Inside Divorce Meltdowns: Navigating the Legal, Emotional, and Social Media Fallout with Attorney Mark Pustay

Episode Notes

Transcript

Mark Pustay [00:00:00 – 00:00:29]

He gets a ring notification and he can see through the ring that she has taken her car and driven it through the garage, okay. So that she could enter in. And now things are on fire. Shakshi has lit the house on fire. Okay? And this poor guy is sitting, he’s getting ready for like a three hour flight. And they’re telling him, you gotta turn off your phone. And he’s looking at them saying, no, you don’t understand. Right.

Mark Pustay [00:00:29 – 00:00:32]

My wife is burning down by a house right now.

David Crum [00:00:32 – 00:00:37]

Right. Welcome to the show today, everybody. I’m here with Brooke. Matthew. Brooke.

Brooke Mathieu [00:00:37 – 00:00:38]

Hey, excited to be here.

David Crum [00:00:39 – 00:01:21]

So, Brooke, what we’re talking about today or divorce meltdowns, and people don’t think about this very much when they’re getting divorced. But what we’re going to be talking about today is those situations that people create that absolutely melt their case down before it even gets started. And actually the guest we have is going to have a literal story about the marriage burning down as part of the litigation. And like I said, this is something people don’t think about, but it is just crucially important to set the stage for how you would like your divorce to take place. So let me ask you this. If you were getting divorced, do you think it’s a good idea, for example, to just talk to your spouse about it? Like, hey, we’re getting divorced, we should talk about it. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Brooke Mathieu [00:01:21 – 00:01:52]

I think maybe from the female perspective, we’re much more conversational. We like to talk about our feelings. We like to get it all out there on the table. So I can see how naturally that would feel, like that’s normal. We’re just going to talk about it. But I think just the dynamic changes, right? Like, you see a different side of someone and I think that can actually add fuel to the fire. I mean, I think you’ve seen some of this, right? Seeing people get like just unhinged.

David Crum [00:01:52 – 00:02:26]

Yeah. I mean, it sounds like something you should do. It sounds like the most normal thing in the world. But people have to be very, very careful about this. And I think it’s a good ide if you’re going to try to do this, I advise people do it over the phone or that they do it in the context of counseling. And why? Because what normally happens is it is impossible for people to come into this type of conversation not being emotionally charged. And so they start talking about things they don’t even need to talk about. They argue about things that they don’t even need to argue about.

David Crum [00:02:26 – 00:02:53]

Because at the End of the day, they really don’t know what the law is that’s going to apply. So they’ll argue about child support, even though that’s largely a number that gets decided automatically. So even though it sounds like a good idea, I think that talking about your divorce, sometimes in the wrong context, never, by the way, go for a long drive with your spouse to talk about it. That’s the worst thing, the worst place that I’ve seen people try to do this.

Brooke Mathieu [00:02:53 – 00:03:13]

Yeah, I. I could see how that would be sketchy. I don’t. Why would you want to be in a car in a heated situation? Where are you going to go? So naturally, I think people just think that they should talk. Let’s talk it out. It’ll be easy, it’ll be simple. It never ends up going that way. Mark’s going to tell us all about how that ends up going.

Brooke Mathieu [00:03:14 – 00:03:21]

But, David, you’ve told me some crazy stories before. Didn’t someone, like, slap their husband and. Or ex husband.

David Crum [00:03:22 – 00:03:25]

The he needed slapping case is what I call it.

Brooke Mathieu [00:03:25 – 00:03:26]

I’m sure he did.

David Crum [00:03:27 – 00:04:05]

Yeah. If I can give one piece of advice to people, would be, if you’re having an affair, don’t have sex with the person in your house, in your marital bed. That never works out. So this was a case in which the wife came home and her husband was literally having sex in the bed, in their bed, in their house. And so this resulted in a confrontation in which my client, who was a small lady, hauling off and I mean, landing a slap on this guy, I thought it was well deserved, but it ended up. Brooke. It ended up with him calling the police, and the police came and what do you think happened?

Brooke Mathieu [00:04:05 – 00:04:12]

Well, I hope they took her side. Wait, wasn’t he a police officer, though, right? Wasn’t it like something twisted like that?

David Crum [00:04:13 – 00:04:52]

No, he wasn’t a police officer case. But it was kind of like the Gabby Petito situation. Yeah. She was not treated very well by the police, so she was actually arrested, if you can believe it, for domestic violence. It was typically domestic violence. And this guy, you know, insisted on this case going through. And while I don’t take any of this lightly, you know, certainly under any circumstance, still, under those circumstances, this guy, I don’t know, like, what kind of man is that? So the. So we did, we defended the women and it worked out fine.

David Crum [00:04:52 – 00:04:59]

It worked out fine. She needed anger management, which was, to me was hilarious, since I thought she managed her anger pretty damn appropriately.

Brooke Mathieu [00:04:59 – 00:05:04]

If anything would make you angry, I think that would make you angry.

David Crum [00:05:04 – 00:05:42]

Right. Under the circumstances. But unfortunately, like I said, these are the things that can happen in these types of cases if you’re not careful. So as we get to our guest here, we’re going to hear all kinds of. Mark is somebody that worked not only as a divorce lawyer, but as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense attorney. So he’s going to take us through some of those things, how they arise, and really the best way to try to avoid them. Well, it’s my pleasure today to welcome guest Mark Pustay. He’s a divorce attorney with over two decades of experience.

David Crum [00:05:43 – 00:06:18]

He’s actually one of the managing attorneys at New Mexico Legal Group. And, Mark, we wanted to have you on the show not just because of this, but because you have a unique background of starting also in the criminal defense world, doing some prosecution at the DA’s office. And all of this is relevant to what we’re talking about today, which are divorce meltdowns. And I know you’ve had your share of them or you’ve been involved in them. So let’s talk a little bit about what it actually means when you and I, divorce attorneys, talk about this. What do we mean when we say, man, you need to do everything you can to avoid one of these meltdowns at the beginning of your case?

Mark Pustay [00:06:18 – 00:06:45]

Yeah, I like to think about a divorce meltdown as those things that feel really, really good in the moment. Right. Those things where your emotions are running high and you really want to do something. But they’re the sorts of things that if you do that, the collateral consequences on your case are going to be really dire, and it’s ultimately going to, I think, be pretty fatal to your case before you even get started. These are sorts of things like communications. Right. Text messages. Right.

Mark Pustay [00:06:46 – 00:06:55]

Domestic violence, calling the cops, calling cyfd, things like that. These are generally things that you want to make sure that you’re going to want to avoid, particularly in the early parts of your litigation.

David Crum [00:06:56 – 00:07:00]

Yeah, these are things that essentially sink the case before they ever get started. Right?

Mark Pustay [00:07:00 – 00:07:01]

Right, Absolutely.

David Crum [00:07:02 – 00:07:27]

Yeah. So the first thing I want to talk to you about, because people are listening, I think, are interested in this, but a lot of people who start the divorce process, they don’t have the money or it just doesn’t feel right. And so they end up not moving out. They’re not separated, they’re living together while this case is. While their case is beginning. What are your thoughts on this? What have you seen? Is this an okay thing? Is this a bad thing for people to do?

Mark Pustay [00:07:28 – 00:08:22]

I generally think that it’s not an advisable thing to do as long as you’re in the position where you have bound to determine that you’re gonna go ahead with the divorce process, or one of the two of you is bound to determine to go ahead with the divorce process. You may think that, hey, we’ve been together for a long time, we know each other, we trust each other, we can make this work under the same roof. And candidly, that’s really difficult to do. It’s gonna be very difficult to see the person that you are currently engaged in divorce litigation with every day. You know, when you wake up, when you, right before you go with them, you go to sleep at night, there’s a possibility that your partner might start to move on and meet other people. It’s going to make for a very difficult case. And so, to be quite frank with you, I advise my clients not to do that. If I have a client who is considering moving out of the house, I tell them I think that’s a great idea.

Mark Pustay [00:08:22 – 00:08:53]

Get something that can work on sort of a short and medium term basis. And if you have children, make sure that the new place that you have meets their needs. Right? Make sure that there’s sufficient bedrooms, make sure that there’s sufficient space, make sure it’s in the same school district if you have to. But in general, it’s just better to just go ahead and separate because I think it’s going to help mitigate some of those negative effects that come from the emotions. Plus I think it helps prevent any of these divorce meltdowns from ultimately occurring.

David Crum [00:08:54 – 00:09:07]

Mark, people get worried when they hear that kind of advice that if they move out of the house, they’re gonna lose somehow their interest in the house or they’re gonna be thought to abandon the kids. Is that something people need to think about, or how does the court look at that in those situations?

Mark Pustay [00:09:07 – 00:09:44]

Right. Great question. It’s actually a question I get a lot. And the short answer is no. The fact that you’re moving out of the house does not mean that you’re giving up any interests you might have in the house. And it doesn’t mean that you are in any way sort of abandoning the kids. Here in the state of New Mexico, one of the first things that gets issued once a divorce case is actually filed is this temporary domestic order, okay, that essentially says, hey, look, we recognize that one of the two of you is going to have to move out while this case is probably ongoing, because it’s going to be not particularly. It’s Going to be a pretty tenuous situation if everybody’s under the same roof.

Mark Pustay [00:09:45 – 00:10:16]

You know, in understanding of that, that temporary domestic order, specifically. Perfect. It protects the rights of the person that’s moving out. And make sure that everybody understands, look, we’re not giving up any rights. You still have the ability to have regular live contact with your kids. You still have the ability to come back to the house upon a mutually agreeable time in order to get things like, you know, basic necessities to do an inventory maybe of some of the property in the house. So, no, you’re not going to suffer any negative impacts in court if ultimately you’re the one that has to move out.

Brooke Mathieu [00:10:17 – 00:10:18]

So I have a question for you, Mark.

Mark Pustay [00:10:18 – 00:10:19]

Yeah.

Brooke Mathieu [00:10:19 – 00:10:26]

Do you see meltdowns tend to escalate and get worse when they live together versus when they separate?

Mark Pustay [00:10:26 – 00:11:14]

I do. And to be quite candid, it tends to escalate the longer the case is ongoing. Right. Because one of the frustrating things, I think, for a lot of clients and for a lot of people who go through the divorce processes is that they think that, hey, their case is going to be a little bit different. It’s going to go a little bit faster than maybe the average case does. And to be quite frank with you, the legal system moves at its own pace. And so it’s going to move in general at a pace that’s not going to be preferable for either party. And as each party is paying thousands in legal fees and as the case is ongoing, sort of some of those, you know, things are starting to fray a little bit, and everybody’s going to sort of get on each other’s and getting each other’s nast nerves.

Mark Pustay [00:11:15 – 00:11:52]

One of the true divorce meltdowns that you absolutely have to avoid. It’s kind of shocking that I even have to say this, right. But one of the few divorce meltdowns you truly have to avoid is any sort of physical violence whatsoever against your partner or against the children that are in your. That are in your home. Right. Because that is a sure way to, frankly change the tone of the entire litigation. And if the court believes that you’re somebody that might present a danger to either your spouse or to your children, you’re going to be facing an uphill climb throughout the entire litigation.

David Crum [00:11:52 – 00:12:18]

So, Mark, I want to talk a little bit about getting the police involved. And there’s a number of different ways that this happens, I think. But the first one is, you know, a lot of people at the beginning of the case, they want to call police a lot of times just a referee just to. Just to calm things down. And what is your advice on that? When they should call the police? What have you seen happen in these situations when people decide to involve law enforcement?

Mark Pustay [00:12:19 – 00:13:16]

Sure. Good question. So I generally advise clients that unless there is an absolute emergency, unless that, you know, that maybe your child might be in danger, unless you feel a true, genuine threat of danger at that moment, do not call law enforcement. It is, to be quite candid, more trouble than it’s worth. I think a lot of the collateral consequences that could potentially come from it, frankly, end up being a little bit more harmful to people’s cases than normal. But if you do actually believe that law enforcement is necessary in a situation, then contact them. I always tell my clients, understand that when an officer comes to a domestic violence call, this is one of the most difficult calls that they ever, ever have to go into because it’s emotionally charged. There are, you know, everybody is in general, living under the same roof.

Mark Pustay [00:13:17 – 00:14:26]

They have to come into the situation and figure out, okay, who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy. I hear a lot of times, by the way, that people think that law enforcement has to come in and necessarily arrest somebody, and that’s not the case. Although if it’s a domestic violence situation, law enforcement is probably going to separate the two of you. One of the things I think that clients really, really should, and people, to be candid, getting involved in this situation really should keep in mind is that when you are talking with law enforcement, be sure to do whatever you can to portray a calm demeanor. Right? Breathe. Make it. Make it appear that of the two people that are involved in this situation, you are the one that has their faculties, right? You are the one that has full and complete control over what’s going on, because people are human and they’re going to, frankly judge your credibility, I think, accordingly. Moreover, the more, I’ll say, combative that you are with law enforcement, the more likely it is that law enforcement could potentially add charges against both of you.

Mark Pustay [00:14:27 – 00:15:48]

I’ve seen situations where law enforcement officers are a little concerned about a situation. Maybe they understand that they’re going to be serious charges, so they’re going to stack these charges or maybe add on four or five charges and send it all over to the district attorney to figure out, right, you don’t want one of these to include resisting arrest, interference with law enforcement, custodial interference. Not only is that going to be really difficult for your case, but that’s going to follow you over time. So Whenever law enforcement gets involved, I usually tell people, look, only do it in a true emergency situation. If they do talk with them in a calm, rational manner. Understand that law enforcement’s likely to separate the two of you and understand that if, for example, the legal process does play out and it proves that, for example, maybe you made allegations against your partner that not only really didn’t pan out, but kind of looks like they were made in bad faith, it’s going to be really difficult to get your credibility back in front of the family court judge, because in these cases, credibility is everything. And often the judge is just trying to figure out, okay, who’s the good person and who’s the bad person. You don’t want a DV situation to sort of really hurt that.

Brooke Mathieu [00:15:48 – 00:16:29]

There’s something I want to point out about what you said, Mark, about presenting with a calm demeanor. Now, I’m not an attorney, but I watch a lot of True Crime, different stuff. And this makes me think of the Gabby Petito case, when someone called in because there was a fight and they called, I think, with original concern for her. When the police arrived in the documentary, you can see she’s pretty upset. She’s been crying. And the guy, I can’t remember his name, but he’s very calm, he’s very relaxed. He’s even chopping it up with the police, and they end up siding more with him, even though the call was originally for her.

Mark Pustay [00:16:30 – 00:17:18]

Right. And I think part of it is that people are human. Right. Law enforcement is trained to be able to detect these sorts of things, but law enforcement can make mistakes as well. Obviously, in a situation like that, they made a pretty fatal mistake. Right. In a situation that might apply to sort of your family law, your divorce situation, it may not be necessarily sort as dangerous as what happened ultimately to Gabby Petito, but if law enforcement is going to be coming in, trying to figure out what’s up, what’s down, what’s left, what’s right, what’s black and what’s right, what’s white. Just to be candid, I think law enforcement tend to favor the account of the person that looks like, hey, I’m here, I understand why you’re here.

Mark Pustay [00:17:18 – 00:17:25]

I will provide you any information that you need that they’re truthful. Right. And that they’re presenting exactly a calm demeanor.

David Crum [00:17:25 – 00:17:25]

Yeah.

Brooke Mathieu [00:17:25 – 00:17:26]

Yeah.

David Crum [00:17:26 – 00:18:06]

Well, that Petito thing was just a sacrilege. I mean, I think she ended up getting. They ended up saying he was the victim just because of the way that it came out and the way that they they’re just not trained to question these people in the right way who’ve been victimized by domestic violence. Mark, put your prosecutor, your former prosecutor hat on here for a second and talk a little bit about when the police get called. Sometimes there will be unintentional consequences. Right, because whose case is it once the police are called? People think, well, I’m just going to dismiss these charges. That’s not really what’s happening there, is it?

Mark Pustay [00:18:06 – 00:18:44]

No, it isn’t. And by the way, I want to sort of jump off of a point you made there, David, at the end, in terms of training, no, law enforcement does not get sufficient training. I’ll tell you a brief story from my time as a district attorney. When I was up in Santa Fe, we would often be asked to go train over at the law enforcement academy up there in Santa Fe. The frustrating thing, though, was that we were often only given maybe a couple hours notice. Hey, we want you to come over and talk to the new cadets about domestic violence. Okay? You have 45 minutes to train them on domestic violence. That’s it.

Mark Pustay [00:18:44 – 00:19:06]

Right. And so you walk into this big lecture hall and you’ve got 300 cadets all staring at you. Now you’re the person that they want to hear from when it comes to domestic violence. Right. That’s really sort of the informality of this kind of training that we’ve had. And. And so these law enforcement officers really don’t receive a whole lot of that formal training necessarily.

David Crum [00:19:06 – 00:19:48]

Yeah, I mean, that’s a perfect example, Mark, of what I’m talking about. What you just described is absolutely unacceptable in terms of the training. So people have to keep that in mind when they’re being questioned. And if you have a lot. I’ve seen a lot of victims who have advocates with them, whether it’s a friend or sometimes even a court advocate once the proceedings get going. And I think that’s often a good thing because it can just be overwhelming. But back to the original question was, once the police are called and they start making decisions, who owns that case? I mean, people think, I’ll just say that I’m just not going to press charges. But it doesn’t really work like that, does it?

Mark Pustay [00:19:48 – 00:20:43]

It doesn’t. I have a lot of people, especially if they’re the ones that got ultimately charged with the case, they’ll say, hey, you really have to talk with the attorney, get her to drop the charges. It needs to drop right away. And I always tell them it’s not up to her. Okay? It’s not up to them. Because as soon as that case goes over to the district attorney’s office, candidly, the district attorney has the ability to decide, has what we call prosecutorial discretion, has the ability to do with that case exactly what the district attorney thinks is appropriate. Now, there are some district attorneys that. That will actually proceed on a case even though a victim says, hey, I’m not willing to testify, I’m not willing to participate in those situations, a district attorney can subpoena that victim to show up in court and force them to testify on the sand, even though they’ve indicated that they don’t really want to proceed.

Mark Pustay [00:20:44 – 00:21:44]

Now, that’s not an ideal situation. And when I was a district attorney up in Santa Fe, we had, in general, say, a standing policy that we never wanted to subpoena a victim and force them to be on the stand. But I think it does kind of belie the larger point. Once that case gets charged, once it gets out of the police officer’s hands, once it gets referred over to the district attorney, you know, then it’s really not up to the victim anymore. So it, you know, I also advise my clients then do not make it appear that in any way you are trying to influence that victim or you’re trying to get them to actually drop those charges. Because in doing that, in trying to get this case thrown out, you actually could present much larger criminal problems for yourself. So it’s this mentality that continues to persist out there. It’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine, frankly.

Mark Pustay [00:21:44 – 00:21:51]

But once it heads over to the prosecutor, then really the victim has a say, but the victim doesn’t get to decide whether the case goes forward.

David Crum [00:21:52 – 00:22:19]

Yeah. So neither one of us are saying not to take this seriously. And certainly domestic violence is serious and you should call. And a lot of people have serious cases. But on those, if you want a referee and that’s all you’re looking for, you might be getting a lot more than you bargained for. And all that stuff’s going to impact your divorce, because that criminal case, they may not be able to see the kids. You may not be able to talk to your spouse while that criminal case is pending. But let’s switch gears a little bit.

David Crum [00:22:19 – 00:22:52]

And you would think that you would think that this topic we would not have to talk about. But again, like, I’m gonna now switch your role to just your divorce, like, aggressive divorce attorney and tell me what you’re looking for and even what you’ve seen people do when it comes to social media, because this is where people just, again, they can’t keep their mouth shut up or their phone shut while their cases are pending. What’s your experience with social media impacting these divorce cases?

Mark Pustay [00:22:52 – 00:24:39]

Yeah, it’s kind of amazing the sorts of things that people will go ahead and post out into the world in the middle of maybe one of these meltdowns, right, where they’re feeling particularly emotional, they want to post something out. They don’t have, I’ll say, sufficient self control to be able to stop and say, hey, is this a good idea? I’ve seen this in sort of a number of different ways. One of which could be sort of a harassing tone, right? I have seen situations and I’ve litigated cases in which social media posts are the basis for what we call domestic violence order protection. The way that domestic abuse is defined under the Family Violence Protection act here in the state of New Mexico. Essentially, that sort of harassment can constitute domestic abuse, right? So I have seen situations where it’s not just sort of the tone that’s being used in a post, but you know, the frequency of the posts, you know, how, you know the words that are used in those posts. Maybe what I’ve also seen is contacting other friends, right, and harassing them as well. That’s going to be something that at the early stages of your case, if it’s clear to the court that you’re doing something like harassing somebody via social media, it’s going to be really difficult to get that credibility back. The second type of divorce sort of meltdown that I see usually on social media is, I’ll say, essentially unintentionally helping out your opposition, right? You’re posting the sorts of things that as soon as you post it, you have now given essentially sort of a smoking gun or sort of a golden ticket to the other side when it comes to the evidence that they may want to present in court.

Mark Pustay [00:24:39 – 00:25:58]

There’s a few different ways I’ve seen this one. I’ve seen a situation in which the status of two people was in dispute whether or not they were married or not. In that case, over the course of a long period of time, the party that was claiming that they were not married had actually posted for a long time, hey, I love being married every, you know, every anniversary, right? And then when they found out that sort of the jig was up, they did try to go back and sort of change those, change those posts, which created a whole sort of new set of problems. I’ve seen another situation in which we were litigating what we call sort of an interim. It’s colloquially called interim support here in the state of New Mexico. But essentially the opposing party said, look, since I’m going through this divorce process, I have no ability to be able to pay my basic bills. Essentially, I am destitute, filed a motion. And while we’re waiting on that motion to be heard, he posts to Facebook this very proud post about, hey, for my birthday, I’m so excited.

Mark Pustay [00:25:58 – 00:26:52]

I get the opportunity to have a once in a lifetime safari to Africa. Right? What a great experience, right? You know, that. That was essentially sort of handing us, right on a golden platter, a really great case. A third sort of type of meltdown that I’ve seen is, you know, posting to TikTok, right? TikTok videos are, you know, I think by nature not meant to be particularly long. And TikTok, as TikTok has become more popular, the number of videos that are out there is starting to really proliferate. But remember what it is that you’re putting out there. So in this situation, there was a case in which it was a very hotly contested custody case, and one of the parties did this dance right on video. And as part of this dance, they actually included the child.

Mark Pustay [00:26:52 – 00:27:46]

The child was, I think, sort of a young teenager at the time. And they sort of superimposed some music about, you know, essentially giving me my money, right? Sort of referring to spousal support, referring to child support. Right? And unfortunately for that person in that case, there was already a guardian ad litem appointed. And so that guardian ad litem saw the video, understood the context there, was able to verify, because from what I understand, when they were first confronted with it, they said, no, that’s not mine, by the way. If you’re caught, admit it, okay? It only makes it worse if you weren’t caught. And then ultimately it had a really deleterious effect on the custody going forward. In fact, I think it dramatically shifted from that point on. So you can put these things out into the world, okay? They can feel great.

Mark Pustay [00:27:46 – 00:28:40]

You can be very proud of the content that you’re putting out into the social media world. But be very careful because understand that when you put that out, it’s documentary, I have a whole lot more. It’s a lot easier for me to be able to present that in court and to be able to wave that around. See, see, see, Judge. Everything that we’re saying is true because you’ve essentially provided us that evidence. And when you know that the jig is up or when you Know that perhaps that the situation, you might have created a difficult situation for yourself, to be frank, you know, to go back to Watergate, right? The COVID up is the crime. The COVID up becomes, you know, more of an issue for your credibility going forward than candidly, anything else. Because when it comes to social media, we have the ability to do things like subpoena metadata, right? I can subpoena metadata to be able to sort of say, hey, this was, you know, we have data as to when that original post was created.

Mark Pustay [00:28:40 – 00:28:50]

We have data as to when that post was modified thereafter. And if those line up, I can come into court and not only impeach you on that, but I can get relief based upon that, and you can be found in contempt.

David Crum [00:28:51 – 00:29:28]

So, yeah, yeah, that’s one thing that I wanted to ask you about because I, you know, people need to know, hey, every post that you put, just imagine that the judge in your case is going to read it. And I wanted to run this by. Because Brooke, you know, is our overseas social media for us. I don’t know if she knows the answer to this, but why wouldn’t you just delete your account? You know, it’s like, you get on there, you file for divorce, you’re like, oh, man, I got all this bad stuff on here. I’m just going to delete it. I’m just going to delete my entire account before this even starts. So what, what do you do then? I mean, what do you. How do you deal with that situation?

Brooke Mathieu [00:29:29 – 00:29:29]

Right?

Mark Pustay [00:29:29 – 00:29:34]

So usually, oh, wait, let’s see if Brooke knows. What do you do?

David Crum [00:29:34 – 00:29:36]

Layperson. Answer, layperson.

Brooke Mathieu [00:29:36 – 00:30:06]

I’m pretty sure I see some comments go down with these couples, but I’m pretty sure they can subpoena and pull that information, too. And that’s even a little bit more sketchy. I would imagine that you deleted entire account because then there’s probably got to be some pretty bad stuff. It’s true. What’s on the Internet is forever, unfortunately. So you have to be careful. And there’s been so many different instances of this. Vindictive exes, I think, are such a real thing.

Brooke Mathieu [00:30:07 – 00:30:42]

An example that comes to mind is they weren’t married, but they had kids together. It’s Taylor, Frankie Paul from the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. And she was selected to be the Bachelor. This was a big scandal this year. And her ex released a video footage of a domestic violence situation that ABC had known about, Hulu had known about. This was part of the storyline in the previous season. But he released unseen footage that he had of her. And you can tell in the video he’s very much upsetting her, trying to get a rise out of her.

Brooke Mathieu [00:30:42 – 00:31:21]

He’s looking for a specific reaction he knows she’s going to give. But the bad thing about this video is she has a child around 6, 8 years old in the background, and you see her throw a chair at her ex and the kid’s off in the corner. They ended up canceling the entire season of the Bachelor. So it’s not even. Just like he wasn’t even trying to affect their custody. They’re not married. He’s not trying to change that agreement, but he’s trying to alter the course of her life. So you’ve got to be so careful in the world of TikTok and in the world of cell phones, mobile phones recording, that’s just huge.

Brooke Mathieu [00:31:21 – 00:31:24]

And I think that’s true whether you’re in a relationship or not.

David Crum [00:31:24 – 00:31:39]

Yeah. So Brooke’s already. Already suspicious if somebody’s deleting their account too, is what I heard you say. And my clients would go, oh, I just don’t want to be involved in that anymore. I just. I don’t. I don’t want to do this while. While I’m getting divorced.

David Crum [00:31:39 – 00:31:56]

But so, yes, so as Brooke was saying, you got those, the ones that everybody’s seeing. But then, Mark, Mark, what does somebody do when they just very blithely delete their entire Facebook or Instagram account or

Mark Pustay [00:31:56 – 00:32:35]

whatever account in that sort of circumstance? I always sort of tell my clients, look, if there are posts on your spouse’s or on your partner’s social media, do whatever you can to preserve them while you’re ongoing. Right. Take screenshots, save them at a particular place and have that data as to when you did that. Right. Hey, I took a screenshot on, you know, April 15, right. So that you can be able to come into show and say, as of April 15th, when I was able to access this account, this is what was posted at that time. Right. If you do believe that there’s that information out there, you know, do some.

Mark Pustay [00:32:35 – 00:32:41]

A little bit of that background work and get some of. Create, you know, you know, essentially, you know, do be your own investigator there.

Brooke Mathieu [00:32:41 – 00:32:41]

Right.

Mark Pustay [00:32:41 – 00:33:50]

You know, get a little bit of that documentation out. But I’ll also say that, you know, when it comes to deleting accounts, you know, obviously, you know, not only are there things we could do potentially through subpoenas of social media platforms, but, you know, it’s kind of amazing what tech people can do now with cached Results. It’s kind of amazing the sort of things that you can do with metadata just based upon the stuff that’s publicly available. And even though maybe we may not necessarily be able to get the content of some of those posts, you know, there is this principle essentially in law that sort of applies sort of in other situations that essentially if that party did something wrongful. Right. To get rid of that evidence, then the finder of fact, whether it’s the judge or a jury at that point, then could presume that whatever it was that they were destroying was going to be harmful to their case. Right. And sometimes if you’re giving the court the ability to sort of speculate as to, oh my goodness, how bad could it have been? That’s so much worse than maybe just, you know, one or two improper posts.

Mark Pustay [00:33:50 – 00:34:05]

Right. Or some posts that might have been impertinent. So, you know, again, the COVID up is often, is often the crime. And don’t, you know, don’t ever underestimate what people can do in terms of recapturing some of that data.

David Crum [00:34:05 – 00:34:42]

Yeah. So following back up on what Brooke said, you know, Brooke was talking about these videos that people are making and in a lot of those, like the woman, I’m sorry, I can’t remember her name. But the video was nothing new. But what was new about it was the kid was there and nobody kind of knew that and it looked really bad. What about situations where they don’t know they’re being recorded? Do you, do you suggest to clients, if they’re having trouble, that they record the person? What’s typically the legality of that? How do you handle the more of the secret kind of recordings that happen in these types of cases?

Mark Pustay [00:34:42 – 00:35:10]

Right. So this comes up a lot. Okay. A lot of people will ultimately record basically any and all of their interactions. I see it with, you know, to talk about a divorce meltdown. I see it often when we talk about like, let’s say custody exchanges. Right. I’ll see situations in which there will be an exchange, let’s say at the McDonald’s and both parties, new significant others have their phones out and they’re clearly recording one another.

Mark Pustay [00:35:10 – 00:35:14]

Now that’s probably a little bit more obvious, right? Yeah, this is a little bit more obvious than maybe.

Brooke Mathieu [00:35:14 – 00:35:23]

I’ve seen a ton of those on TikTok. I’ve seen so many of those where they’re recording each other or it’s like the new girlfriend and it’s just getting super messy.

Mark Pustay [00:35:23 – 00:36:01]

And not only is it bad for your child or for your children, it does not play well at all in front of the court. Okay. The court will generally do a pox on both of your houses sort of thing. The court will get quite frustrated with situations like that. But there are a lot of surreptitious recordings that will happen. I mean, I remember as part of one case that I did, this is, I think, another classic meltdown. I see a lot of times in which the more they’re melting down, okay, they’re looking around and they’re realizing that there are people that they can’t really confide in necessarily anymore. That.

Mark Pustay [00:36:01 – 00:36:40]

So the social circle is starting to sort of constrict a little bit. And so they turn to the people that might be in their orbit and that might be, for example, the child. Right. And what that person might end up doing is to start using the child as sort of sounding board for all of their frustrations about, you know, their other parents about the situation. Right. Maybe even about. I had a case in which the child actually recorded about a 25 minute conversation in which her father had essentially sort of a captive audience driving to an exchange. It was about 20, 25 minutes.

David Crum [00:36:40 – 00:36:41]

Oh, my God.

Mark Pustay [00:36:41 – 00:37:00]

And used the entire time to just complain about the case. Right. To complain about opposing. Complain about the mother. Complain about me. He did a background investigation on me that was really faulty. I don’t know where he got any of that information. I mean, it was kind of surprising.

Mark Pustay [00:37:00 – 00:38:00]

It’s a little surreal hearing people talk about that. But that was one of those classic meltdowns because after that exchange happened, daughter immediately turned that over to mother and said, this is the stuff that that dad is doing to me when we come and do these exchanges. And so it was the sort of thing that ultimately, you know, was presented before a guardian litem and then obviously the guardian litem made decisions appropriately. So I would generally assume, okay, that whenever you’re going to be in contact with somebody, somebody’s going to be recording. Okay? Always assume there might possibly be a recording out there of something. So, for example, let’s say if you’re an attorney asks, hey, did this happen or did you say that? If you said that, be honest with them, don’t deny that you said something, because remember, there’s always a possibility that that recording might be out there. I will say, however, secret recordings, you know, are a little bit of, I’ll say, sticky, wicked, so to speak. Right.

Mark Pustay [00:38:01 – 00:38:41]

You know, in certain cases, you know, in certain ways they can be helpful. And other times, if people find out that they’re being secretly Recorded, it just ratchets up the emotions that much more. It could potentially present discovery issues for you. They may want to get a super intrusive. Discovery is already intrusive. They want to get you more intrusive on that. So I would just say in general, be very cautious about doing secret recordings just because I think a lot of the things that you’re signing up for, to use a phrase, David, that you used before, a lot of the things that maybe you’re signing up for are not necessarily things that you might have anticipated.

David Crum [00:38:41 – 00:39:31]

Yeah, Mark, I agree with you. I mean, this can be a double edged sword and I’ve actually used it against the person who’s making the recording. This was a case in which the opposing party was law enforcement and this guy would turn on his body cam when he went to talk to his wife and obviously she had no idea. And then he would just spin her up and I mean, she would freak out. Like, she would freak out. But when this came up in court, you know what was clear to me that he was absolutely baiting her in to do that. So this became like one of my key pieces of evidence that I introduced to show this is the dynamic of what’s going on, this is what’s really happening with the kids, this is really who’s setting the tone of this. And the judge was not happy with it.

David Crum [00:39:31 – 00:39:46]

So if you’re out there and you think you’re watching this and you think it’s cute that you get your wife or your husband all riled up and then record, it’s not necessarily going to be what you think it is. So yeah, I think you need to be so careful about it.

Brooke Mathieu [00:39:46 – 00:39:52]

Can you use that in court if you’re secretly recording? Is there any issues with that or how does that work?

Mark Pustay [00:39:52 – 00:40:40]

There are going to be issues in terms of bringing it up in court. The biggest thing that you’re going to have to do is whoever it is that made that, whoever it is that made that recording, okay, the only way that you’re going to be able to get that recording in is if that person is available in court to be able to say, yes, I made this recording, that they can verify that it’s legit, that it’s authentic. Right. Because that’s the very first thing that you’re going to have to be able to come in. But understand that if you have a friend, for example, that’s doing that, now you’ve involved your friend in this litigation, so now your friend is going to be subject to probably a pretty difficult Cross examination. So, yeah, there are issues involved with it. I mean, it can be admitted under certain circumstances, but there’s some difficult consequences that come out as a result.

Brooke Mathieu [00:40:40 – 00:40:55]

I have one other question for you and I don’t know if you’ve seen this yet. What about like AI, have people tried to use AI to make recordings, whether it’s audio or video?

Mark Pustay [00:40:56 – 00:40:56]

So I.

David Crum [00:40:56 – 00:40:57]

That’s evil.

Mark Pustay [00:40:58 – 00:41:00]

Yeah, that’s. That’s so evil.

Brooke Mathieu [00:41:01 – 00:41:03]

Hopefully I’m not giving anyone any ideas,

Mark Pustay [00:41:04 – 00:41:42]

actually, actually we might be. I have yet to see a case in which, for example. Right, yeah. A recorder as part of that conversation and then immediately it’s transcribing these note taking apps or these transcription apps that somebody can have just on their phone. They’re pretty incredible. But some of the consequences can be pretty large. I have frankly yet to see that. But remember that anything you put out into the universe, which includes AI, all right, means that you’re putting it out into the universe and there are issues with potential discoverability.

Mark Pustay [00:41:43 – 00:42:32]

Understand that if you’re putting, for example, if you’re going on to Claude or ChatGPT and saying, hey, so how can I get away with the murder of my wife? That’s going to be stuff that could be potentially discoverable and you could suffer the consequences criminally as a result. Right. So. So when you’re putting it out there, you’re losing that expectation of privacy in the information that you’re putting out there. So if you’re thinking about using AI for those particular purposes, I would say do the same rule of thumb, whatever it is that you’re putting into AI, imagine that the judge is looking at. Also understand that there can be issues with sort of attorney client privilege once you put that information out there. So just be very wary about using any of those AI transcription things.

David Crum [00:42:33 – 00:43:25]

Well, not even transcription. There’s already cases out there where whatever you type in, even if, even if this is, even if you’re pro se, you don’t have a lawyer and you’re using this to represent yourself, all of those searches are going to be discoverable. I just saw a case where somebody was typing in how to hide assets offshore was the search and that was discovered as part of the deal. And yeah, this person was, was. It’s a disaster. So don’t ever do that. One other thing I wanted to talk to you about and then because I know you’ve got a story I want to ask you about, but can you talk a little bit about starting divorce cases? Because I think the tone that said in the Beginning how you do it, where how the person is served. Give some advice on this.

David Crum [00:43:25 – 00:43:42]

I mean, how do you start your divorce? You know, you got to do it legally, of course. Person’s gotta be served, right? But how do you do this without just causing all kinds of chaos from the very start? And what are the worst things you’ve seen and what are the best ways you’ve seen for people to kick their divorces off?

Mark Pustay [00:43:43 – 00:44:30]

Sure. So, you know, I say this is definitely one of those case by case basis sort of thing. Nobody knows your partner, frankly, better than you. Okay? So it’s less about, I think, when you’re trying to analyze exactly what it is you’re gonna do in these initial stages. I’d say think a little bit more about how your partner is likely to react rather than whether or not you think that this is. That this is sort of the best way to approach it. Now, understand, you don’t necessarily have control over how your partner is going to react, but if there’s somebody who’s likely to go off the handle quickly, you know, take that into account when you’re deciding exactly how you want to proceed. Usually when I talk with clients as part of maybe, or a prospective client maybe as part of an initial consultation, and, you know, I’ll ask them, okay, I understand you want to proceed with the divorce.

Mark Pustay [00:44:30 – 00:45:22]

Does your partner know about this? Okay. Does your partner know that you’re upset? Okay. Or will this come completely out of left field? Right? Because if you’ve been married for 25 years and this comes completely out of left field, maybe this is sort of, sort of, you know, a desire that you’ve had for a long time that you haven’t shared with your partner. Maybe you’ve done everything to show that, you know, you’re happy in the marriage, right? So that maybe you can get your affairs in order. Otherwise, this is going to draft like a ton of bricks, okay? And so remember, your partner might act irrationally from the very beginning, but then it also creates tone. Like you said, David, tone is such an important thing going forward. In general, I advise my clients the tone that you put out at the beginning of the case. In general, okay? This doesn’t apply all the time, but in general is going to be the tone that you get back from your partner as the case goes on.

Mark Pustay [00:45:22 – 00:45:57]

If you are civil, if you are reasonable, if you are transparent about things, about trying to sort of get a good outcome for you, and if you have kids, the kids, then in general, your partner is going to sort of send that back. But if you come in guns blazing, okay. I tell my clients all the time, petty is expensive. It’s expensive not just in terms of anything that you pay an attorney. Right. Because litigation is expensive. But it’s also expensive in terms of sort of the social costs and the social capital that you’re really burning through, whether it’s your partner or whether it’s the children. Right.

Mark Pustay [00:45:58 – 00:46:26]

If it’s something that you want to really want to come in sort of guns blazing, understand that you’re going to get a lot of pushback right away. And what you’re likely setting yourself up for long term is a pretty litigious case. Okay. And those could be really difficult to rein in. You may be looking at, you know, 30, 40, $50,000 in attorney’s fees, and you may not even get close to trial at that point. Right. So, you know, be very. Be very wary about the tone that you’re planning on doing.

Mark Pustay [00:46:26 – 00:47:13]

You know, if you think that it’s going to be appropriate, maybe talk with your partner about your thoughts before you actually end up filing. If you’re going to file, when it comes to service in general, okay. I advise people to maybe not serve them at work if you don’t have to, because that’s going to create a really difficult situation for them. And I think they’re going to be a little resentful for that, and I think they’re going to sort of hold that against you when the litigation is ongoing. One other thing, to understand that they’re in early stages. If you’re doing this on a pro se basis, understand that you cannot be the one that serves your spouse, okay? It has to be somebody else. It has to be a third party. The sheriff exists for things like this.

Mark Pustay [00:47:13 – 00:47:23]

There are process servers that exist for things like this, but you can’t just give it to your spouse and say, okay, they’ve been served. Okay? It has to come through another party.

David Crum [00:47:23 – 00:47:38]

Mark, if you’re the filing attorney, if you’re going to file the divorce, how much do you work with the other. Or have your process server work with the other side? Do you call and just say, hey, let’s just work out service of this? Do you think there’s merit to that? I mean, I think people think you got to, like, drop the bomb on people.

Mark Pustay [00:47:39 – 00:47:39]

Right.

David Crum [00:47:39 – 00:47:41]

You know, I see it so much now.

Mark Pustay [00:47:41 – 00:48:09]

I usually tell them, look, try, try to tell them, hey, look, it’s coming, right? I need to make sure that you’re served. Is there a way that we can do this in sort of A graceful way. Right. Is there a way that we do this in a respectful way? If opposing party has counsel, I’ll just contact opposing counsel. Hey, I understand you’re representing so and so on this case. We filed the petition for dissolution of marriage. Will you go ahead and accept service then? Frankly, saves both of you time and money. Okay.

Mark Pustay [00:48:09 – 00:48:42]

In a situation like that. And. And it really does sort of just set a tone. Okay. As it’s ongoing. But I’ll tell you, though, sometimes people can sort of get a little caught up in the service thing. I actually had a client once who had me prepare a case, prepare a dissolution petition, and then very much wanted to control the manner and timing of certain. And would have direct contact with the processor and say, hey, wait, hold.

Mark Pustay [00:48:42 – 00:49:05]

Okay, well, maybe next week, and then maybe next week, and then maybe next week. Right. And then we didn’t hear from him for three months. Right. And then after that, when we finally got in touch with him and said, just close out the case. This service part is, remember, for the person who’s being served, this might be one of the more psychologically traumatic moments of the divorce. You were. You are getting a divorce.

Mark Pustay [00:49:05 – 00:49:21]

Okay, here it is. Right. I am divorcing you. So understand that they may or may not react in sort of a reasonable, calm manner. So whatever you can do to mitigate that and to create a better tone going forward, I think is probably advisable.

David Crum [00:49:21 – 00:49:41]

You want to hear something terrible, Brooke? Yeah. I have not done that. I have not done this. But I have seen people serve. Served with divorce papers on Valentine’s Day. I’ve seen them served on their anniversary. I mean, it’s just cruel. Now, there is one story that I want to talk to that I know about.

David Crum [00:49:41 – 00:49:51]

I wasn’t involved in it, but I think you had a case where we talk about, like, burning the case down, literally. This is what happened in your case. What was that about?

Mark Pustay [00:49:52 – 00:50:20]

Right. And candidly, this is, I think, in one small nutshell, all the reasons why you want to avoid a divorce meltdown. Okay. I think every part of this story shows how a divorce meltdown can potentially just completely nuke your case, so to speak. So I had a divorce case between two older, older couple. They had met later in life. They had been married for one year. Okay.

Mark Pustay [00:50:21 – 00:50:46]

They met on social media. They actually got involved in sort of a business together. There were some interesting potential community property issues here. However, the nature of the separation was, I think, so emotional. One of the parties claimed that the other one was on dating apps, by the way, you Know, another divorce meltdown. Right. You know, try to avoid dating apps.

Brooke Mathieu [00:50:46 – 00:50:46]

Right.

Mark Pustay [00:50:46 – 00:51:17]

Thought that. That since they were on the dating app, they were being cheated on. So the emotions really ratched up to 100. And both parties really kind of just only wanted one thing out of this case. My client wanted this sort of movie memorabilia that was very important to him. His wife wanted this classic car. It was like a 1960s Mercedes, and it was inoperable, but it was sitting in my client’s garage. Now, now I’m representing my client.

Mark Pustay [00:51:17 – 00:51:41]

I’m trying to work with the pro se party. We sent discovery. She never responded. Okay. She’s not really playing well in the sandbox. So as a result, the case is dragging out. And as the case is dragging out, everybody’s emotions are getting strained. Well, one day, opposing party comes up to my client’s door to the ring camera.

Mark Pustay [00:51:41 – 00:51:50]

Now, opposing party had been drinking that day, okay. With one of her friends. This is not good, right? Yeah, yeah, right. Another divorce. Day drinking, Right, Right. Day drinking.

Brooke Mathieu [00:51:51 – 00:51:53]

It starts with day drinking. It always starts.

David Crum [00:51:53 – 00:51:54]

Day drinking never leads. Okay.

Mark Pustay [00:51:54 – 00:52:12]

Yeah, yeah. Bottomless mimosas, Right. Don’t add alcohol to this situation. But anyway, she comes up to the ring camera, okay. And she starts speaking into the ring camera. And she has her friend behind her. We were talking about recording earlier. Has her friend behind her recording this entire interaction on her phone.

Mark Pustay [00:52:13 – 00:52:31]

Okay, this is where you do not record. Right. She’s pretty intoxicated. And so she is at this moment demanding that my client give her this car. This is all she wants. Again, it’s inoperable. You can’t just pull it out of the garage. My client’s getting ready to leave.

Mark Pustay [00:52:31 – 00:52:32]

For a child.

Brooke Mathieu [00:52:33 – 00:52:34]

Are they chatting through the ring camera?

Mark Pustay [00:52:34 – 00:52:38]

They’re chatting briefly through. Exactly. Yeah. Chatting briefly.

David Crum [00:52:38 – 00:52:41]

Wait, so he’s home? He’s home at this point, or he’s not at the house?

Mark Pustay [00:52:41 – 00:52:42]

No, he’s not at the house.

David Crum [00:52:43 – 00:52:43]

Okay.

Mark Pustay [00:52:43 – 00:53:08]

Right. He’s getting ready to go to the. Yeah, he’s getting ready to go to the airport, and he’s saying, look, I’m heading out. Okay? I’m not gonna be able to help you at this time. And she’s getting increasingly upset. Okay? And they talk for a few minutes, and the real sort of coup de grace, right. On the way out, she walks off, and she turns off and she says, I am going to jail today. Right.

Mark Pustay [00:53:09 – 00:53:11]

And so. Right. She walks off.

David Crum [00:53:11 – 00:53:12]

Right.

Mark Pustay [00:53:13 – 00:53:46]

My client just brushes it off. He gets ready to go to the airport. He’s in his seat. He’s in his seat there on the airplane. On the airplane, right? Waiting to. Essentially they’re securing the cabin, right? One last sort of go through, and he gets a ring notification. And he can see through the ring that she has taken her car and gone and driven it through the garage, okay? So that she could enter in. And now things are on fire.

Mark Pustay [00:53:46 – 00:54:49]

Shakshi has lit the house on fire, okay? And this poor guy, right, I know, but it is, but, but, but it’s. It’s so ridiculous, right? This poor guy is sitting, he’s getting ready for like a three hour flight, and they’re telling him, you gotta turn off your phone. And he’s looking at them saying, no, you don’t understand, right? My wife is burning down by a house right now, right? So they have to sort of. He turns it off, he does the flight, they call the cops. Ultimately, house gets burned down, which includes, by the way, this 1960s Mercedes. The one thing in the world that she wanted is now gone. Okay? So this really, to sort of sum up part of the reason why this really, like this divorce meltdown really hurt her case, like, dramatically. One, we moved for default judgment after this, right? Because not only had she not provided discovery, but I don’t know, she burned down the house, okay? We got a default judgment candidate on the pleadings.

Mark Pustay [00:54:49 – 00:55:23]

We didn’t even need a hearing. So, one, it hurt her divorce case because she completely lost. Okay? Two, not, you know, melting down meant that she lost the one big thing in the world that she loved more than anything else, this inherited Mercedes car, Right. Three, she was subject to civil liability, right? Because now people were wanting to sue her for burning this down. And four, she did get charged. She was charged with arson and she was sent to prison, right? Holy smokes. So this is sort of the classic.

Brooke Mathieu [00:55:23 – 00:55:25]

She knew what she was getting herself into.

Mark Pustay [00:55:25 – 00:55:54]

She knew exactly where this was going. Going, right. She had a dream and she fulfilled it, right? She knew exactly where this was going. So I think it’s, in a certain way, it’s kind of the perfect encapsulation of all the different ways that if you don’t have proper control over your emotions, the things that can happen as part of this divorce case, you could have civil problems, criminal problems. Everything that you want could be gone. So do whatever you can to control your emotions and don’t add alcohol to the fire.

David Crum [00:55:55 – 00:56:13]

Wow. That really was like life as metaphor. That was beautiful. Now, at the end of this, though, she actually went to prison, which I found a little bit surprising. I don’t think she had a Criminal record. It was kind of her own house. How did that happen? How did she end up doing time?

Mark Pustay [00:56:13 – 00:56:45]

Yeah, candidly, I was surprised by that, too, to be frank. There was no remorse. There was no remorse sort of expressed. And it was one of those situation, remember, we’re talking about the domestic violence situation, which potentially they can stack charges. They did stack charges. And so it was the sort of situation where the total. The total time that she had, total exposure that she had was pretty significant. And so as a result, she was sent to prison in a situation that candidly, doesn’t normally happen.

Mark Pustay [00:56:45 – 00:56:50]

I will also say that they did give my client an opportunity, I think, to speak it. Sentencing and

David Crum [00:56:52 – 00:57:25]

Diddy flavor. No pun intended. Wow. Well, Mark, listen, really happy to have you on the show today. And as we kind of wrap up here, what advice would you give to people? I mean, what are the things that they can do going into this to avoid this kind of situation? My God, like, of course, that’s the worst of it, but there’s varying degrees of this, and they’re all. All pretty damn painful, you know. So what are your parting words to people on trying to put together some kind of amicable approach to divorce?

Mark Pustay [00:57:25 – 00:58:19]

First thing first I’ll say is know thyself, right? If you know that you’re going to have a difficult time navigating this process without being able to, for example, have a meltdown via text or have a meltdown via social media, do things to make sure at the very beginning that you don’t even have the opportunity, Right. To do it. Right? So log out here, change the passwords, log out, right. You know, do whatever you can so that in those times, maybe if you’ve been drinking or maybe, you know, the emotions are kind of high, you’re not going to have the ability to do that. Okay? So it’s one of the things, I think the second thing I would generally say is, remember, in terms of any sort of communications that you have, whether it’s with opposing party, opposing counsel, the court, court, okay? Be civil, be reasonable. Okay. Don’t talk back, don’t argue. You don’t want to be on one of these court cam shows, okay.

Mark Pustay [00:58:19 – 00:58:47]

Believe me, they film around here. So do you want to be on one of those? So make sure to do whatever you can to project sort of a calm, confident air in all the communications that you have. And people, it’s going to be hard to do, but whatever you have to do to get yourself into that mind place, I think that’s. That’s important. And Then the third thing I would just generally say is, take care of yourself. Okay? Get sleep. Okay. Go to counseling.

Mark Pustay [00:58:47 – 00:59:00]

Go to therapy. If you like yoga, go to yoga. Okay. Do things that sort of support your mental health. Okay. I would generally advise against retail therapy. Okay. Like it getting out of hand.

Mark Pustay [00:59:00 – 00:59:01]

That can create other.

David Crum [00:59:01 – 00:59:02]

It’s Brook’s favorite therapy.

Brooke Mathieu [00:59:02 – 00:59:03]

They’re the best kind.

Mark Pustay [00:59:04 – 00:59:28]

I have seen it become a problem. Okay. In cases like this, however, do whatever you can to sort of support your own general health. Eat well, get some good sleep. If you recharge by being with people you love, do that because you’re going to be in a better situation. Right. You know, imagine you’re at a mediation. You’ve been through eight hours of hard mediation, and now people are trying to sort of collect everything.

Mark Pustay [00:59:29 – 00:59:44]

A lot of times, some of the worst decisions that are made are when people are tired and hungry. Right. If you can sort of support your own personal, psychological, emotional, physical health, as this case is going, then you’re really setting yourself up for success.

David Crum [00:59:45 – 00:59:54]

Well, Mark, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. I know you’re a super busy man. People do want to get in touch with you. What’s the best way for them to do that?

Mark Pustay [00:59:54 – 01:00:03]

Yeah, absolutely. Contact us at New Mexico Legal Group. Go ahead and give us a call, 505-843-7303. And they can set you up with the time to speak with me.

David Crum [01:00:04 – 01:00:09]

Great. Well, listen, thanks again. And you guys. Brooke, Mark, have a great week.

Mark Pustay [01:00:09 – 01:00:10]

Thank you. You, too.

Brooke Mathieu [01:00:10 – 01:00:10]

Thanks.

Mark Pustay [01:00:11 – 01:00:19]

Bye.

Continue Reading