Why Online Services Are Insufficient When Filing for Divorce
Choosing between traditional and technological methods of divorce is not just about price.
June 27, 2019 at 03:09 PM
5 minute read
Divorce can be simultaneously one of the most emotional and detail-oriented matters a person will go through in their lifetime. The increasing embrace of the digital world for cost- and time-saving online forms for divorce demonstrate how essential services of a family law attorney are for making sure a divorce is sufficiently handled. Unlike online forms, divorce can never be considered “one size fits all.” The available online forms are cookie-cutter and too generic.
Many different types of people get divorced. The only marriage an online divorce may work for are those whose marriage was short and that also have zero retirement, zero assets, zero property and zero children. For these marriages, an online form may be cheaper than hiring an attorney. However, this assumes the divorcing parties are savvy enough to comply with both the Family Code and applicable court rules. If not, one risks showing up to court to finalize their divorce only to be told by the court that they need to start over at square one. Even in these situations, it is often cheaper and faster to hire an attorney to do the job right.
A quick search of Facebook, Craiglist or even Google will show countless sources offering “cheap, quick and easy online divorces.” Oftentimes they go by names such as notarios. This is to prey on the immigrant communities, who often do not realize that in the United States, notarios are not licensed to practice law. These services may claim that you can get a divorce for as little as $250. This is common in Harris County, which is strange, considering the filing fee for a divorce in that county is more than that. Unfortunately for people who fall prey to these scams, it usually costs more to clean up the mess.
One of the first steps in filing for divorce is often what trips up people trying to do it without an attorney. This is the issue of service. In a divorce, just like in any civil case, the petitioner must serve the respondent with the petition. They must provide proof to the court of this with a return citation filed with the court. Improper execution of this step will prevent the divorce from finalizing. Often, the respondent can't be found or is actively hiding. In these situations, I've yet to find a non-attorney who could navigate the procedural waters alone. Here again, both time and money could be saved by simply hiring an attorney.
Sometimes spouses agree to divorce and even agree on how to divide their assets. If a couple is in this scenario and one spouse suggests using an online form, this raises a major red flag. Is the spouse hiding assets? Are they trying to claim separate property that should be community property? In most marriages, one spouse manages the finances more than the other. There may also be educational or professional advantages one party has over the other. An attorney will be able to map the community estate and identify any separate property. If the agreement is truly as fair as the spouse makes it seem, this will be quickly verified by consulting with an attorney. Simply dividing assets without a professional involved is a slippery slope. Often these types of divorces end up being reopened by the court, if the injured party is able to hire an attorney in enough time after the fact. Once this happens, these cases become very expensive for the litigants.
Perhaps the worst scenario to use online forms and services is if you have children. These forms are simply insufficient when it comes to child custody issues. In fact, one district judge likes to refer to these types of orders as “suggestions.” These forms do not address the myriad of child custody issues that families deal with today. Oftentimes this doesn't come back to bite you until it's too late. For example, the parties divorce and have child custody orders stating that all health decisions are joint. Fast forward a few years and there is a dispute between the now ex-spouses over their child's health. Who wins? The answer is often nobody. For these situations, the individuals would need to hire attorneys and likely file for a modification. They would need to litigate that issue before the court. This is taxing, both financially and mentally, especially when these issues should have been addressed in the original divorce.
Nobody wants to spend money on an attorney. The desire to save money is understandable. However, the risks involved in using a form to file for divorce make hiring or consulting with an attorney necessary. If children are involved, using an attorney should be considered mandatory. For those who still decide on going the online route, expect to do what they originally wanted to avoid—spending money on an attorney. However, this time it's much more.
Matt Tyson of The Law Office of Matt Tyson maintains his practice in Houston and surrounding areas. Focusing primarily on family law, in addition he works on criminal defense. Contact him at [email protected] or visit www.tysonfamilylaw.com.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250