Keeping Yourself and others out of conflict corners.

Great article from Tammy Lenski

It’s tempting to feel triumphant when we successfully back our nemesis into a figurative corner. But it’s ill-advised triumph. Cornering triggers our evolutionary baggage, leads to outcomes unlikely to stand the test of time, and leaves all sorts of debris in the personal or working relationship. Here are ways to address and prevent cornering in your own and others’ conflicts.

“If you can,” said Kay, “try to get an office that has more than one door.”

It was the last day in my assistant dean job and I was meeting with my vice president, Kay, one last time to say good-bye. The next day, I’d be heading across town to take my new job as dean at another college.

I’d asked Kay what advice she had for me. She added the door comment almost as an afterthought. But it has resonated for years.

Initially, I understood Kay’s advice to mean I should have a literal second escape path. Not long before, we’d watched an unfortunate scene unfold at another university in town. When student protesters had taken over the new president’s outer offices, he had no other way to get out. Except the window. Photos of his derriere as he climbed down a ladder were the beginning of the end for his very brief presidency.

Over time, though, I began to understand Kay’s advice in less literal terms. As I did more and more conflict resolution work, I could see how important it was not to let people get backed into (or back themselves into) corners. Decisions made from conflict corners tend to have short shelf lives (click to tweet this).

As I mediated and noticed cornering, I’d hear Kay’s voice in my head: “More than one door.”

The baggage of evolution causes cornering to produce bad results. In evolutionary terms, backed into a cave or teetering on the edge of a cliff meant likely death. The closer we got, the harder we had to fight to survive or find an escape.

Millenia later, getting backed into a figurative corner during an argument doesn’t require such drastic reaction. But react we do when that evolutionary baggage kicks in, perhaps well below our consciousness. We resist, we defend, we outright fight.

“Convince me”

Just like Kay taught me all those years ago, I like to leave myself a figurative spare door or two. It keeps me from feeling cornered and it allows me to save face if I decide to change my tune later.

One way I do this is with the request, “Convince me.”

When I feel quite certain about something, I try to say, “Well, convince me I’m wrong about this.” Maybe they will. It has happened. With some frequency.

When they do, I am able to say, “You did a good job of convincing me.” They feel good about it and I feel less bad, in face-saving terms, than I otherwise might.

“Convince me” isn’t just a powerful tool we can use to get ourselves out of tight corners. We can use it to help our sparring partner stay out of the corner, too. It’s tempting to think of the corner as exactly the place we want them, but we’d be deluding ourselves.

I might say, “Will you allow me to try convincing you, even for just a few minutes?” I may not succeed, but I will have postponed the self-cornering and maybe they’ll hear something that opens up new doors neither of us noticed.

Cornering in mediation

When I’m mediating and notice someone who seems to be backing themselves into a corner, I like to take them aside privately and raise the challenges we face when we get ourselves stuck in a corner. I’ll say something like, “I don’t want to see you get stuck in a corner because corners are hard to get back out of later. What can I do to help that not happen for you?”

When I notice someone maneuvering someone else into a corner, I may take them aside privately to discuss the ways cornering is likely to make things worse. I tell them about evolutionary baggage. I talk about loss of face and the bad feelings it leaves. I tell them about short shelf lives.

I muse, “Instead of backing them into a corner, I wonder what could happen if you leave them an escape for now?”

Tips for successful mediation

Mediation, the ADR vehicle most commonly used in family law cases, frequently results in a final settlement – but often only after a marathon session dealing with the many important issues in the lives of family members.

There are ways to improve the process and results of family law mediation. The keys are open communication, adequate preparation, proper timing and mediator selection.

Open Communication – With the Opposing Party and With the Mediator. Pick up the telephone early in the case. The working relationship you develop by actually speaking with reasonable opposing counsel can save time and money. While it may seem that using email is more efficient, it often takes more time and creates additional conflict.

Once discovery is reasonably complete, and the parties have had sufficient time to begin addressing the emotional and financial upheaval of separation, you can develop creative potential solutions with your client. Exchanging mediation letters with legal issues defined and important documents attached far in advance of mediation can streamline the mediation process, and increase the likelihood of resolution on mediation day. Also, many mediators make a pre-mediation call, in which attorneys can provide information that is often helpful to the mediator in finessing trouble spots.

Preparation – Worth the Effort. An attorney who is well prepared for mediation has not wasted time – if the case doesn’t settle, it is well on the road for trial. If it settles, as most cases do, mediation will have saved time, money, and emotional stress for the parties.

Proper Timing and Mediator Selection. Family law cases have emotional timelines, distinct from other types of litigation. In many cases, it takes several months for one party to reach a stage of partial equilibrium. It is not helpful to attempt to settle family law cases before both parties have reached that comfort level. But when both sides are emotionally ready and have enough information regarding the facts and the law, mediation can allow them to avoid the financial and emotional costs of trial and move on with their lives.

When attorneys have worked together for several months, they can identify a mediator with the listening skills, depth of knowledge, temperament, and creativity to help the parties achieve resolution. By focusing on what is just and equitable for both parties, attorneys and the mediator can achieve a compromise solution that is acceptable, one that meets the needs and abilities of both parties.

Biography

---

Hon. Deborah Fleck (Ret.) is a neutral with JAMS based in Seattle. She served for more than 20 years on the King County Superior Court and handles a wide range of complex civil, estate/probate, family law and personal injury cases.

Great Article on dealing with Real State in a Divorce

Divorces are rarely easy, and very few end with zero disputes over major assets. For most relationships, the biggest shared assets are related to real estate. Whether the marital home or investment property, those going through divorce often want to know, “what happens to real estate in a divorce?”

Date Property Purchased and Use During Marriage

The biggest part of the analysis for what happens to real estate after a divorce is when the property was purchased. If one of the parties purchased the property before the marriage, it might be considered a pre-marital asset that belongs exclusively to that spouse. However, if the property served as the home in which the couple lived while married, or as a source of marital income, the property may have converted to a marital asset subject to equitable distribution between both spouses.

In most states, it is possible to own property before a marriage and still retain exclusive ownership of that property. This is true even in the absence of an antenuptial (or “prenuptial”) agreement. The trick is that the property must remain exclusively a benefit of the owner spouse. If that spouse begins sharing the use and enjoyment of the property (or proceeds derived from the property, such as depositing them in a joint bank account), the solitary ownership interest may dissolve.

Property purchased after a marriage, or which is used for marital purposes (like serving as the house in which the couple lived) is generally an asset of both partners and the interest in the property must split in a fair manner (i.e., “equitably”) between the parties.

How to Deal With a House Without a Fight

If the two parties to a divorce are still civil and want a clean, quick, and simple break, selling a property is a great idea. The only issue will be how the proceeds are divided between the spouses and, unfortunately, this issue alone can become quite contentious. If the parties can agree beforehand, they may avoid considerable headaches when the property sells. Alternatively, having the attorneys negotiate or hiring a mediator may be other ways to determine an appropriate distribution of the cash from the sale. If all else fails, the judge presiding over the case will make a determination based on fact and law, but that removes the parties' ability to come to a better arrangement between themselves and could end up leaving both parties unhappy with the outcome.

A common philosophy in determining who should get how much out of a home or other property sale is to look at how much each spouse contributed to the property. For example, if one party contributed 60 percent of the cash at the time of purchase, and later paid 40 percent toward the payments on the loan, that would be their relative contribution to the property. That can lead to a quantifiable figure that may be compared to a similar number produced by the other spouse. When the parties figure out the relative percentage of the total value each contributed, they can divide the proceeds of the sale accordingly.

What Happens if Both Parties Want the House?

When former spouses want to keep a property, whether out of financial need or spite, things can get much more tricky. If the other party is willing to walk away from ownership, the one who stays can simply “buy out” the other's interest in the property. This also requires the departing spouse to be removed from any deeds, mortgages, or other rights or obligations on the property.

On the other hand, if both parties want to retain possession of the property, the matter must be decided by a judge. Often, the ownership will be granted to one party at the cost of certain other assets that party may have wished to retain. That way, neither party gets more out of the divorce than the other. However, this also means sacrificing other things which the spouse that keeps the property might have wished to retain. Thus, it is usually best, even under contentious circumstances, to attempt to resolve disputes over property ownership amicably rather than by going through court.