Lawyer Says HGTV Star Christina Hall’s Third Divorce Will Be Costly

Arash Sadat exclusively commented, “No prenup means Christina [Hall] and Josh [Hall] will need to battle it out in court over who gets what. This is obviously much messier — and more expensive — than distributing assets and income through an agreement.” He further explained that the court will need to decide which money and assets need to be split between Christina and Josh and which belong to them as individuals.

Sadat elaborated on what Christina and Josh were seeking and what was realistic. “Josh’s position is consistent with California law,” Sadat said. “Christina’s position is not. It’s not up to Christina to decide how the assets will be split. That is for the court to determine based on the evidence.” He mentioned that the California 50/50 rule would affect the divorce case if that’s the state Christina and Josh reside in.

“Under that rule,” Sadat said, “property acquired by either spouse during a marriage is generally considered community property and is presumed to be owned equally by both spouses. In a divorce, that property is split 50/50.” As for the issue of spousal support payments, Sadat explained that the person who made more money while they were married would be the one to pay up.

Sadat described the complications that arise when there is no prenuptial agreement in place. Without a prenup, the court has to go through the detailed process of sifting through all financial records, which can prolong the divorce proceedings. This process includes evaluating all income sources, investments, and property owned by both parties individually and jointly.

An additional layer of complexity is introduced when there are significant disparities in income and wealth between the two spouses. For instance, if one partner was the primary breadwinner, the court might award a larger portion of shared assets to the lower-earning spouse to maintain a standard of living similar to what they had during the marriage.

In California, where community property laws are strict, both parties must disclose their assets fully to enable an equitable division. Any undisclosed or hidden assets can lead to further legal complications and even penalties. Therefore, transparency is key in such cases, especially when the stakes are high, involving substantial financial and property interests.

Experts like Sadat often point out that the lack of a prenup can lead to significant emotional and financial stress. The drawn-out court battles often add strain to the already challenging process of dissolving a marriage. Not to mention, the legal costs can be exorbitant without a clear prenup guiding the distribution of assets.

For Christina and Josh, the absence of a prenup means that both will have to present solid evidence to substantiate their claims over different assets. This means a thorough examination of their financial history during the marriage. The court will look into earnings, property purchases, and daily expenditures to get a clear picture of the financial landscape.

Sadat’s insights highlight the importance of prenuptial agreements in modern marriages, especially among individuals with substantial assets. A prenup can simplify the process of asset division, reducing the need for protracted legal battles. It sets clear guidelines on the distribution of assets, thereby preventing much of the contention that arises during divorce proceedings.

In summary, Christina and Josh Hall’s lack of a prenup places them at the mercy of California’s community property laws. This means a 50/50 split of assets acquired during the marriage and potentially high spousal support payments from the higher-earning spouse. The court’s involvement makes the matter more complicated, expensive, and time-consuming. For couples with significant assets, having a prenup can save them from the disputes and complexities Christina and Josh now face.

Source: The List