More Listener Questions!
In this listener question episode of How to Split a Toaster, Seth Nelson and Pete Wright tackle some of the most pressing issues faced by those navigating the complexities of divorce. From the potential pitfalls of divorce coaching to the challenges of running a business with your ex-spouse, Seth and Pete provide insightful guidance and practical advice to help you navigate your unique situation.
Throughout the episode, Seth and Pete delve into a wide range of topics, discussing the importance of seeking mental health support during a high-conflict divorce, the nuances of maintaining a business partnership with an ex-spouse, and the factors that can influence custody arrangements. By addressing these key themes, Seth and Pete aim to equip listeners with the knowledge and tools they need to make informed decisions and protect their interests during the divorce process.
Listener Questions we answer in this episode:
Is divorce coaching a good idea in a high-conflict case?
How can couples separate their marriage but keep their business together?
Can the age of a child alone justify changes in custody arrangements?
What can you do if your ex refuses to accept a fair settlement offer?
What are some less obvious things to include in a parenting plan?
Key Takeaways:
In a high-conflict divorce, it's best to avoid divorce coaching and opt for confidential mental health counseling instead.
When maintaining a business with an ex-spouse, a solid partnership agreement and transparency are essential.
Age of the child alone is not typically considered a substantial change in circumstances warranting custody modifications.
Whether you're considering divorce coaching, grappling with the challenges of running a business with your ex, or concerned about the impact of your child's age on custody arrangements, this episode of How to Split a Toaster offers a wealth of valuable insights. By tuning in, you'll gain a deeper understanding of the legal and emotional landscape of divorce, empowering you to make the best decisions for yourself and your family during this challenging time.
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. It's listener question day, everybody. That's right. Listener question day. And we should tell the true story. Our guest today. It was a time zone issue. We figured it out because our guest, this is a teaser for a future episode, is coming from Senegal. And that is as it turns out, a hard time zone to lock down.
Seth Nelson:
It's really not. It's Andy. Andy has trouble with time zones.
Pete Wright:
You can say that because he's not, he can't respond.
Seth Nelson:
He can't talk real. Let him talk.
Pete Wright:
All right. But we're lucky because you people, you good, fair listeners keep sending us outstanding listener questions and we're going to answer some more of them. We have this in our back pocket and here we go. They're great. Are you ready?
Seth Nelson:
I'm ready. Fire away.
Pete Wright:
We're going to start from Molly. Molly has this question about divorce coaching. "I think I would benefit from divorce coaching, but my lawyer is very against it." As she says, "The divorce coach can be subpoenaed. My case has been ongoing for two years and is very high conflict as my soon-to-be ex will not agree to anything other than majority custody and sole decision-making. And files motion after motion. Obviously I will not agree to give up our children to him more than 50%."
"He also makes false accusations about me. I'm exhausted and it's too expensive to pay my lawyer to discuss everything my soon-to-be-ex does. I was hoping a divorce coach would help me at less than half of that hourly rate. Do you recommend divorce coaching? If not, what do you suggest in a situation like this?" And let me just say that Molly abbreviates soon-to-be-ex as STBX, which I think is awesome. It's like the Starbucks ticker symbol.
Seth Nelson:
I was actually going to thank you for saying what that meant because as my teenage and 20-something children know, I'm not really up on that stuff.
Pete Wright:
On acronyms, like NIMI acronyms, divorce [inaudible 00:02:29]?
Seth Nelson:
Acronyms, emojis. I told them that I was up on music once and they're like, "No you're not." And I'm like, "Yeah, there's a great new artist out. His name is Justin Beaver."
Pete Wright:
Oh, no.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah. And they're like, "First off, it's Bieber." And they were cracking up. "And he's been out for five years." It's like, okay, let's move on.
Pete Wright:
Andy, let me just say this. Andy is reporting from the wings that someone online says it means stupid bastard ex, which it also works.
Seth Nelson:
Absolutely.
Pete Wright:
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I'm not up on this either.
Seth Nelson:
Thank you, Andy, for reporting in real time.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, it was a real [inaudible 00:03:04]
Seth Nelson:
Okay. All right, so great question. I agree with your lawyer. In a high-conflict case that you have described, I don't think a divorce coach, the risk reward of talking to a divorce coach, and having them subpoenaed and brought in. And they will testify. It's allowed in court. Anything you say to them is fair game. Any notes that they have, anything they're doing is going to be fair game in court.
I totally think think in a high-conflict divorce that you don't want to add people to the witness list. So what do you do? Do you ever recommend divorce coaches? Yes. If it's not a high-conflict case, maybe that will help it. If you're dealing with some parenting stuff, kind of get over a few bumps. But what you've described, I would say no. So what's the situation? A mental health counselor.
Pete Wright:
Oh.
Seth Nelson:
It's confidential.
Pete Wright:
Can't be subpoenaed.
Seth Nelson:
Correct. They can try. Check your local jurisdiction. I have to say that. But this is under HIPAA, it's under all sorts of patient privileges. So you can go talk to somebody about how do I get through this process and they will be much less expensive than your lawyer. It will really work on you, on how you respond, on what you do. So that would be my suggestion.
Pete Wright:
Oh, that's a great idea.
Seth Nelson:
100% though that you need to have somebody that is focused on you and getting you through the process that's less expensive than your lawyer. We talked about there's an attorney and counselor-at-law. Counselor-at-law kind of helps you get through the process. I always think of attorney as the stuff I do in court and depositions. And I'm always counseling people through the process. But when it gets to the stage that you are describing, two years, very high conflict, motion after motion after motion. You see a mental health counselor.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
Thanks, Molly.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, great question, Molly. Courtney comes to us and asks, "My husband and I have a business. We're preparing to file for divorce. At this point, it's amicable and we have high hopes that it'll be easy." I think she might've just jinxed it.
Seth Nelson:
No, no, she's good, Pete.
Pete Wright:
She's good. She's okay? All right.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah, no problem.
Pete Wright:
No problem. "I'm wondering if you could give me some advice on how to separate the marriage but not the business. Where do others in this scenario run into trouble? Thanks and great show guys." Thank you, Courtney.
Seth Nelson:
That was a nice thank you at the end there. This is a great question. I'd love this question. I'm going to take this in I think three parts. And if there was only two, I'm going to make up a third to make my number incorrect. So when you get divorced and there's a business, in court, if both of you want it, then the court is going to have to give it to somebody. Which might actually hurt the value of the business.
Because if one of you exits, you now have to pay someone to come fill that position and that could adjust the financial numbers. Also, it will disrupt the business operations and the dynamics of the business. And culture is king in all businesses right along there with cash. So that's what happens in a divorce. Then, "Look, we didn't work out in our marriage, but our business is successful. We both enjoy it. We want to work together."
Step two, what do others in this scenario do running into trouble? They tried to maintain it exactly as it was. Usually business partners that are married do not have a partnership agreement. The business might be in one person's name, right? The LLC was created. And because it's a single member LLC, there's no need for a partnership agreement. My wife's working in the business or yeah, my husband's working in the business, but on paper it's only one spouse's.
You might not have an employment contract. So where do you run into trouble? You do things just as you were and you get the business. You're saying, "Hey, we're going to keep it, okay, and we're going to divide it." Well how in the marital settlement agreement are you dividing it? You're just saying you're both going to keep it.
The court can't really do that if you're in trial, but by agreement of the parties, the court can say, okay, it's a marital asset. The parties are not dividing it. They're going to keep it in 50/50 ownership to be sold later. But it's not going to be jurisdiction of this court.
Pete Wright:
And then we're not even going to talk about it, the court.
Seth Nelson:
Right. So that's the mistake that people make. Okay. Obviously number three, I did have three, Pete, I don't have to make one up.
Pete Wright:
I thought that there was just profit. It's always profit.
Seth Nelson:
What do you do to solve it? You get a partnership agreement. You get a contract. You decide who's going to have control if anyone. Is it 50/50? Is it 51/49? If you're on the 49 side, then you're going to need a partnership agreement that is going to protect you. So you're going to have to get business attorneys involved here on how you are going to maintain this. By way of example, 51% versus 49%, and I'm the 51. Pete, you're the 49 in this scenario, because I'm going to be the bad guy.
And I really don't want you in this business anymore. So the business is making profits. Whenever we make profits, it's an LLC, it's passed through taxation. You're going to get taxed on 49% of the profits. I'm getting taxed on 51% of the profits. I'm not going to distribute any money out of the business. I'm going to hold it, called retained earnings.
We make money, it's in the business. When it's made by the business, it shows up on your tax return and my tax return. But if I don't actually give you the money from the business, I hold the cash, you're going to have a tax liability that you might not be able to pay. So I'm going to put financial strain on you.
Pete Wright:
I think that's the textbook definition of malicious compliance at that point, right?
Seth Nelson:
Yeah. And I have a fiduciary duty to handle the business properly. And part of that would be paying taxes, but they're your personal taxes. If I come up with a good reason to retain the earnings and not distribute for tax purposes, because maybe I want to do an expansion next year and I'm hoarding cash. So well now we're just back in litigation.
So you have to have a really solid partnership agreement. You have to have a really solid understanding of how things are going to happen moving forward and is it 50/50? And if it is, what happens if you guys can't agree? How do we dissolve the partnership?
Pete Wright:
Right. Okay.
Seth Nelson:
You really got to lay it out. It's a great question. And I know people that have gotten divorced and kept the business and they actually had it set up where they had all the partnership stuff, but it had to be redone because of that. And ultimately years later, one of them bought somebody else out, which was fine.
Pete Wright:
But it's amicable along the way because it's clear.
Seth Nelson:
That's right.
Pete Wright:
Transparent.
Seth Nelson:
That's right.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. One other point. When you're doing this, make sure that part of that partnership agreement, you want to have access to everything. You want to be able to see all the finances, everything that's going on. So just talk to your local counsel about that. That's kind of part of the contract. All right. Go ahead.
Pete Wright:
Got it. An anonymous asks, "Is age of the child a significant change that would allow for custody changes? Our child is very young. Is it really possible just due to the age of the child changing that they can keep bringing me back to court simply because the child is older. This is a long distance plan as they live across the country."
Seth Nelson:
Simple answer, in Florida, no. Age of the child in and of itself is not a substantial change in circumstances. The law has changed back in Florida in July when the parenting plans changed. But the thing they really took out of there was supposed to be previously it was a material significant unanticipated change. And the law was clear. We all-
Pete Wright:
We all age.
Seth Nelson:
... expected the kid get older. Right?
Pete Wright:
Right. Okay.
Seth Nelson:
So typically this is not a substantial change. I haven't seen anything since the law came out. This is not something that I'd be too concerned about. When people say stuff like, can they keep bringing me back to court because the kid gets older. Well what happens in the future? Can you bring me back to court for this? Well, what about that? Cross that bridge when it comes to it.
Enjoy the time with your kid right now. And in a long distance parenting plan, there's no real way to change the plan if it's continued to be long distance, despite the age. The only difference, which is a catch-22 on both sides, kid gets older, they can fly unaccompanied. Minor, right? The flip side of that, kids get older, they're usually involved in more extracurriculars. So you're going to make the kid miss softball tournament and fly across the country to see Dad? I don't know if that's a good idea.
Pete Wright:
Okay.
Seth Nelson:
I don't think it is.
Pete Wright:
Okay. A anonymous asks, "At what point in time does weaponizing emergency motions become redundant, damaging and a gross misjustice to females legitimately dealing with dangerous situations? And how as an attorney do you forego the moral dilemma that should inherently affect your conscience when doing so? Asking for a friend. Thanks."
Seth Nelson:
I'm really thinking about this question. It is very specific. So let's read it again, Pete. "At what point in time does weaponizing emergency motions become redundant, damaging and gross misjustice to females legitimately dealing with dangerous situations?" So it sounds like this is a female saying this. Okay. "And how would it forego the moral dilemma that should be inherently affect your conscience when doing so?"
Pete Wright:
That's part two. That's you as a lawyer.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah, so let me just deal with that part first. I don't deal with that because I don't weaponize emergency motions. So there is no moral dilemma. A case comes to me, or a situation in a divorce, and I do an analysis of what's being told to me by the client, that they will have to sign and verify, because there's some of it that I'm not going to be able to explore on myself to see whether it's accurate or not. And that protects me as the lawyer.
Because I can't go out and say what happened. And I explained the cost benefit analysis, so to speak in general terms, on an emergency motion. I do an analysis of the law to determine whether I believe I have a good faith argument that this is an emergency. And then I'll file the same. Or I'll advise them it's not. Maybe I'll file it expedited or I'll just file a motion.
Pete Wright:
Can you take it just a step back and describe to me what this looks like practically? The act of weaponizing emergency motions?
Seth Nelson:
So you can do an emergency or even non-emergency. In Hillsborough County. Check your local jurisdiction. An emergency motion is a motion that gets filed and will go to the judge that is sitting and listening to your case. If that judge is unavailable, the clerk of the court, when it says emergency on it, is required to take it to another judge, which is usually called the duty judge.
So there's always a judge on duty to hear emergency motions or anything of the like. With that being said, the weaponizing of, if you keep filing them, keep filing them, keep filing them. So what happens in Hillsborough County, which I think is excellent, is it goes to a judge and they sign what's called an Emergency Motion Handling Order. The first thing they're doing is saying, is this an emergency or not?
And then there's different levels. This is an emergency, I'm granting an order immediately. Now we've taken someone's rights away without due process. They haven't seen or gotten their day in court.
Pete Wright:
Day in court, right.
Seth Nelson:
But I'm setting a hearing within 14 days. Because it's emergency. I want to hear the other side. I want to hear their side.
Pete Wright:
Okay, so it sounds like what you're saying implicit in this is that the court gets to decide on the spot, is this really an emergency? And they might disagree.
Seth Nelson:
That's what comes next. This is not an emergency under the law. However, I want to hear what's going on. Get a hold of my judicial assistant or get on my calendar and set this for an expedited hearing. Pete, how long do you think expedited should take in the court system?
Pete Wright:
Well, if emergency is 14 days.
Seth Nelson:
Well emergency is, let's call it, it gets entered right away and then you get a hearing in 14 days. That doesn't happen. The judge says, but I want to hear expedited.
Pete Wright:
Expedited is what? 30 days?
Seth Nelson:
I've had some that go on for three to four months to get a hearing on an expedited hearing.
Pete Wright:
All right.
Seth Nelson:
Okay. Judges are overworked. Too many cases. I'm not blaming anyone. Got to coordinate the other lawyer's calendar, my calendar, the judge. And sometimes judges, there are some judges that say you asked for three dates, they say no. You asked for three dates again, the other side says no. Tell me that's happened and then I'm setting it. We're not playing the I'm unavailable game. If you keep unavailable, you got too many clients.
So we've dealt with that. Then ultimately, if you're filing that, when I hear weaponizing, it's a lot of motions. So the judge is going to know your case. So hopefully they're going to be an active judge and get control of this case, do some orders, enforce the orders and go from there. Because emergency, it means people are in danger. So I hope we answered the question.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, it sounds like a very, very difficult situation. All right, I think this, Andy's having his way with our anonymous names. Monsieur Mister Anani Moose I think is French.
Seth Nelson:
We're doing international law now.
Pete Wright:
International law, yeah. Get ready. "Hi guys. I've been thankful for your podcast. I've just split and I'm going through a protracted fight over the asset division. I have tried my best to explain to my ex that the settlement offer I made is generous, and would be more than what is likely to be determined by the court. However, she does not want to discuss. And is adamant on her view that I should be offering her three times as much. Clearly a negotiation strategy by her lawyers."
"But this is now costing both parties hefty legal fees and I'm at my wits end on how to convince her. Is there anything I can do, or should I just let things run their course instead? My biggest worry is that this will mean that she may have a settlement amount determined by the court, which may not be sufficient to get a decent place for herself and my kids. Appreciate your thoughtful advice. Thanks."
Seth Nelson:
Great question. Yeah, we got, Andy's just lining up the great questions today. So there's a couple of things you can try to do. One, and this might've been unsuccessful, go to a mediation with a great mediator that understands finances. Because what will happen in that mediation is you and your lawyer will explain to the mediator, this is the offer and here's why. Here's why we think, because there's some judgments here. We think this is better than her best day in court.
However, we think this three times amount is worse than my worst day in court by three times. And I'm already giving her more than I think the court will award. So then the mediator will go over there and is required to say what your reasoning is. So she'll be hearing it. And then hopefully you get a counter offer or the mediator comes back and you can try to determine is it my wife that's not understanding? Does the lawyer think that our math is wrong? That my offer is not better than her best day in court?
Pete Wright:
Justify that, right?
Seth Nelson:
What's the reasoning? Is it the date of value? Is it that part of it was marital versus non-marital? X, Y, or Z? Okay? So yeah, the hefty legal fees are a problem. So in equitable distribution because we talked about asset division, that can be complex and there could be a lot of tracing if the data value was set in January 1st. But we have an account and we're trying to evaluate as of July 31st, what happened in that seven months? That's forensic accountants that we've had on before and the like.
Okay. So that's one way to try to do it. Very interesting comment at the end about my biggest worry where he says this will mean that she may have a settlement amount determined by the court. I wouldn't call that a settlement. I'd just say, hey, the judge decide. Which may not be sufficient to get a decent place for herself and the kids.
Pete Wright:
So he's saying that they're asking for three times more than he's offering, which he assumes is better than the court would.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. And what the court will do is going to leave her with not enough money to get enough place for her kids. Well, there's a couple of things you can do here. One, try to lay it out again, but she's not going to believe you. But if you're standing in court, and your lawyer's going to tell you not to do this, I'm just telling you now. You can go to court-
Pete Wright:
That lawyer's not here right now.
Seth Nelson:
You can go to court and say, "Look, 50/50 is this. Your Honor, I'm willing to do more. I don't want that asset even though I'm entitled to it because if I take that asset, she can't afford the house. She's not going to get a decent place, and the kids need a decent place." So you're allowed to do that. Your lawyer will say, do not listen to the toaster.
Pete Wright:
Why would your, talk about why. Why would your lawyer take on this view?
Seth Nelson:
Because they're going to court. Because when they're there, they're going to try to get you the best financial outcome in court. You're paying them all this money to do that, right?
Pete Wright:
And here you are giving it away.
Seth Nelson:
But it's your farm. Farm, F-A-R-M, you're allowed to give your farm away. So that's it. Now what's another thing that you can do? Because you might be like, oh, mediation didn't work. You can write out a full settlement offer if your lawyer, check with your lawyer on all this. All your reasoning behind it, and sign it and send it over as an offer. And when she's talking about this, this and that, and she comes talks to you, if she does, and says, "I'm not signing that." Okay, tell me the reasoning. Don't just tell me the numbers. You got to get to the reasoning. And then you have to decide, okay, I'm not going to pay three times as much, but I'll pay two times as much. Those French questions are hard.
Pete Wright:
They're hard. Something might be lost in translation. So thank you Monsieur Moose. Last question comes from Tom. "You've talked often enough about the major parts of a parenting plan. Custody schedules, holidays, schooling, vacations, et cetera. What are some of the less obvious things to include? Or what are the things you've had to go back to court to modify or include? Thanks."
Seth Nelson:
Andy's really crushing it today. There's some nuances there. Right of first refusal where if you're unavailable on a weekend, if I'll just talk about my life, make it easy. I had my son every other weekend and if I have a big trial coming up the following week, I might ask my former spouse, "I got to work. I'm not going to be available to spend time with our child. Would you like him under the right of first refusal? I'm unavailable. You should have the right." I think that's what parents should do anyway.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, that's communication.
Seth Nelson:
Right. And if you can't spend time with the kid, why not have the other parent, because we all get less time because we're divorced.
Pete Wright:
But you hear these stories about I'd rather my kid with a babysitter than with my former spouse.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. And then it's used, well, what are you doing? Why not this? Why not that? So that's one. Who gets the deductions with the children for tax purposes? You got to make sure you're in compliance with the tax law. A lot of people just says, "Oh, I get the deduction one year. I get the deduction the other year." And they think that they're in compliance because their lawyer said, you get it every other year. And what I put in the document is you get it if it's available to you under the tax code, and if not, then it goes to the other spouse.
You don't want to say, oh, it's my deduction, and your accountant says you can't use it. Or this deduction only is going to save you $250. But it could potentially save your former spouse $1,000. You can call up the former spouse and say, "Look, you can save $1,000 based on my assumption of what you make, but I can only save $250. You take it and give me $250. You're going to get $750 instead of zero.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, right.
Seth Nelson:
Right. So there's just different things that are very nuanced like that.
Pete Wright:
And very case-specific, right? Like situational.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah. What do I go back to court to modify? I usually go back to court to modify, this is going to come out wrong, Pete. So on documents that I didn't draft originally. They're just so bad.
Pete Wright:
And you go back to modify because you're a perfectionist.
Seth Nelson:
Yeah, that could be one way to say it. Or anal-retentive or pain in the ass. There's a lot of other terms. You're very kind about it.
Pete Wright:
Well, you want things to be right.
Seth Nelson:
But you can't modify just because it's a bad plan. So usually what we do, and I have cases where both parents are like, "I don't like this plan. It doesn't make sense." I said, "Let's go to pre-suit mediation." Because there was no substantial change in Florida to change the plan. We just all agree it's crap, and it's unclear, and it wasn't done properly, or whatever. And then you try to look, there's no hammer of I'm going to win in court on this. And then you try to get another plan. Some other nuances, I will tell you, deal with how you decide to deal with expenses. So if your kid has an extracurricular expense.
Pete Wright:
Club soccer, club swimming, something like that.
Seth Nelson:
Whatever the case may be. What I like to do is say whoever pays it, the other party's responsible for half or a percentage. There's different ways to work that out. It's called pro rata in Florida based on the child support guidelines, financial responsibility portion. But then I like to say, "Look, you have to give the receipt within 30 days as a condition of reimbursement." Because otherwise you can hold all those receipts for all year and they have to pay them back to you within 30 days, and you submit them on November 15th and the payment's due by December 15th. And now the other person doesn't have money for holiday gifts because you just sucked it all out.
Pete Wright:
So essentially all receipts expire in 30 days.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. But what do I go back, not really to modify it. I go back to enforce this stuff when it doesn't happen. So payment of expenses is a big one. I'd like to put stuff in there that right of first refusal. Now, some parents hate this, right of first refusal does not include if the children go on a sleepover or if the children are going to stay at Grandpa and Grandma's house. Right? Don't cut people off and say, and here's the flip side. "Well, he never takes them. He just pawns them off on friends and Grandpa and Grandma." That's a different story. It's a matter of degree.
Pete Wright:
But if he's going for a sleepover because somebody's got a birthday party, that's not going to fall under first refusal.
Seth Nelson:
That's right. Because you're available. But here's the nuance of it. Someone calls and says, "We want your kid to come for a birthday party and it's a sleepover. We're actually going to start at 2:00 in the afternoon because we're stupid and we're going to have all these young kids for a very long time."
Pete Wright:
Ridiculous.
Seth Nelson:
"And then we're going to go out to breakfast and we want everyone to be picked up at 10:00." And then you say yes to your kid to go. And then you say to your girlfriend or spouse or whatever, "Let's go to the beach for the night." Then the former spouse is like, "You're unavailable because you're going to the beach." Like, "No, we are available. There was a birthday party. He's not going to be around. He's going to have fun. So we decided to go to the beach."
So those are some of the nuances that come up on finances. You can talk about what happens, how you're going to pay for private school. You can talk about how you're going to pay if they're doing, you said club sports. Let's say it's baseball, don't put in there that you're going to share in all of the equipment. Then you're going to be back in court saying, why did someone buy a $500 bat when a $250 bat would've been just fine? The kid's a 100 hitter anyway.
Pete Wright:
Yeah, give a kid a two by four. It's fine.
Seth Nelson:
Right? So there's some nuances there. So Tom, thanks for the question. It's a really good one. And if I think of any other nuances, other show, we'll put them out there somewhere.
Pete Wright:
We'll put it out there. Thank you everybody. Seriously, from France and Florida alike, we sure appreciate these questions. They're great, great, great to have. We love doing these listener questions episodes. We hope you liked getting your questions answered. Head over to Howtosplitatoaster.com and push that button says, submit a question and ask your question, and we'll get you in the queue for our next round. Thank you so, so very much. We appreciate your time and your attention. Thanks for listening to the show. On behalf of Seth Nelson.
Seth Nelson:
I've got one thing, Pete.
Pete Wright:
Oh no, what'd I forget?
Seth Nelson:
It's on behalf of Pete Wright, America's favorite podcaster, and Seth Nelson.
Pete Wright:
I'll take it.
Seth Nelson:
Thank you for listening to 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 and 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 and Family Law. Seth Nelson is licensed to practice law in Florida.
Pete Wright:
I'm out.
