[btilly]

There is a simple reason it isn't cost effective. A split achieved with litigation is necessarily a split of the assets left after the cost of said litigation.

Even a horribly unfair split without litigation often leaves you with more than "winning" litigation!

The is tied to the old question, "Would you accept a million dollars knowing that your worst enemy will get 2 million?" If you're so inclined to cut off your nose to spite your face as to turn down the million, maybe litigation makes sense to you. But it doesn't to me!

[teeray]

My dad knew a contractor once who said “you get everything, but I keep my truck, tools, and the clothes on my back.” Years later, “everything” became practically nothing on his ex’s side, yet he had restored his former standard of living. She dragged him back to court for more and after the judge looked over the original settlement, he threw the case out.