Divorce is a highly emotional experience, but the legal process itself largely boils down to a dispute over money. Knowing how the process works can help you get the most out of your divorce and prepare you for your new, independent life.
Equitable distribution
When a married couple divorces, they must divide their marital property — meaning all their assets and all their debts. Divorce is handled under state law, and each state has its own way of dealing with property division in divorce.
Like most states, Indiana follows a model known as “equitable distribution.” This means the property must be divided fairly, not necessarily equally.
Indiana’s ‘one-pot’ rule
Unlike many other states, Indiana law does not make a distinction between property the parties acquired before the marriage and property acquired during the marriage. Instead, all the property goes in one metaphorical pot, to be divided between the spouses in divorce. This is sometimes called the “one-pot rule.”
Indiana courts start with the premise that a 50/50 split is fair, but they make adjustments according to the circumstances. For example, in a marriage where one spouse earned a high salary while the other stayed home to care for the children, a 50/50 split could leave the stay-at-home spouse at a disadvantage. After the divorce, the high-earning spouse can continue to earn their high salary, but the stay-at-home spouse will have to go out and get a job after being out of the workforce for some years. They may also still need to care for the children, making it hard for them to get a good-paying job.
Why let the court decide?
So far, we have been discussing how courts decide divorce cases, but the truth is that most property division matters are settled out of court by the parties themselves through negotiation. In many cases, the parties use a mediator to help them reach agreement. Once the two sides agree, they write up their agreement and present it to the court for approval.
There are several big advantages to deciding property division this way. It’s typically faster and less expensive than going to court. It also gives the parties more control over their outcome. After all, who knows better about two people’s personal finances, the two people or a judge who has probably never met them before?
That said, there are cases in which the spouses simply cannot reach agreement without going to court. And, in some cases, the emotional dynamics between the spouses makes it impossible for them to reach a fair agreement without a neutral third party deciding for them.