Rhetoric of Fear The Death of the California Dream Health Care in Perspective The Discipline Leave No Child Behind No Daddy, No! Unconditional Equal Justice under the Law Thank God I Am Not A Woman Infallible "Don't ask, don't tell" Thou Shalt Not Kill Irreconcilable Differences My Will Positive Reinforcement Changing My Name After Sixty Years Copyright © 2000-2009 Thomas E. Rosenberg. All right reserved. Essays may be reproduced with written permission. tomr@inaword.org

The elimination of negative words brings clarity to speech Irreconcilable Differences They have lived together for seven years. He is sixty. She is forty-seven. He has a business, owns a home, and has a few dollars in the bank. She has a career, owns a home, and has a few dollars in the bank. He's the kind of a guy who likes to tell lawyers who work for him that his kid's a lawyer and that he watches reruns of "L. A. Law". The only membership she wants listed in her obituary is "Price Club". All these years they avoided the "M" word and talked instead about "amalgamating." After they finally began talking about marriage they assumed a pre-nuptial agreement would put aside their financial concerns. After four lawyers, two separations, and some $5,000 on legal fees, they discovered otherwise. How did they get into this mess? Very naively. His attorney practices estate planning. She congratulated him warmly after hearing he was planning the big step. "Sit down with her," his attorney told him. "Decide what you want the agreement to say. I'll draw it up and she can take it to her attorney." They had little trouble defining their goals. This is what you have, this is what I have, and this remains separate. They talked about planning for retirement and the disposition of their estates. So what went wrong? Instead of a document that described what they wanted, his attorney fed the information into a computer that churned out legal boiler-plate. To say the least, the document was difficult for them to decipher. His attorney assured him the document said what they wanted it to say. "Like hell!" said her attorney. "I'm sure that he's a nice guy, but this document falls short of what it should say. You're 47, working on soft money, and have some medical problems. The agreement should include everything you discussed." His response was that guaranteed contracts may exist for professional athletes, but this was marriage. "Whatever happened to trust?" he asked. "If that's his attitude your differences are irreconcilable," her attorney observed. She decided her attorney was treating her as a cause rather than a client. His attorney, once again, assured him the document expressed their intent. "If you had come to me first," the next attorney told her, "You would have avoided the trauma. I would have done this differently." "Stop!" she told attorney #2. "Review the damned document and tell me what it says." Her attorney said the language was ambiguous. His attorney agreed some clarification might be in order. After they signed the agreement, they said, "I wish I had taken the time to research prenuptial agreements. I thought our approach was logical. "We should have begun with one attorney who practices mediation," she said "or a mediator knowledgeable with the law." I can report that he and she finally got married and are happy together, proving once again that all differences are reconcilable when the parties are willing.