Most of the mess shows up after the deal is done.
Not because attorneys don’t care but because the wrong problem got solved.
🟠 Gains and losses weren’t calculated.
🟠 Marital shares weren’t defined.
🟠 Equalization seemed easier, until it wasn’t.
The truth?
You don’t need a new form.
You need a new sequence.
Here’s what too many settlements get wrong:
Equalization Isn’t Neutral
It may sound fair, but it silently shifts risk. One spouse absorbs all the market volatility after cutoff without ever agreeing to it.
Plans Don’t Define Marital Share
Defined contribution plans won’t calculate what portion of an account is marital. Yet many settlements assume they will, creating exposure and confusion down the road.
Fair-Sounding Language Still Fails
Even well-meaning clauses can fall apart if the math isn’t accurate. Precision is everything, especially when accounts include pre-marital balances, rollovers, or post-commencement contributions.
So ask the question most don’t: Whose gains are you dividing?
Because if the language isn’t enforceable, it’s expensive.
There’s no in-between.