Stephanie Seymour's Divorce: What NOT to Do

Model Stephanie Seymour and her husband, businessman Peter Brant, are headed for divorce court. Their story, while high-profile, still illustrates issues common to many divorces. The case demonstrates some mistakes to avoid when divorcing. Mediator Matthew House has published this article on his website, www.mediatormatthew.com.

1. Is it unusual for people who are planning to divorce to continue living under the same roof? For couples who cannot afford to do otherwise, it is not uncommon to separate within the home but not acquire a second residence. Many people cannot afford to finance another dwelling right away, and others do not want to be locked into a long-term lease of an apartment or other housing that may be needed only temporarily. However, people of substantial financial means, such as Ms. Seymour and her billionaire husband, Mr. Brant, have more than adequate resources to live separately. When the situation is as toxic as theirs appears to be, it is best in the long run to separate physically. People who are undergoing serious strife but don’t separate have a much lower chance of reconciliation than those who move apart for a “cooling-off period.” Moreover, the more contentious the relationship between the husband and the wife, the more acrimonious their divorce negotiations are likely to be.
2. When Ms. Seymour refers to “playing dirty,” what is she likely accusing her husband of doing? She is almost certainly referring to a custody fight. Custody fights always have losers, and they rarely, if ever, have winners. Occasionally, a custody battle is necessary to wrest control from a truly abusive, unstable, or inept parent, but most of the time, custody fights involve egos rather than genuine concern for the welfare of a child. Some states have a presumption in favor of joint custody, while others have a presumption in favor of sole custody. Still others actually prohibit joint custody unless both parents agree; Oregon is one such state. In such states, and to a lesser degree in the other states, when someone commences a custody fight, one party WILL lose. It’s just a question of which one. Custody fights are largely destructive because they often take many months or even several years, and they subject the children to the unwanted attention of lawyers, judges, and even a custody evaluator who may visit the home and observe the parents interacting with the children.
3. Does the length of the marriage have anything to do with how the divorce is handled? Often, yes. The amount and duration of spousal support often correlates (loosely) to the length of the marriage. The asset division may also bear some relationship to the number of years the parties have been married. The length of the marriage does not, however, typically affect custody or parenting time decisions, because the parents have been parents an equal amount of time, regardless of how long they have been married and regardless of whether their children preceded or followed their marriage.
4. How are the assets likely to be divided in a case such as Ms. Seymour’s, where each spouse is wealthy but one is substantially more affluent than the other? It depends on many factors. If there was a premarital agreement (popularly called a “pre-nup”), that document might determine the division of assets. If not, the laws of the state would decide the outcome. In a community property state, the parties would share equally in the property acquired during the marriage. In an equitable distribution state, which the majority of the states are, a judge can fashion an award in a manner that is just and equitable, even if one spouse gets more than the other.