Why You Need a Coach in your Collaborative Divorce

New Hampshire collaborative practice employs an interdisciplinary model, which is fancy for saying that the professional team includes attorneys, a coach and a financial neutral. When the topic of hiring a coach comes up, I sometimes receive this feedback:

  • Why do we need a coach?
  • I already have a therapist, isn't that the same thing?
  • It's another expense in the process. 
  • Let's see how it goes without one and we can always hire one later. 

I intended to write a thorough and thoughful post about the need for a coach, and then found this article Do You Really Need a Divorce Coach in the Collaborative Process? by Helene Taylor. I really can't say it better myself, and it answers all the frequently asked questions. It's a must read if you are considering a collaborative divorce. I especially love her explanation of the difference between a therapist and a divorce coach:

A therapist is someone you bring your luggage to and she helps you open it up and decipher the contents; a divorce coach is someone you bring your luggage to and, without opening it, she helps you carry it across the street.

From my attorney perspective, a coach helps me do my job better and reach the end result quicker. The coach, who is far better trained in the emotional aspects of a divorce than I am, can facilitate the emotional discussions and keep lines of communication between the parties open so that the legal discussions can be more productive.

For more information about collaborative divorce, check out the information video from the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. You can also download a free Collaborative Divorce Knowledge Kit

New Hampshire same-sex divorce: What you need to know

Please check out my recent You Tube video on the topic of same-sex divorce in New Hampshire. We'll review length of marriage considerations, parenting rights for same-sex couples, and special property distribution issues in divorces for same-sex partners.

Elter-Nodvin v. Nodvin: Change in beneficary does not violate anti-hypothecation order

The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently issued an interesting opinion in the matter of Elter-Nodvin v. Nodvin. It is not a traditional family law case, ie divorce or parenting, but rather a constructive trust matter. Nevertheless, the holding has ramifications in the family division.

The Facts

Husband files for divorce from wife. Family court issues an anti-hypothecation order, which restrains the parties “from selling, transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing or in any other manner whatsoever disposing of any property, real or personal, belonging to either or both of them.” While divorce is pending, husband changes his beneficiary on his life insurance and retirement accounts from Wife to their children. Husband dies before divorce is accomplished. Wife sues children in Superior Court seeking to impose a constructive trust to recover the proceeds from the life insurance and retirement accounts. Superior Court dismisses wife’s claims against children.

The Appeal

The wife appealed the trial court’s decision dismissing her petition, arguing that the husband’s change in beneficiaries from wife to children violated the anti-hypothecation order and required the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the wife over the proceeds. The wife also argues that the husband violated the order when he changed beneficiaries because those actions hindered the trial court’s ability to distribute the assets according to the purpose of the anti-hypothecation order.

The Holding

The court holding is interesting, and contrary to the conventional wisdom that changing beneficiaries on insurance or retirement accounts violated the anti-hypothecation order. Instead, the Supreme Court declared that the plain language of the anti-hypothecation order that required the parties to refrain from disposing of property allowed the husband to make the changes to the beneficiaries, and in no way impeded the family division from making an order requiring the husband to name the wife as beneficiary. The Supreme Court reasoned that the wife did not possess a vested property interest, and absent a property interest, there could be no violation of the order. Therefore, the wife could not base the imposition of a constructive trust on the alleged violation of the anti-hypothecation order.   

The Takeaway

At a temporary hearing, or in a temporary agreement, it is important to secure an order that each party shall name the other as the beneficiary on their existing life insurance, retirement plans, and/or survivor benefits and shall make no changes to those designations while the divorce is pending.