But now, with the Cubs in the World Series, tickets to the 3 games in Chicago are the hottest commodity available.  I heard the average re-sale ticket price was over $3,000 for a single seat!

As you can imagine with a very limited time supply and a huge demand, people were going nuts to try and get a ticket.  I don’t think even President Obama could get a ticket and he is from Chicago!

And now for the “interesting” FAMILY & ELDER LAW questions about those season tickets.

So with a married couple in Chicago separating and both spouses being huge Cubs fans there was the inevitable debate over who is getting the tickets to the one game they had tickets for?

The wife filed an emergency petition seeking to get the tickets.

The husband was able to get the tickets because he had purchased a ticket package deal for the season with some friends before the separation.

In this case the judge ruled that the husband gets to keep these tickets so long as he took their 12 year old son to the game and the husband was ordered to purchase a ticket for the wife in a comparable seating area.  With tickets going for around $3,000 on StubHub that will be a very expensive game for this couple to attend.

In trying to convince the judge that this was an “emergency” that required immediate court intervention, the wife argued that it would be extremely unlikely that the Cubs will reach the World Series again in her lifetime given that they haven’t been in the Series in 71 years.  The husband’s lawyer relied on the old adage  “Hope Springs Eternal” to argue that there is a greater likelihood that the Cubbies will be back sooner rather than later.

By: Douglas Manning, Partner, Certified Specialist in FAMILY & ELDER LAW

The post When sports fans divorce: Who gets the World Series tickets? appeared first on Macdonald & Sager LLP .

We pride ourselves on our democracy. Yet, many of us feel it is not working. No party seems to be able to fix the many problems currently facing us. Poverty, climate change, gross income inequality, all are dealt with differently by each political party.  Some parties recognize it and propose solutions. Other parties ignore, don’t understand, or are ignorant about the problems. One party pits itself against the other in an adversarial bombastic battle in which, now, all rules of normal civility are tossed in the dirt. Leaders distort reality in order to win power. Each party ruthlessly attacks the other’s leaders and party members as if their opponents were the epitome of evil. The “Leaders” unfortunately provide an example which many in society begin to follow. Whether it be England leaving the European Union, or the US electing a President more than half the people of their country did not want, the adversarial nature of party politics is not making the world a better, safer, place. It creates “winners” and “losers” – more division. It does not make society whole.

In families, when conflict erupts, the same type of “political system”, on a microcosmic scale, also can kick in. Conflicts over finances, communication, children, intimacy – all tend to become ‘adversarial’. One “party”, in an effort to persuade or take control, begins to demean the other – “you always do that – you never do this!” The defensive party then, for protection, attacks back – “you never do this and you always do that!” The conflict escalates. If it goes on long enough, the “parties” may find themselves at war in the adversarial system we call the Family Court.

What if there were no political parties? What if we were able to elect our own chosen representatives to actually represent us and not their chosen political party? What if that representative could actually represent the interests and goals of our own community, without having to tow the party line? What if all the representatives of all our communities had to get together and figure out a way to address the interests and goals of all the communities: our city, our town, our province or our country? What if rules were set up which prohibited engagement in an adversarial battle and required the representatives to actually work together to understand and give priority to the interests of each community? They might actually find that there are common interests and common goals in each community which can be appropriately addressed without someone winning and someone losing.

What if, in our families, when conflict arose, instead of becoming adversarial, we asked why?  Why are you so upset? What if we kept probing to find the source of the conflict – its root cause? When we see our partner verbally attacking us, instead of assuming we are the actual focus of the attack, we might find, if we ask, that the real focus is their own fear – fear of appearing inadequate, or perhaps of losing their job, or perhaps of being unloved. We might then respond very differently, once we understood. How many times have you started an argument only to find at the end, that there was far more to the conflict than, for example, just not doing your chores around the house? Were you able to get to the bottom of the conflict? If you were, you probably ended up, once the conflict was behind you, in a loving embrace, with true understanding and true forgiveness cementing your relationship once again. You also probably learned something about each other from the conflict and you probably learned that your decision to try and find the root of the conflict made you both better people, because you were able to gain greater understanding, greater empathy.

The governing of our nation and the governing of our family relationships should not be adversarial sports – can we find a way to eliminate this growing and rather frightening trend from our governments and from our families?

By: Thomas Dart, Partner

The post Politics and the Connection to FAMILY & ELDER LAW appeared first on Macdonald & Sager LLP .