If you have ever before bought a fish tank for an in-home aquarium, the thought probably never crossed your mind that one day you may have to divide up your fish in a fair and equitable manner, or at the very least retain a custody and visitation schedule for your beloved new pets. Crazy as though it may seem to bicker over something as marginal as a tank of fish, it is not as unusual as one may think. Unfortunately for the sake of the fish, being transported around to a different location a few times per year is a stressful event unto itself, but that is another story altogether!

Dog and cat visitation schedules, compromises regarding which party is to take care of the pet medical insurance and/or the costs associated with veterinary visits and care, and of course the fish tank scenario are all situations that the divorce court has seen when it comes to divorcing spouses and their ideas on how to divide up their marital property.

Community property laws clearly state that any items acquired by either spouse during their marriage belong to both parties and are therefore subject to division during the divorce proceedings.

In a situation where the spouses are not able to come to a property division agreement on their own, the laws for community property will then step in to dictate which spouse receives what item. Yet, there is one caveat to the property division process - do the spouses live in what is called a "community property state," or an "equitable distribution state?" A community property state (such as California) requires an automatic fifty/fifty division of marital property between the spouses.

On the other hand, an equitable distribution state (such as Texas) is not required to follow the fifty/fifty law and instead will divide the marital property according to other factors. For example, a stay-at-home mother may be awarded more than half of the couple's community property as compensation for having to now go into the workforce as a potentially lower wage earner.

The most infamous divorce petition to ever come across my view was one that belonged to a stay-at-home woman whose sole aim was to punish her husband for his adultery. And the flexibility of property division in an equitable distribution state is most likely why the judge didn't question the contents of said petition.

It was made clear in this couple's marital settlement agreement that they would each keep a "portion" of their current real estate dwelling, as neither of them could afford the exorbitant costs of selling the house and then looking for somewhere new to reside after the divorce. It was fairly obvious that in this divorce, the woman had the upper hand and was going to do as much as she could to humiliate her husband to return the favor for his straying behavior. The spouses' petition read as follows:

The Husband and Wife agree that they will each retain a percentage of their real estate property. The Wife will live in the main house, while the Husband agrees to reside in the garage where he will receive only the following: one plate, one drinking glass, one spoon, one bowl, one fork, one knife, one dish towel, one cloth napkin from the wedding collection, one garbage can and one Hefty bag to go with it, one air mattress to sleep on, one top sheet and one bottom sheet, one pillow and one pillowcase, one blanket, and absolutely nothing more. The Wife shall receive all other marital property.

Hard as it was for me to believe that a break up could escalate to so bitter and petty a level, it was even more difficult to fathom that a divorce judge sitting behind the bench would rightfully allow this divorce case to successfully make its way through the family court system and grant the requests of the spouses.

Strangely enough, upon checking this divorce case later down the road, to my utter shock I discovered that the judge who had seen this couple's petition put it through with no problems; and, I was now stuck with the knowledge that the cheating spouse was living in a garage with only one of each necessary living item. It struck me then that this scenario was partly due to my having to prepare the divorce order in the first place; then again the couple got exactly what they wanted, leaving this as one to put down for the uncontested divorce record books.