Latest / Money Dilemmas - What would you do? / What Would You Do? Divorce, a $2 Million Family Business and How to Divide It Fairly.

Transcript

What Would You Do? Divorce, a $2 Million Family Business and How to Divide It Fairly. · Money Dilemmas - What would you do?

• 0:00
  Hi there, I'm Vanessa Stoykov and welcome to Money Dilemmas, where I'm bringing the best experts in the country to solve everyday money problems from those who write to me in my popular Daily Mail column.
• 0:13
  And today I have a cracker for you.
• 0:15
  It's a story of divorce.
• 0:17
  And with me is leading barrister and family law expert,
• 0:21
  Talia Ferrari, who's going to help Mark, who's written to me, solve his big money dilemma.
• 0:28
  So can't wait to get into it, Talia.
• 0:30
  Let's hear what Mark's got to say.
• 0:33
  Dear Vanessa, my wife and I are separating after 20 years of marriage, and the biggest argument we are having is over my business.
• 0:40
  I own a packaging business that I started shortly before we got married.
• 0:43
  It was tiny in those days and I have worked incredibly hard to build it up.
• 0:47
  There were years when I barely paid myself because everything went back into that business.
• 0:52
  Today, I employ 14 people and I've recently been told the business could be worth around about $2 million.
• 0:59
  My wife has never worked in the business.
• 1:01
  When our two children were young, she worked part-time and did more of the parenting than I did.
• 1:06
  I absolutely acknowledge that.
• 1:07
  I was often at work early, home late and sometimes even worked weekends.
• 1:12
  But I was the one taking all the financial risk with the business.
• 1:15
  I found the customers, employed the staff, dealt with the banks and spent years worrying about whether we could make enough money to keep going.
• 1:23
  Now we're separating and my wife believes the value of the business should be taken into account when we divide everything.
• 1:29
  But the problem is I don't have $2 million sitting in a bank account.
• 1:32
  Most of my wealth is tied up in the company.
• 1:35
  I've been told that depending upon how everything is ultimately divided, I could potentially have to borrow a very large amount of money against the business if I want to keep it.
• 1:44
  I'm 52.
• 1:44
  The very thought of taking on a huge new loan at this stage of my life just to keep the business I've spent more than 20 years building makes me feel physically sick.
• 1:54
  I don't want to be unfair to my wife.
• 1:56
  We built a life together and she deserves a fair settlement.
• 1:59
  But I can't get past one thing.
• 2:01
  How can someone who has never, ever worked a day in the business have a claim on its value?
• 2:05
  Am I being completely unreasonable?
• 2:07
  You know, Mark's worried with due cause.
• 2:10
  Yeah, he is.
• 2:11
  52 years old.
• 2:12
  He's not new to the game.
• 2:14
  What's your immediate reaction when you hear what he's got to say, his dilemma?
• 2:17
  Well, interestingly, this is quite a common dilemma.
• 2:21
  In fact, when you invited me to attend this podcast,
• 2:27
  I did an audit of all of the cases I've done this year and 97% of the property matters that I appeared in contained this type of dilemma involving businesses.
• 2:37
  So it's something that sadly is quite common in Australia with 10 to 13% of adults owning businesses in Australia.
• 2:46
  There's over 2.2 million.
• 2:49
  So very common.
• 2:50
  And at 52%,
• 2:52
  I mean, you're kind of at an age, I'm 53, so I totally get it, where he's thinking, I don't want to rebuild this business and take on a lot of debt.
• 3:01
  I mean, I find that easy to understand.
• 3:04
  It's absolutely understandable, especially because he's worked in the business for over two decades and has been there from the grassroots up.
• 3:14
  And it's probably a,
• 3:16
  to him a very special part of his life as well.
• 3:19
  Unfortunately, or fortunately, depends which side you're on, the asset division is quite challenging, especially when a business is involved.
• 3:29
  And unfortunately, we don't know Mark's entire story.
• 3:34
  But one thing that comes to mind is, are there any other assets that exist within
• 3:40
  their relationship.
• 3:42
  For example, do they have a property?
• 3:45
  Do they have some shares?
• 3:46
  And they do.
• 3:47
  I don't know about shares, but they do have a property.
• 3:49
  And he said he fully expected to split that one.
• 3:51
  From my perspective, I've not had a client ever lose their business because they're going through a family law.
• 4:00
  And there are some really creative ways so that both parties can continue on.
• 4:07
  Something that's really important for Mark is, yes, he seeks to retain the business, but he is also seeking to retain a future income stream.
• 4:17
  And that also needs to be taken into account.
• 4:20
  So it's not always all a business is worth X, Y, Z and simply cutting that amount in half.
• 4:28
  Yeah, okay, because he's saying, oh, my wife never worked a day in this business.
• 4:33
  Like, I don't see why I should have to give that up.
• 4:36
  What's your reaction to that comment?
• 4:38
  I hear this in so many matters about the other party never having stepped foot in the office, never having worked a day in their business, and they don't have the pressures.
• 4:50
  I've heard all of that before.
• 4:52
  But one thing I do note is that typically
• 4:55
  Mark probably isn't or wasn't able to achieve the success in his business if he didn't have his wife's support.
• 5:03
  And I think you may have mentioned that he has two children.
• 5:08
  And it's likely that his wife was running the home and doing everything at home so that he could put those hours into the business.
• 5:17
  And from a family law perspective, the court's.
• 5:21
  take into account financial contributions, which is what Mark is saying he has contributed, and also non-financial contributions such as raising children.
• 5:32
  I know as a mother, I think it's harder working within the home than in a corporate role or in a business role.
• 5:41
  Yeah, well, look, having done both as well, I can see both sides for sure.
• 5:46
  There's definitely.
• 5:47
  And look, he doesn't strike me as someone who's vindictive or angry.
• 5:51
  He's just literally saying he's worried that the business will go under because he doesn't have the cash flow to pay her out.
• 5:57
  Now, let's talk a little bit about this valuation because he's been told by his accountant and I've got no detail.
• 6:03
  It doesn't sound like he's got much detail, but it could be worth two million if he was to sell it.
• 6:08
  What's the first thing Mark should be doing?
• 6:10
  Because, you know, if Mark was hiring you, one of the best barristers in the country in family law, what would you get him to do at that first meeting?
• 6:18
  Yeah.
• 6:18
  At first instance, I would ask Mark whether he is on amicable terms with his ex-wife, because if they're on amicable terms, what they could do is seek to appoint an independent valuer to value the business.
• 6:38
  So...
• 6:39
  What that means is that by appointing a valuer together, they can have someone go through all of the books, look at the profit and loss, the asset.
• 6:50
  No doubt Mark's business likely has some liabilities as well, which also needs to be taken into account.
• 6:57
  And to see whether they could agree on having it valued independently.
• 7:02
  And then however that turns out, they could work with those results.
• 7:08
  Typically, that is a good approach.
• 7:11
  And it's the approach that the court would look at if it did go to court.
• 7:16
  Now, 97% of family law matters resolve without needing to go to a final hearing or a trial.
• 7:23
  but having that independent evidence is very helpful.
• 7:27
  If one party goes off and gets a report themselves, if it's too high, one party's not going to like it.
• 7:34
  And if it's too low, the other side's not going to accept it.
• 7:37
  So to appoint someone together means you get what you get and you're not upset.
• 7:43
  How many people are amicable in divorce?
• 7:45
  I've been divorced.
• 7:45
  It wasn't that amicable, really.
• 7:47
  Like how it's not like, I mean, some people do.
• 7:50
  How many people are amicable in the cases you see?
• 7:53
  I deal with, that's a great question, I deal with the 3% of people that typically can't resolve their matters.
• 8:00
  Would you both decide on a valuer, even if you're not friends or loving the process together, at least it's someone independent that's credible?
• 8:09
  that can do an independent valuation, that's not going to make it low to suit Mark or make it high to suit the wife.
• 8:14
  It's going to be real.
• 8:16
  What does a valuation like that cost?
• 8:17
  Because I think people look at divorce and then business and all this and think, oh, my God, I don't want to spend all this money.
• 8:23
  But, you know, you have to spend.
• 8:25
  Depends on the number of employees in the business, the number of assets, the turnover.
• 8:31
  The cheapest business valuation I've come across was about three and a half thousand dollars.
• 8:37
  And the most expensive one that I'm involved in presently is well over a hundred thousand dollars.
• 8:44
  But it's all relative to turnover and a number of factors.
• 8:50
  Okay.
• 8:50
  But it isn't just getting your accountant right to go put a number on it.
• 8:53
  That's the wrong approach.
• 8:55
  Typically, the accountant actually work with the single expert valuer because often they'll provide a lot of the information to the valuer.
• 9:04
  Okay.
• 9:05
  So it's not cutting out the accountant.
• 9:07
  They play a really important role, but it's just having someone third party that's neutral to go through everything.
• 9:15
  I've got here the $1 million problem.
• 9:18
  And this is where his dilemma becomes interesting, right?
• 9:20
  So $2 million on paper.
• 9:22
  We know now he's got to go get a valuation and pay for that.
• 9:25
  And if he's got liabilities, I mean, he did say that he hadn't paid himself for many years.
• 9:29
  That would be a liability on the books, right?
• 9:30
  The super he hadn't paid would be a liability.
• 9:33
  So all that would be taken into account.
• 9:36
  What happens when this sort of wealth, even if it is worth two million, is trapped inside a business, but he can't get that out?
• 9:43
  Like, what do you see people do in that circumstance?
• 9:47
  I've seen a lot of creative solutions involved in one party retaining a business.
• 9:54
  Some ways that parties can deal with this is looking at what other assets do they have available for division.
• 10:02
  So if a court was to look at just an equitable outcome for Mark and for his wife, they would look at all of the assets that exist, not just the business.
• 10:13
  And also it's important that...
• 10:16
  you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
• 10:21
  And what I mean by that is it's in Mark's wife's best interests that he is able to continue to run that business because if Mark threw the towel in with his business, it would likely be sold off as bits and pieces.
• 10:37
  It would be what is the stock available.
• 10:39
  It would almost be akin to a liquidation of assets that are available.
• 10:45
  And do you see that often where people who own businesses in divorces just go, I'll let it burn?
• 10:50
  Yes, I have come across that.
• 10:52
  I know people who have done that too.
• 10:54
  So it's probably not as unusual a dilemma as we think, particularly for smaller ones.
• 10:59
  Yes, especially when they are the brains behind the entire operation.
• 11:05
  And in Mark's case, where he talked about the fact he hadn't earned a salary for a very long time, sometimes people just say, this is all too hard.
• 11:13
  I can go and work in the corporate world and earn an actual salary and get to keep it.
• 11:20
  but it's on a case-by-case basis.
• 11:24
  And the challenge in that of just blowing it all up is there may be some really good, or there could be goodwill there.
• 11:31
  I think Mark talks about having, is it 14 employees in his business?
• 11:35
  He's probably known them for a long time and seeks to keep it, but it's a fine balance.
• 11:43
  Okay, so I think he's seeking to keep it too.
• 11:46
  He's obviously very attached to the business and it's been his baby, for want of a better word.
• 11:51
  But let's go back because you said something beforehand that he's buying an income stream.
• 11:56
  So say he doesn't have the money in the business, but they take all the assets, house, super, everything they've got, they might have savings.
• 12:02
  He hasn't given me a full list.
• 12:05
  And then perhaps if the business, whatever the valuation comes out of, maybe his wife gets more of the house?
• 12:11
  Or is that how you see it playing out?
• 12:13
  So it's a division of the entire pool rather than going business, house, car, whatever.
• 12:19
  That's what I typically see.
• 12:21
  Okay.
• 12:21
  And it may be that Mark's wife retains more of the equity in the former matrimonial home, or they may have some other assets that they can offset.
• 12:32
  Typically what I see when there is a business involved is that one party will seek to retain the business and the other person may retain more of the former matrimonial home or more of the superannuation.
• 12:45
  If it went to court, ordinarily there would be, especially in Mark's case, such a long marriage, there would ordinarily be an equalisation of super and that means that both parties would
• 12:56
  end their financial relationship having an equal amount of super.
• 13:01
  But if it resolved at a mediation, the parties have much more control over the outcome that can suit both of their best interests.
• 13:10
  Yeah, okay.
• 13:10
  And I don't know how much super he's got.
• 13:13
  I mean, he said she worked part-time and not when the kids were young.
• 13:16
  He spent a lot of years not making money, so I suspect he doesn't have a huge super balance.
• 13:21
  You know, like a lot of small business people, you put yourself last and pay everyone else's entitlements.
• 13:26
  So that may be a tough one.
• 13:29
  Is his wife, you know, and I want to look at it from every angle.
• 13:32
  Obviously, Mark's written to us and we're solving his dilemma, but, you know, he wants to be fair to his wife and so do we.
• 13:38
  Is he going to be better off, though, if she gets a house, which, you know, in this real estate market, it's probably not going to appreciate the way it may have would have over the past 15 years.
• 13:49
  And he's got an income stream out of his split.
• 13:52
  So it feels like he'll be a lot better off, right, than her.
• 13:56
  It would depend.
• 13:57
  Yeah.
• 13:58
  We've got a few missing variables here, but I hear what you're saying in that he could be financially better off.
• 14:03
  But if that was the case, it may be that his wife got more of the asset pool.
• 14:11
  If you were representing her, is that what you'd go for?
• 14:14
  Even more of the asset pool because he's got an income stream and she doesn't?
• 14:17
  Yes.
• 14:18
  However...
• 14:19
  On Mark's evidence, he says that he hasn't earned a salary for quite a long time.
• 14:25
  That is something that would need to be taken into account because if that is indeed accurate, then...
• 14:33
  maybe the actual division wouldn't be too far away from a 50-50 split.
• 14:40
  There are a number of factors that are taken into account in determining that.
• 14:44
  I suspect he's got a Division 7A loan.
• 14:47
  If he hasn't been taking a salary, which means paying tax and super, he's been taking it out of the business as a loan.
• 14:53
  And that is a liability that carries penalties for not fulfilling the obligations.
• 14:59
  So in terms of evaluation of the business, it would absolutely be there as a liability that he would likely be responsible for if he took over the business.
• 15:10
  Okay, so that's sort of, you know, I'm saying his wife doesn't have the advantage of an income stream, but she also doesn't have the disadvantage of liabilities moving forward if the house is paid off and she... That's right.
• 15:22
  Yep.
• 15:22
  Okay.
• 15:23
  There's no winners in divorce though, right?
• 15:25
  Like there is just no... No one has ever left the court and said, I won the divorce.
• 15:32
  No one, there aren't any winners.
• 15:36
  And the face of an angel, but a bit of a killer instinct, Talia, what happens?
• 15:41
  Like when people...
• 15:42
  You know, you said you're dealing with the ones who aren't amicable and I don't know many who have got amicable divorces.
• 15:47
  But how do you deal?
• 15:49
  Like, because there's a lot of emotion and anger and all sorts of things.
• 15:52
  Well, you know, what how do you deal with people in that situation?
• 15:55
  Well, so I often deal with people who are going through the typically the worst time of their life.
• 16:02
  And it is really hard.
• 16:04
  for them.
• 16:05
  In fact, I often recommend that all my clients who are going through family law proceedings actually seek therapy, see a psychologist or a counsellor because going through a separation is difficult enough but if you're also going through legal proceedings which cost a lot of money, they are highly emotive, they're incredibly stressful, it's difficult to be able to make rational decisions.
• 16:32
  at such a precarious time.
• 16:35
  Yeah, well, I talk a lot to people about this concept of financial flashpoints, right?
• 16:39
  Those moments in your life that are highly emotional, highly charged, could be good, could be a wedding, could be a baby, could be bad, someone dying, someone getting divorced.
• 16:49
  But you need to make really good strategic decisions financially
• 16:53
  but you're at your lowest point mentally because of the emotions charging through you.
• 16:58
  So trying to, you know, teach people to step back and go, OK, this is what I'm feeling now and this is where I'm at.
• 17:06
  But if I'm 10 years time, what will I be feeling then?
• 17:09
  Like, where will I want to be?
• 17:11
  Does this move me towards that?
• 17:14
  Because otherwise we're making decisions.
• 17:15
  And a lot of the time in divorce, I think people say, I just want it done.
• 17:20
  Just get it done.
• 17:20
  Yes, I have had that happen.
• 17:22
  Yes.
• 17:23
  And then do you think they regret it because they could have got a better outcome if they hadn't been like that?
• 17:28
  Typically, if I have a client who says that to me, I...
• 17:33
  get them to a point where they're not going to make a decision that they regret.
• 17:38
  My little pep talks are more like, yes, I agree that you just want to get out of this, but we need to set you up for the rest of your life.
• 17:45
  And this decision really matters.
• 17:48
  So obviously I wouldn't talk them out of resolving their matter, but it would need to be something that's just an equitable.
• 17:54
  You represent men and women.
• 17:57
  What are the big differences you see in the way the sexes approach divorce?
• 18:02
  Oh yes, so very different approaches.
• 18:08
  find when I'm representing women they typically have an amazing support network of girlfriends who have their back they'll bring their friends to conferences with me on the day of mediation they'll say is it okay if I have my support crew here so I get to meet them and all their family and it's a great event when I represent men they typically come on their own
• 18:33
  They don't have anyone there with them at a court hearing.
• 18:36
  They typically don't have anyone there with them on the day of mediation.
• 18:40
  They're making decisions on their own.
• 18:43
  I think that
• 18:45
  Men typically, in my experience, have relied on their wife or significant other to make a lot of the social connections and friendships.
• 18:54
  So when they do go through a separation, they're often quite isolated.
• 18:59
  Or it could also be that they just like to keep things to themselves.
• 19:04
  No winners in divorce, but it sounds like I'd rather be bringing the sisterhood in with me than being there on my own.
• 19:10
  So that's an interesting sort of view.
• 19:14
  So Mark...
• 19:15
  is going to go get this valuation.
• 19:17
  It's going to say what it says, and I suspect it will say less than two million from what you've been telling me about with liabilities and what we can see.
• 19:23
  Yes, because they need to take into account the entire picture.
• 19:27
  And then they'll value everything else.
• 19:29
  Who does all that valuing of everything else?
• 19:31
  So they've got a house, they've got whatever they've got, super, how does that all come together and be put together as a pool?
• 19:37
  So in terms of property, so the former matrimonial home in this instance,
• 19:43
  They would use a real estate valuer that's appointed as a single expert.
• 19:48
  So not a real estate agent, a valuer?
• 19:51
  Typically valuers, yes.
• 19:54
  So these are people that are at arm's length.
• 19:57
  They're not friends with either party and they will do an actual sworn valuation that could be used in court if necessary.
• 20:05
  And they are a lot cheaper.
• 20:07
  They're typically around $1,500 to $2,000 of property.
• 20:11
  How do you find those people?
• 20:12
  Are they working for banks or what?
• 20:13
  Do you just Google business valuation?
• 20:15
  There are probably, well, there's a number in Australia that specialise just in valuations for courts.
• 20:23
  It's a whole new world here.
• 20:24
  I'm like, so how do you find them?
• 20:26
  typically find them through your lawyer.
• 20:29
  And the usual process if the parties have engaged lawyers is that one party would propose three business valuers and three property valuers and the other side would choose one.
• 20:40
  It's the typical approach that's used.
• 20:43
  Okay.
• 20:44
  All right.
• 20:44
  Well, that makes sense.
• 20:45
  Then it's, yep.
• 20:46
  Okay.
• 20:47
  That, that, I can see how that would be fair and it would be hard to rig that unless you had three on your side, but you know, that's getting complex.
• 20:55
  So Mark's written to me first.
• 20:57
  I suspect he's yet to appoint
• 21:00
  any legal representation, which is why he's writing to me and my column, as opposed to knowing the answers yet.
• 21:06
  If he was to go, oh, you know, I'm going to appoint a lawyer or a barrister.
• 21:12
  A, how do you know if you need a barrister versus just an attorney?
• 21:16
  And B, how do you go about finding them?
• 21:20
  Because I see in the movies, you know, people ringing and they're like, oh, we can't represent you.
• 21:24
  Your husband's already spoken to us or whatever.
• 21:26
  And you're like, do people do those things?
• 21:28
  Yes, they do.
• 21:30
  They do.
• 21:30
  And that's a real thing, right?
• 21:31
  If they've already contacted you, just you can't take the other half.
• 21:35
  That's right.
• 21:36
  Yes.
• 21:36
  So typically, to maybe put this really simply,
• 21:42
  The difference between lawyers and, or attorneys and barristers, is that a lawyer would be the day-to-day contact for a client, and a barrister would really just come in for the court hearings.
• 21:56
  Now, a lot of matters resolved without the need to go to court.
• 22:00
  So in determining that, it's almost similar to a GP and a surgeon.
• 22:05
  The GP deals with the day-to-day things and the surgeon just comes in for the day of surgery or the day of the trial.
• 22:12
  So typically clients would need to find a lawyer at first instance.
• 22:17
  So do the lawyers appoint the barrister?
• 22:19
  Yes, they do.
• 22:20
  Okay, so really you wouldn't have many individuals coming to you?
• 22:23
  Correct.
• 22:24
  Yes, so they would always come through a solicitor.
• 22:28
  Because I'm guessing a barrister is a lot more expensive than a lawyer?
• 22:31
  Some are and it depends on seniority.
• 22:36
  and some are just a little bit more expensive or a similar price to a lawyer.
• 22:40
  But we have different skill sets.
• 22:42
  Lawyers write lots of letters and draft a lot of court documents, whereas barristers are in court typically or in a mediation presenting someone.
• 22:53
  So a lot of advocacy.
• 22:54
  So a different type of skill set.
• 22:57
  Much more a communications skill set, it sounds like.
• 23:00
  Yes.
• 23:00
  Okay.
• 23:01
  Okay.
• 23:02
  And so of all the cases that come to you, mainly through lawyers, how many of them go to mediation versus court?
• 23:10
  Well, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia mandates that all parties, where it's safe to do so, must participate in a mediation.
• 23:19
  All parties, even if there are allegations of family violence,
• 23:23
  They typically do go to a mediation, but it would be where it's safe and they're often done by shuttle.
• 23:30
  So you would have a mediator that would go between the two different parties so the parties would never actually see each other on the day of the mediation to try to help broker a deal.
• 23:40
  Okay, but same building but different rooms?
• 23:42
  Sometimes the same building or sometimes one party might appear remotely
• 23:48
  and the other party might be in person.
• 23:50
  That is what we would call a hybrid mediation.
• 23:52
  So there are lots of different ways because often when lawyers are involved, it's clear that the parties are not amicable and if they could have sorted it out between them, they would have already.
• 24:05
  So keeping that separation often assists.
• 24:10
  When you're in a mediation, like if you can see it all going badly, I hope it doesn't for Mark.
• 24:14
  I hope it could be a lot more cut and dried for him.
• 24:17
  But do people go to another mediation before court or do you just go, this hasn't worked, let's go to court?
• 24:23
  Yeah, sometimes parties do attend a second mediation and sometimes a third mediation.
• 24:30
  I'm really giving it a crack.
• 24:33
  OK.
• 24:34
  Because if it's going to go through the court, sometimes it depends what state in Australia.
• 24:40
  The court does a great job to get through all of the court hearings.
• 24:43
  But sometimes, for example, in Mark's instance where it may just be property only,
• 24:50
  the priority would be on high risk parenting matters.
• 24:54
  So it may take well over a year for the court to hear the matter.
• 24:58
  So in those instances, although the parties might not agree on everything, they might agree they do want to wrap up their financial relationship.
• 25:06
  So there can be motivations to really give mediation a crack.
• 25:11
  Okay, so separating it.
• 25:13
  And it sounds like Mark's kids are older, so they'd either be older teens or over 18, so it may not be an issue for him as much as those with younger children.
• 25:22
  That's right.
• 25:23
  And one thing from Mark's case that he sent through,
• 25:29
  I would query whether one or both of his children work in his business as well, because if they do, there may be some type of legacy that they intend to carry on, which would also be something relevant.
• 25:42
  OK, so that would be a positive evaluation for both parties, really, to think their kids could have a legacy.
• 25:48
  OK, yeah, I hadn't thought of that.
• 25:50
  So, for example, if Mark genuinely couldn't afford to retain the business,
• 25:57
  but one of the children works in the business, there might be some goodwill there with his wife who might like to see, you know, one of the children continue on in the business.
• 26:09
  Yeah, okay.
• 26:10
  What's the sort of average legal fees you see?
• 26:13
  So let's just use Mark.
• 26:15
  Mark goes to mediation, gets the valuation.
• 26:17
  We know that could be three, 10 grand, maybe something the size of his business.
• 26:21
  It's not going to be 100 grand for that business.
• 26:23
  And then you appoint a lawyer and then you realise you can't,
• 26:28
  So the lawyer brings in someone like yourself, a barrister.
• 26:31
  Like what does the average divorce cost with all that?
• 26:34
  Because that's a lot of bodies on the job.
• 26:37
  It's really difficult to give an estimate.
• 26:40
  But I've seen costs from as low as a few thousand dollars all the way up to $1,000.
• 26:46
  over $700,000 in legal fees, but it really depends on the complexity of the matter, whether it's just parenting only or property only or parenting and property.
• 26:59
  Sometimes it can depend on the level of conflict and the number of issues.
• 27:05
  In a case recently I've been involved in, there were 20 different business valuations.
• 27:10
  So sometimes there can be a lot of added costs just because of the structure of the asset pool as well.
• 27:18
  Right.
• 27:18
  Okay.
• 27:19
  So the more money you have, you're going to pay.
• 27:21
  But, I mean, would someone like Mark get out of it for less than 20 grand?
• 27:25
  I mean, I'm not holding you to it, but trying to put a pin in it.
• 27:27
  Yeah.
• 27:28
  If he could work with his...
• 27:32
  ex-wife to try to resolve it and maybe between them they resolve it and they go to a lawyer to try to document it so that it can be something that's binding they likely could do it for under twenty thousand dollars but if it's adversarial and they don't agree and they both engage their own lawyers I don't think it would be possible to resolve it for less than twenty thousand dollars
• 27:59
  So that's the thing, people listening.
• 28:01
  If you're going to get divorced, try and make it amicable.
• 28:04
  The minute you've got separate legal counsel and then bringing in people like you, the heavyweights, the barristers, then it's going to be a lot of dough.
• 28:13
  Yeah.
• 28:14
  OK. Well, I mean, we're here to solve Mark's dilemma.
• 28:18
  I think he's got a decent path forward, to be honest.
• 28:20
  I'm so grateful for your insight.
• 28:23
  It's something I've never really looked behind, you know, the door of what you do at that barrister level.
• 28:28
  But at least if he had someone like you on his side, I have no doubt he'd win, Mark.
• 28:32
  I hope.
• 28:33
  I don't know if you can afford Talia, but she's done her best for you on the show.
• 28:39
  But he's got to get his business valuation, get his wife on board with the suppliers of that, have legal representation, hopefully a lawyer that they both work with.
• 28:48
  Yeah, there are some lawyers where it is amicable, where Mark and his wife could go to them
• 28:56
  and they could really draft a legally binding agreement for them.
• 29:01
  It does happen and it is possible.
• 29:04
  Brilliant.
• 29:05
  Well, Mark, you would have read the column in the Daily Mail.
• 29:08
  You've now heard it here at length from Talia.
• 29:11
  So good luck.
• 29:13
  I hope it works out as best as it can for both you and your wife and your family, Mark.
• 29:18
  And I love the idea that there's some legacy there for his children.
• 29:21
  So I certainly hope it goes that way.
• 29:23
  Talia, thank you so much for joining me on the show today.
• 29:26
  And thank you for inviting me.
• 29:27
  It's been a pleasure.
• 29:28
  Well, I hope I never need you professionally.
• 29:32
  I have been divorced before, so not calling on that again.
• 29:36
  But I know if I did, you'd be the first person I'd be calling.
• 29:40
  So, yeah, indeed.
• 29:44
  Look forward to hearing from you all next week to solve our next money dilemma.