageInc.com

 

 

 

Posted on

People sometimes tell me they’ve heard that collaborative divorce works better for the higher income spouse. The idea is that the person with more money will always have more influence, more control, and more options. If you earn less than your spouse, it can feel risky to choose a process that depends on cooperation.

I understand why that fear exists. Money shapes how we move through life. It can affect your confidence in negotiations. It can make you wonder if the other person can simply wait you out until you accept less than what is fair.

In my work, I have seen that a carefully managed collaborative divorce can protect a lower income spouse in ways the court process often does not.

Why This Concern Feels Real
In many marriages, one person earns significantly more than the other. When the marriage ends, the higher earner may have more savings, more credit, or more financial stability. They may feel less urgency to resolve things quickly. The lower earner may feel pressure to settle just to get financial relief.

These are valid worries. They do not disappear automatically in a collaborative case. But collaborative divorce was designed to address them directly.

How Collaborative Divorce Addresses Power Imbalances
The process starts with full financial transparency. Both spouses share all the information about income, expenses, assets, and debts. There is no hiding documents, no drawn-out discovery requests, and no costly legal fights just to get basic facts.

A neutral financial professional is part of the team. They work for both spouses and explain financial details in plain language. This means each person understands what different settlement options will mean for their future.

Collaborative teams can make interim financial agreements early on. If one spouse needs support for housing or daily expenses during the process, the team can create an agreement right away instead of waiting for a court hearing.

Because communication is at the heart of collaborative work, there may often be coaches involved. These professionals help keep discussions respectful and balanced. They make sure one voice does not dominate the conversation.

Why Litigating Attorneys May See This Differently
Attorneys who primarily work in litigation sometimes see collaborative divorce through a different lens. In court, the higher income spouse can be ordered to produce documents, attend hearings, and even pay temporary support early in the case. Judges have authority to make rulings and set deadlines. To a litigator, those built-in powers of the court can feel like stronger protection for the lower income spouse.

From that perspective, collaborative divorce may seem risky because there is no judge to issue immediate orders. Litigators worry that without the authority of the court, a higher income spouse could slow things down or refuse to cooperate.

These concerns are not unfounded. In a collaborative case, if one spouse refuses to participate in good faith, the process can break down. That is why collaborative professionals screen cases carefully. If there are signs that one person will withhold information or use the process to stall, collaborative may not be the right fit.

When Collaborative Practice Works Better
Using a collaborative process can give the lower income spouse more control over their future than litigation. Court processes can be slow and expensive. The higher income spouse can afford to keep paying legal fees, while the lower income spouse may feel pressured to accept a deal to stop the financial bleeding.

In Collaborative, both spouses commit to full disclosure, respectful communication, and problem-solving. The team addresses immediate needs quickly so that neither person is left in crisis. Instead of spending time and money on court battles, the focus stays on building an agreement that works for both people.

Collaborative divorce is not fair just because of the name. Fairness comes from the professionals involved and their willingness to slow down, explain every option, and make sure each person understands what they are agreeing to. The team’s role is to keep the process balanced so that neither income level decides the outcome.

Litigating attorneys and collaborative attorneys sometimes see fairness through different frameworks. Both want to protect their clients. Both see situations where the other process might fail. What matters most is choosing the process — and the professionals — who will make sure your needs are met and your voice is heard.

For a lower income spouse, collaborative practice can be a place to get stability, clarity, and a say in what comes next. With the right team and safeguards, it can be a path to a fair resolution without the costs and strain of a courtroom battle.

About the Author

Angela is a former President and board member of the Minnesota Collaborative Law Institute. She has a solo practice where she focuses primarily on collaborative law and out-of-court settlement processes.  Through her work, she aims to empower individuals to make informed decisions while reducing conflict, cost, and emotional stress.  She helps clients navigate complex transitions with clarity and compassion.

Angela is a former President and board member of the Minnesota Collaborative Law Institute. She has a solo practice where she focuses primarily on collaborative law and out-of-court settlement processes.  Through her work, she aims to empower individuals to make informed decisions while reducing conflict, cost, and emotional stress.  She helps clients navigate complex transitions with clarity and compassion.

Angela Heart, Family Law Attorney
Heart Law, LLC
E: Angela@heartlaw.net | Ph: 651-337-1333
Website: https://www.heartlaw.net/

 

 

Posted on

A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is not to be confused with a divorce decree or property settlement agreement. A QDRO specifically recognizes a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependents’ right to receive a predefined portion of a qualified ERISA-sponsored retirement plan. A QDRO must be issued by a state court or authority.

To “qualify” as a QDRO under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a QDRO must have (or not):

  • The name and last known mailing address of the participant and each alternate payee;
  • The name of each plan to which the order applies;
  • The dollar amount or percentage (or the method of determining the amount or percentage) of the benefit to be paid to the alternate payee;
  • The number of payments or time period to which the order applies;
  • The order must not require a plan to provide an alternate payee or participant with any type or form of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided under the Plan;
  • The order must not require a plan to provide for increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value);
  • The order must not require a plan to pay benefits to an alternate payee that are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another order previously determined to be a QDRO; and
  • The order must not require a plan to pay benefits to an alternate payee in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity for the lives of the alternate payee and his or her subsequent spouse.

With that, a QDRO must also “qualify” under the terms and conditions of the specific retirement plan. All retirement plan is different, and some have unique terms and conditions such as annual vs. daily valuations dates, ROTH contributions, frozen benefits, vesting requirements, shared vs. independent options, survivors benefits, and timing requirements.  Each retirement plan is required to have written QDRO procedures and model language available to Participants upon request but watch out! The model language is designed to protect the interests of the Plan, not the Participant, and never an Alternate Payee.  It is suggested you understand the terms and conditions for each account along with the ERISA requirements above, prior to any agreements or the decree language being drafted.

It should also be noted that QDROs are not specific to divorce.  A QDRO can be used in several other circumstances including child support, past-due arrears, or even in other court jurisdictions where the circumstances may warrant a non-taxable transfer to a spouse, former spouse, child, or dependent.  As long as a state Judge or court commissioner will sign the QDRO, it must be deemed “qualified” under the terms of the plan assuming it meets all of the requirements above.

It can be well worth the time and money to consult with a retirement plan specialist as soon as you identify the need for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.  For more QDRO tips continue to follow our blog or contact Michelle Leisen at Divorce Smart anytime.

Michelle founded Wealth Planning Group, LLC after 22 years of experience in the Financial Services Industry. Michelle graduated from the University of Minnesota,Tewin Cities and attended William Mitchell School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. Born and raised in Minnesota, Michelle lives in Eden Prairie with her two children Katie and Nick. Michelle enjoys volunteering and family and running races.

Divorce Financial Professional/Mediator
Divorce Smart LLC
michelle@wealthplanninggroupmn.com | 612-419-9956
www.wpgdivorcesmart.com

 

Posted on
tax imageIt’s important for divorcees to review and adjust their W-4 payroll withholding or start to make quarterly tax estimates following their divorce. Often, they are so relieved to have reached settlement, they fail to think about these housekeeping items. If divorced in 2018, this is especially important if transferring taxable spousal maintenance. The payor spouse can likely change their payroll withholding to increase their net income. The payee spouse will need to withhold additional tax dollars on their salary or make quarterly estimated tax payments, to account for taxes on the spousal maintenance payments received. If the payor spouse doesn’t adjust their W-4, they may not be able to meet their budget during the year and would probably receive a large tax refund when taxes are filed. If the payee spouse doesn’t adjust their W-4 or start quarterly estimated taxes, they could have a large tax liability when they file their return. Even if there isn’t taxable spousal maintenance, individuals still may need to adjust their withholding. Things that can impact taxes and often require an adjustment are a change in their filing status, pre- tax payroll deductions (retirement contributions, health savings account, health insurance premiums), and itemized deductions such as real estate taxes and mortgage interest. Making these adjustments now will help cash flow match what was projected during the divorce process and save the headache later of a tax surprise.
Posted on
TaxAs we move into 2019, it’s helpful to know contribution limits and Social Security changes. Individual Retirement Accounts: The annual contribution limits for traditional and Roth IRA’s have increased to $6,000, a boost of $500 over 2018 contribution limits. The catch-up contribution limit for those age 50 and older remains at $1,000. 401(k)s: The annual contribution limits for 401(k)’s, 403(b)’s, most 457 plans, and the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan have increased to $19,000, a boost of $500 over 2018 contribution limits. The catch-up contribution limit for employees age 50 or older in these plans stays at $6,000 for 2019. SIMPLE IRA: The limit for SIMPLE IRA’s goes up from $12,500 in 2018 to $13,000 in 2019. The catch-up limit remains the same at $3,000 for those age 50 and older.  Health Savings Accounts: The “self-only” annual contribution limit will increase from $3,450 to $3,500 and the “family” annual contribution limit will increase from $6,900 to $7,000 in 2019. Social Security Updates:
  • Beneficiaries will see a 2.8% increase in payments
  • Maximum taxable earnings will increase to $132,900
  • Maximum benefit at full retirement age increases to $2,861 per month
Posted on
clockIt is important to review and discuss tax planning for the year in which a divorce was completed, especially for high earning individuals who receive incentive compensation and plan to be divorced by December 31, 2018. As part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, many tax law changes became effective in 2018. One change was to the flat tax rate that is withheld by companies on incentive income such as bonus income, commission income, exercised stock options, and vested restricted stock. As of January 2018, the federal rate changed from 25% to 22%. The Minnesota state rate remains the same at 6.25%. Most highly compensated individuals have marginal tax rates above 22%, so tax on the above income types is under-withheld. To avoid an unpleasant tax surprise come April 15th, be sure to address this potential additional tax liability and come up with a plan to handle it. Some options to consider are:
  • Estimate the tax liability now and include and allocate it as part of the property division.
  • Include language to share in the tax liability when return(s) are filed next year.
  • Consider whether it makes sense to load-up itemized deductions from the year to the higher earning spouse to help offset liability (i.e. real estate taxes, mortgage interest, charitable contributions).