Behind the Bench: Anatomy of a Divorce Trial, Part I • Your Divorce Case
Inside the Courtroom: What Really Happens During a Divorce Trial
Tampa divorce attorney Seth Nelson and Pete Wright explore what really happens when a divorce case goes to trial in this first episode of a two-part deep dive. As part of the tenth season's "Your Divorce Case" series, Seth and Pete take listeners inside a Florida divorce courtroom, breaking down everything from the physical layout to the intricate procedures that govern these proceedings.
Seth guides us through the mechanics of a divorce trial, describing the roles of everyone present—from the judge and attorneys to the bailiff and court reporter. The conversation examines how evidence is presented, the importance of proper documentation, and the strategic elements that shape trial proceedings. Pete's thoughtful questions help illuminate complex legal concepts, making them accessible to anyone facing divorce court.
Questions we answer in this episode:
What does a divorce courtroom look like and who will be there?
How does evidence get admitted during a trial?
What happens during opening statements and how do they shape the case?
Key Takeaways:
Trials move quickly—preparation and organization are crucial
Evidence must be authenticated, relevant, and admissible to be considered
Like a tennis match, trials have momentum shifts but staying focused is key
Whether you're facing a divorce trial or simply want to understand the process better, this episode provides invaluable insights into how divorce trials actually work. Seth and Pete's engaging discussion demystifies the courtroom experience while offering practical knowledge about what to expect when your divorce goes to trial.
Links & Notes
Got a question you want to ask on the show? Click here!
-
Pete Wright:
Welcome to How to Split a Toaster, a divorce podcast about saving your relationships, from TruStory FM. There once was a toaster named Clyde whose marriage was quite a rough ride. His mate burned the bread, so he sadly said, "I'm done. Let the judges decide."
Seth Nelson:
Welcome to the show everybody, I'm Seth Nelson. And as always, I'm here with my good friend Pete Wright. Pete, you outdid me on the intro because I was going to throw some stuff in here. But I'm still going to try, but everyone would vote for you on that great poem. All Rise, the Honorable Andy Nelson, no relation, is presiding. As we all know, Andy is our producer and he is the one that shall not be named or spoken to. But he's like a judge. He's going to sit on the bench and not say anything and just listen. Just listen to the testimony. Judges do say stuff, but we'll get to that in a minute.
So today on the show, we're stepping into the courtroom. If you've ever wondered what really happens when a divorce case goes to trial, how the strategies unfold, how momentum builds, and how the best attorneys adapt on the fly, thinking on your feet, this two-part episode is for you.
Pete Wright:
True. Two-parter, Unprecedented. Let's start, Seth, with the big picture. If I were to step into a Florida divorce courtroom today, what would I see? Walk me through the mechanics, the players involved, the rules, unspoken or not, the pacing. What am I going to see?
Seth Nelson:
They're small courtrooms, so I'm going to get the physical layout of the courtroom because a lot of our people and listeners only have seen courtrooms on TV or movies. It's usually a small courtroom. And there will be the judge up on the bench, which may or may not be an elevated bench, or if elevated, just slightly. So you're usually looking either eye level or up to the judge. Then there will be two counsel tables where the lawyers sit, one lawyer at one table, the other lawyer on the other table. The lawyers usually sit closest to each other. Then the parties sit to the opposite sides.
Pete Wright:
Is there always a side for defendant? Is there always a side?
Seth Nelson:
It is such a great question. In family law, it's a petitioner and a respondent. In a civil case where let's say you were suing me for breach of contract, it would be a plaintiff and a defendant or the state and the defendant.
Pete Wright:
Can I just tell you what I imagine first? I imagine you just get to court early and run to get the best seat. That's what I imagine, that it's a race. It's a goddamn race.
Seth Nelson:
That is not what happens, I assure you. I do get to court early. Other than that, everything else is false.
So when we're taught, in taking notes, we always start with plaintiff verse defendant, which we have a shorthand for. So plaintiff is always on the left side of the page and defendant is always on the right side of the page, and that's kind of how you view the world. So in the courtroom, this is very funny you asked this question because in the courtroom, I haven't thought of this in years. Usually, if you're facing the judge, the plaintiff will be on the right and the defendant will be on the left, or petitioner will be on the right, defendant on the left because-
Pete Wright:
Because it's judge's rules.
Seth Nelson:
... when the judge is looking at you, it is reversed. Right?
Pete Wright:
That's stage rules too, right? Like stage right, stage left. It's the same thing.
Seth Nelson:
Same thing, same thing. It's very funny that you asked that.
Okay, so you come in, you sit down, and this is one of my favorite things in the law. I don't care how much of a hotshot lawyer you think you are, or maybe you are a hotshot lawyer in top of your game. At the end of the day, when you're in that courtroom and you're sitting, waiting for trial, you're like everybody else. You're waiting on the judge. The judge is in control.
Now, judges have personalities and some have more authority. They all have the same amount of authority, but some judges have different demeanors on the bench and they will exert their authority much more quickly than others. Some judges will let lawyers, quote unquote, get away with stuff that they maybe shouldn't. Maybe they'll let them go on too long or X, Y and Z. So it really depends on the judge. A lot is controlled by the judge, they have a lot of discretion and a lot of power to run their courtroom the way they want to run their courtroom.
So you have that layout. There's probably some benches in the back, like pews. Anybody in the public can come sit in on your divorce case as long as they're not a minor.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
Okay?
Pete Wright:
What is the value of that?
Seth Nelson:
Of telling people that? Is literally no one ever comes.
Pete Wright:
All due respect, I can't imagine wanting to come sit in on somebody else's divorce trial. I can't imagine that.
Seth Nelson:
Right. Now, there are rare circumstances where people come. It might be people from the law office are like, "Hey, I want to see the opening." Or you might have a friend that's there to support you, which I try to encourage don't come in the courtroom. But then you might want to bring your parents or other people or you might want to bring some of the witnesses in the courtroom.
And this is something that we'll get to but, or we'll just deal with it now I guess, the witnesses are not allowed to be in the courtroom, unless they're an expert, to listen to anyone else's testimony. It's called invoking the rule. And there's all these little sayings that I just love because I'm a law nerd. Right? So there's the benches back there. There's the bailiff.
Pete Wright:
Bailiff is sitting up in front.
Seth Nelson:
Well, he will usually be sitting by the door.
Pete Wright:
Oh, okay. Okay.
Seth Nelson:
Okay? And remember, you have your, from the back to the front, you have the benches, you'll have a half wall, and then you'll have the chairs for the counsel table. Then you'll have a space, then you'll have the bench, and next to the bench, there's usually two chairs, one on each side, one for the witness and one for a court reporter.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
And then by the door, there's usually a chair with a little table where the security officer, the bailiff, the sheriff's officer sits because they're assigned to protect the court. That bailiff will always be in that courtroom if that judge is in that courtroom. Okay.
So there's some rules of the road. You, as the client, should be asking your lawyer, "Where do I sit?" And you should know before you walk in. So you go and you sit down, you get out your pad of paper, you get out a pen, you don't bring any other notes with you, and you flip over a couple pages and you can write your notes on anything you want to write during the trial, a couple pages in. Because when you're done writing or if it's a break, you literally take the first couple pages with nothing on it and put them down so no one can see your notes.
Pete Wright:
What about devices, iPads? What if you want to write on a digital tablet?
Seth Nelson:
Not coming in, turn everything off. And I don't mean silent, I mean off. There is nothing you're going to answer at that time. If someone needs to get a hold of you, make plans to call the lawyer's office and have the lawyer's office contact the lawyer. But you're not answering your phone, you're not checking your phone, you're not looking for texts, you're not getting the latest sports scores.
Pete Wright:
Honestly, I was just thinking about using my Apple Pencil on my iPad to take notes. That's my normal thing. I don't use paper really, so that's just you frown on that.
Seth Nelson:
I don't want it. I frown on it. I would tell you, "Nope, you're using a pad of paper," because I don't want that thing dinging and distracting you or whatever.
Pete Wright:
Sure. Okay.
Seth Nelson:
Okay. That's the layout of the courtroom.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, let's talk about the processional. I'm going to call it the processional, like a wedding. When the judge comes in and what do I expect if I'm sitting next to you at that counsel table?
Seth Nelson:
That's exactly where I was going. The bailiff will come in first. He might be there and be like, "Are you all ready for the judge?" "Yes." Then he'll go get the judge. And there's a door past where the bench is. So we come in from the public area, the judge comes in from a secure area.
Pete Wright:
Is that a judge's quarters?
Seth Nelson:
Chambers.
Pete Wright:
Chambers.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah, chambers. And back there is a long hallway with a bunch of offices that are called chambers.
Pete Wright:
And that's where the judge's permanent office is?
Seth Nelson:
That's correct.
Pete Wright:
Okay. So is a judge assigned their own courtroom?
Seth Nelson:
Yes.
Pete Wright:
That's associated with their chambers?
Seth Nelson:
Well, yes. It's all by seniority. So judges get to pick their courtrooms based on the court that they're on by seniority, and they also get to pick their chambers by seniority.
Pete Wright:
So there isn't a rotating... There is a docket that judges get assigned cases. You don't get assigned a courtroom. You have your courtroom.
Seth Nelson:
You have your courtroom, you got it. Okay. You have it all set up the way you want it set up and all that stuff. Okay. Your computers, your email comes to it, the whole thing.
So then what happens is the bailiff comes in and he is going to say, "All rise," which means you stand up.
Pete Wright:
Okay. If there was any confusion.
Seth Nelson:
Let's be clear. Let's be clear.
Pete Wright:
Put the Twizzlers down and stand up.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. That's right. People get nervous, okay? And then you wait for the court to say, "You may be seated," and you stand until they do. And sometimes judges are coming in and they're thinking about not your hearing, but they just ruled on three emergency motions and maybe they're thinking about that, and they sit down and they start getting their stuff together and they're not ignoring you or being rude. They're working, but they kind of forget everyone's standing and they look up and like, "Oh, I'm sorry, take your seat." Okay? And sometimes right when they walk in, they say, "You may be seated." Okay.
Then you sit there quietly and wait. You don't say anything other than if the judge says, "Good morning," you say, "Good morning." Or you might say, "Good morning, your Honor," or you might say, "Good morning." And then you wait for him to tell you what we're about to do next.
Pete Wright:
Okay. How prepared is the judge on walking into the courtroom? Have they reviewed the factors of your case? Or do they just wait for you, the attorneys, to give it to them?
Seth Nelson:
That is a great question as well. Man, Pete, you're crushing it. We might [inaudible 00:11:11] to turn this into three or four episodes.
Pete Wright:
Okay, I'll shut up is what I hear you saying.
Seth Nelson:
No, it's great. These are great. So a judge would have already reviewed, you hope, it's stuff that's been submitted, like a pretrial memorandum of law that the judge ordered you to file. Hopefully, they've reviewed it. They might've required a memorandum of law, which is different than a pretrial memo. A pretrial is kind of basic like, "Here's what I'm asking for. Here's the issues."
A memorandum of law is like, "Here it is, Judge. Here's what we're going to prove. Here's the law you have to consider," and the case law and cites. And when people say, "Oh, I wrote a brief," or a memorandum of law, technically their different. Briefs are appellate court, memorandum of laws are trial court, but the concept is the same. You're explaining to the judge what is the issue, what are the rules, what are your analysis of that compared to the facts and what the conclusion should be for each issue.
Pete Wright:
You said hopefully the judge has reviewed that.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah, hopefully. Now, they don't necessarily have to review it at that time. It would be great if they did, and I have a lot of good judges now, and a lot of them will read those. Okay? The more experienced the judges, the quicker they read it because they know it. But regarding evidence, the judge might not look at anything except if you've already submitted joint stipulated exhibits.
Pete Wright:
Okay, explain what that is.
Seth Nelson:
The judge can only consider evidence, things that are in evidence. So we'll just take three bank statements for example. Okay?
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
We have husband's bank statement, wife's bank statement, and there's a trust in this case, and the trust has a bank statement. We all agree that the wife's bank statement can come in. And we file because the court requires us to submit before trial a joint exhibit notebook that says whatever we're agreeing comes into evidence is in. We're not going to waste the time and having to authenticate it and all these other things.
Then the judge wants to know, "Well, Mr. Nelson, what documents do you want to put into evidence that the other side doesn't agree to?" And I'll be like, "Look, here's my list. They didn't agree."
Then they'll say, "Okay, well, Mr. Nelson, did they have documents that they wanted in?" I'll be like, "Yes." "Did you agree to them all?" "No." Remember, I said three bank statements. The bank statement of the wife in my hypothetical, it's in. We stipulated-
Pete Wright:
Jointly stipulated. I get that.
Seth Nelson:
Jointly.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
You both have to agree. And once it's in, I'm okay if the judge reviews that before the trial starts, because it's the moment the trial starts, we're going to say, "Judge, as you know, we stipulated to this. It's in evidence." Great. And the judge might say, "I've already reviewed it because you stipulated to."
Pete Wright:
It saves time.
Seth Nelson:
Right. Saves time. He's prepared, she's prepared. The judge might've reviewed that evidence, Pete, because it was stipulated.
And what the judge does not do next is he does not say, "Well, Mr. Nelson, you've got 20 documents that you want to get into evidence. Let's discuss each one and see whether I'm going to let it in." That's not how it works. And he doesn't go to the other side, "We're going to discuss your 30 documents and see if they get in."
Pete Wright:
But what if you feel really, really strongly about it?
Seth Nelson:
I will still have a chance, but I have to get them in what's called through a witness. When I call the witness, then I will argue to get them in.
So remember, I said we had three documents. So let's say they call their first witness and they go to enter a bank statement. Now, look, I already let the wife's in. I stipulated to it. "So Mr. Nelson, what's wrong with the husband's?" I say, "Judge, it hasn't been authenticated." And there's certain questions that you have to ask to authenticate a document. And if it's a bank statement, technically you need to get a bank representative to come in there and say, "This is our business record. It's kept contemporaneously when it's created. We store it. This is our logo on it. Yes, this is authentic bank statement from Bank of America."
Pete Wright:
So is there a presumption there that anything that is joint stipulated, that first bank statement, that was authenticated to both of your satisfaction? Or can you say, "We agree to that, even if it wasn't authenticated, we believe in it enough"?
Seth Nelson:
That's correct. Once it's stipulated to, the judge does not care. It's in evidence.
Pete Wright:
Yeah. Okay.
Seth Nelson:
Now, the second one, if they call the records custodian, then that's coming in. But I've had documents that were fraudulent. And my whole argument is it's a fraudulent document and therefore, it cannot be properly authenticated and therefore, it's not coming in. Rare, but I just wanted to lay out that you have these evidentiary issues.
And then we have the trust one. And maybe the trust one, the bank [inaudible 00:16:17] comes in and says, "It's authentic. It's the real deal." And I say, "Judge, I agree, it's authentic. It's not relevant. And because this document isn't relevant, then it should not be admitted." Think of evidence as a three-legged stool, authentic, relevant, and admissible.
Pete Wright:
Admissible. By admissible, we mean-
Seth Nelson:
Under the rules of evidence.
Pete Wright:
Under the rules of evidence, it's been authenticated, whatever it takes to be admissible.
Seth Nelson:
Right, right.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
So it's not admissible because it is a confidential document. Someone has privacy rights. That is a trust document, but it's not a trust relevant or that is about this case.
Pete Wright:
Okay. So you're saying somebody might be represented in that trust that is not a party to this case.
Seth Nelson:
Right, and then maybe it's not relevant and it's confidential. Right? There could be multiple things. Or maybe a child's mental health record is relevant and it's authentic, but it's confidential because they have a patient-child privilege going on with the doctor. So just there's those three things. You have to get all three of them in or the stool doesn't stand and it doesn't come into evidence. Okay.
So judge comes in, "All rise. Let's get started. Any housekeeping issues?" "Yes, judge. We have a joint exhibit notebook that we've previously submitted." And just you have your court reporter sitting up there transcribing everything. Make sure you order your court reporter, the court does not provide one for you, and you're going, going, going. And then what you do is you say, "And here are the following documents that are being admitted into evidence." And you read, number one, wife's financial affidavit dated January 1st, 2025. Number two, and I read the list, right? Because now it's in the transcript. Right?
And the judge will say, "Counsel, do you agree?" And sometimes you'll go through the whole list and the judge will look at my opposing counsel and say, "Ma'am, do you agree?" "Yes, your Honor, I agree that one through 36 are entered by stipulation." Then the judge will say on the record, "I'm entering into evidence numbers one through 36 by stipulation," and then you'll hear stamp, stamp, stamp, stamp, stamp because-
Pete Wright:
36 times?
Seth Nelson:
Maybe. Now, they might be doing it electronically now, but yes. Okay. That's in evidence, the judge can consider it.
Any other housekeeping issues? Well, what are housekeeping issues? That's procedural stuff within the court. It might be, "Yeah, Judge, I know we're set for trial today from 9:00 to 5:00. I'm just asking when do you typically take your lunch break?" And the judge might say, "Typically, around 12:00 to 1:00, but let's see how it goes with the evidence. We don't want to split up a witness. Let's find a good time to break a little early, a little late. Do you have anything else?" And opposing counsel might say, "Judge, I know we're in trial here, but two doors down, I got ordered to be at a case management conference at 3:30, so could we take a comfort break at 3:30 for 10 minutes if possible?" Anything that might have come up.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
Right?
Pete Wright:
So the judge tries to account for the fact that you're pulled in a lot of different directions.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah. It's very rare to ask to leave a trial, but if it's their colleague down the hall and you're asking for 10 minutes and you're going to take breaks along the way, they're usually very accommodating, to the best that they can be.
Pete Wright:
Can I ask a question related to that?
Seth Nelson:
Sure.
Pete Wright:
Which we didn't talk about. If there are kids involved in the case, are the kids here during this or are they treated like a witness?
Seth Nelson:
The kids should never be in the courtroom, should never even come to the courthouse, unless there's a court order and usually you have to file a motion for that. Do not bring them to the courtroom. Do not bring them to the courthouse. Okay? Great question.
So now you're doing these housekeeping issues and sometimes the judge has a housekeeping issue. And maybe the trial started at 9:00 and the judge walks in at 9:45. And you're a hot shot lawyer and you're waiting for 45 minutes, billing your client. Pays by your time, it's not your fault that you're waiting. And the judge goes, "Sorry, I had two emergency hearings that I had to cover." And the judge doesn't have to explain why. The judge can just take the bench and not say anything. They usually explain, they're good people on the bench.
So once you go through housekeeping, and it might be, "Your Honor, here's the witnesses we're intending on calling today, but counsel and I have agreed that we're going to take a witness out of order. Even though they get to put on their case first, we have an expert, but the expert's only available this morning and we have a stipulation that I'm going to put on the expert first who's expensive. We can get them here, get the testimony you need to make your decision and then they can be excused." So you might take witnesses out of what might be the procedural order differently. Okay?
So these housekeeping issues, let's say it's nine o'clock, it's supposed to start, you're ready there at 8:45, sitting in the courtroom. Judge walks in right on time, and then you do housekeeping issues that take 10, 20, 30 minutes. It's now 9:30. You take lunch at noon, 10:30, 11:30, two and a half hours.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, that's not a lot of time.
Seth Nelson:
Trials go fast. That's my point on that.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
We only get two and a half hours before lunch and we get back at 1:00 and maybe we're going to 5:00. That's four hours, but we probably have a couple breaks in there and the judge might have something that comes in on another case and you might only get three hours then.
Pete Wright:
Okay, so what is your expectation when you walk in in the morning? Is your expectation usually by the end of the day, we'd like to have this resolved or do you know this is going to take multiple days?
Seth Nelson:
You will already have that in the pre-trial order and how many days you're going to be in trial. So literally, just today, I'm set for trial a week, I guess five business days, right? We're recording this on a Thursday. A judge sent an email and said, "I know you're set for trial next Friday." It's Thursday, so not tomorrow, but a week from tomorrow. And he says, "I'm really sorry. This was set with a different judge before I got on this bench and I have a conflict in the afternoon. I only can hear your case from 9:00 to 12:00. I'm happy to start at 8:00. Can we get this case done from 8:00 to 12:00?"
And both lawyers said, "No." Probably said it a little nicer than that. And the judge was very accommodating. "well, can we do another half day?" And we were very fortunate, we got another half day just the following Friday. Very lucky. Very lucky. But the judge was very apologetic and we were all working together. We want to do what's best for the clients and get the case tried, we're ready to go. It's a lot of expense to redo it. Okay.
So no, Pete, we hope to get trials done in a day. And the more you can stipulate to on facts or evidence prior to walking in that first day, the quicker it goes. The more narrow the issues. But you've heard about all the potential witnesses that we might have. So you do all of the preliminary stuff, trials go quick and here we are. And then the judge says, "All right, let's begin." And let's say that I'm going first because I'm the petitioner. Petitioner goes first, respondent goes second. They say, "Mr. Nelson, would you like to make an opening statement?" And now I make my opening statement.
Pete Wright:
Now where I understand what's going on because I've watched TV.
Seth Nelson:
There you go. They usually don't do those preliminary matters, they get straight to opening statements.
Pete Wright:
Yes, they do.
Seth Nelson:
Everything I say is not in evidence. It is an opening statement. There is no witness on the stand. It's just me telling the judge what I believe the evidence will show.
Pete Wright:
Just attempting to sway the judge preemptively towards your side.
Seth Nelson:
I wouldn't say sway the judge. I would say I'm trying to tell the judge, "This is what you need to look for because these are the facts that are important." And you're not arguing the law here and you're not arguing the case law and how the facts apply to the law. You're saying, "Judge, I'm asking for my client to get the house and here's the evidence that will show why she should have the house." And you go through your list that the evidence will show that he doesn't want the house, even though he'll claim he does. We will show you emails and text messages where he says, "You can always have the house. I know it's important to you and I know it's best for the kids for you to stay in that house." So that's not in evidence. If I don't prove that, I just told the judge I'm going to show him something. If I don't show it, I got a problem.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
You're just trying to say, "Here's the important things to look at. Here's what I think the facts will show. And here's, at the end, you're going to rule in my favor. That's the only logical conclusion."
The other side then gets to do their opening and they're going to say the house should be sold. "I agree with everything Mr. Nelson said. My client said he would love for her to keep the house, it would be best for the children. But what Mr. Nelson didn't tell you is she can't afford it. And Judge, as you know, when people get divorced and they have the same incomes and there has to be two houses, something's got to give. And unfortunately, the house is what has to go in this case." Right? So notice, he didn't even disagree with me.
Pete Wright:
No. No, that was a sleight of hand because your expectation is he's going to attack what you just said and he didn't.
Seth Nelson:
That's right.
Pete Wright:
He didn't. He bobbed and weaved.
Seth Nelson:
He didn't. Exactly. And I didn't mention that she could afford the house. So I'm doing this in kind of shorthand here. So that's just an example of what might happen in opening when it's done well. You're going to tell the judge what the evidence is going to tell them and why they should rule for us, not the law.
Second is the evidence that gets presented. I get to put on my case in chief where I put on all my witnesses. I ask a question of witness, they do cross-examine of the witness. I do redirect.
Pete Wright:
So every witness gets a threefer.
Seth Nelson:
That's right.
Pete Wright:
And that's the last time you're going to see that witness, right? They don't-
Seth Nelson:
Not necessarily. If I call my client in my case in chief, I ask direct questions, opposing counsel asks cross-examination. I do redirect. Witness is excused as far as off the stand. They're not released from the courtroom. One, it's a party, they're going to be there. But then when I finish my case and I say I rest, and then they go to the other side and the judge says, "Call your first witness," they can call my client. Is on the witness list.
Pete Wright:
And you'll know upfront if that's going to be an option for them.
Seth Nelson:
Well, it will be an option. Whether they do it or not is another story, that's up to them. Okay, so you go through all the witnesses, then you rest your case, then the other side puts on their case.
Pete Wright:
Got it.
Seth Nelson:
Okay. And then you do all of that, and then you go to closing statements. And in closing statements, you tell the judge what you think the judge heard in evidence.
Pete Wright:
Okay. I'm sure judges love that.
Seth Nelson:
Yes, they do. And then you weave in the law. This is where you can make your legal arguments and cite case law. Say, "Judge, here's the law on the house. She can afford it. You heard the evidence that she's already gotten a mortgage pre-approvement letter. And the mortgage company came in and said, 'Judge, we will sign this document today and give her the mortgage.' And there's equity of $100,000, so she owes him 50. And we have a retirement account that is a Roth IRA that will not be taxed, that is available to the parties today because the retirement age. And it has $100,000, he can have the other 50."
So that's how you handle closing. And the case law says you can do that. And you cite to the case and you cite to the statute and you cite to the rules and you put on this brilliant closing argument where you bring it all together. I know we're only at the very beginning of explaining how the process works, but let me explain my concept here.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
There's really two things to end with on this show for part one, and we might have to go a few parts, like we said. One, you're always putting pieces to a puzzle together for the judge to get a picture. It's a jigsaw puzzle. And as you know, Pete, you do not need to have every single piece for the human mind to figure out the picture. You get as many of those pieces into evidence and at the end, you bring it all together and you say, "This is the picture you just saw."
Pete Wright:
The next thing I wanted to talk about is over the course of trial, the chess match that you're playing, right? The whole idea of building momentum and winning and losing points. Because you started this podcast years ago with you, as a client, never get your day in court. You, as the attorney, get your day in court. I want to hear about that, and it sounds like that's a tease for next time.
Seth Nelson:
It is, but I'm going to end with this because I swear I did not write these questions for you, Pete. This is a perfect question. The other thing I wanted to end with is, yes, it is a chess match, which we will talk about. But I want you to think first, it's a tennis match. And we all know in tennis, they have a crazy scoring system. Right?
Pete Wright:
Yeah, it's bonkers.
Seth Nelson:
You don't have to win every point in a tennis match to win the match. You don't have to win every game in a tennis match to win the match. And you don't even have to win every set in a tennis match to win the match. In women's tennis, you have to win two out of three sets. In men's tennis, it's three out of five sets. And in a tennis match, there'll be momentum shifts. And you'll be feeling good, and you might [inaudible 00:31:38] won a game on your serve, you might've broke the other opponent's serve and won the third game on your serve, and you're up three-love, man, and you are on fire and the momentum's going in your way. And then you have a stumble, maybe an unforced error. You were thinking ahead and the momentum will shift and they'll win some points.
That's the same thing that happens in a courtroom, and it can change on a dime. But you can't get caught up in the momentum shifts, you got to keep, in my hypothetical and my analogy, playing the game because courtroom is not a game to be played. But this is playing that tennis match. You're onto the next point. In court, you're onto the next question. You're onto the next witness. You recover.
And if it's a two-day trial, at the end of day one, you're figuring out what you have to do and change strategy for day two based on what happened in day one. Maybe the judge said something, maybe the witness said something that wasn't expected. Maybe a piece of evidence got in that you didn't think would get in, or maybe a piece of evidence stayed out that you thought was going to come in, and now you don't have to deal with that evidence. A lot going on, but is a momentum, highs and lows, and you just got to stay in the game.
Pete Wright:
I love it. I love it, and I love that we're going to start there next time. You're right, how many episodes are we going to have on trial? I don't know. It could be seven.
Seth Nelson:
I know. But here's the thing. The judge doesn't get to make his ruling until the trial is over, and if we never want to hear from Andy, we got to just keep the trial going.
Pete Wright:
We got to keep playing the game. I think I already learned that. I learned that. This has been great.
Don't forget, we've got questions. Head over to howtosplitatoaster.com and click that ask a question button, submit your questions. We do have another Q&A episode coming up toward the end of the season, after we wrap up our trial. More questions have been coming in, Seth, and they're good. So I can't wait to get another Q&A episode. Keep that coming.
On behalf of Seth Nelson, America's favorite divorce attorney, I'm Pete Wright. And we'll see you next time for part two on trial, right here on How to Split A Toaster, a divorce podcast about saving your relationships.
Outro:
How to Split A Toaster is part of the TruStory FM Podcast Network, produced by Andy Nelson, music by T Bless & the Professionals and DB Studios. Seth Nelson is an attorney with NLG Divorce & Family Law with offices in Tampa, Florida. While we may be discussing family law topics, How to Split a Toaster is not intended to, nor is it providing legal advice. Every situation is different. If you have specific questions regarding your situation, please seek your own legal counsel with an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Pete Wright is not an attorney or employee of NLG Divorce & Family Law. Seth Nelson is licensed to practice law in Florida.
