Q&A: Betting on your own divorce

As a divorce attorney, what's your gut reaction to finding out that people want to wager on the future of their marriage? 

My first reaction was "Wait, what?" Then I remembered what I do for a living, and it takes a lot to surprise a divorce attorney. Once the shock wore off, my real reaction was, “Yup, of course.” It's the oldest question there is, but now with a ticker symbol.

People have always paid to see what is around the corner. A century ago, they went to a medium to hear whether their husband was faithful. Thirty years ago, they called a psychic hotline at $3.99 a minute. Now they open an app and buy a contract. The tools change, but the need doesn't. We hate not knowing, especially about the person we sleep next to. A prediction market is just a crystal ball with maybe a better user interface.

What stays with me is what the question says about the person asking it. Nobody bets on their own marriage when things are good. "I bought 'yes' on our divorce" may not just be a forecast. It may be Exhibit A.

Are you seeing prediction markets show up in your cases?

So far, it's more a cultural moment than courtroom reality, but the gap is likely to close quickly. It looks like day trading did in the 90s and crypto did in 2021. At first, it shows up as a strange line on a bank statement. Then it shows up in discovery. Then it becomes its own section of the settlement agreement.

If a spouse loses $50,000 on Polymarket, is that legally closer to a Vegas bender or a bad stock pick?

It depends less on the platform and more on the pattern. Courts generally don't punish a spouse for a bad investment. They do care when one spouse burns marital money for purely personal purposes, especially once the marriage is falling apart. Many states call that "dissipation" or "waste."

How do you tell the difference?

Here's what I'd look at:

It's a gray area, and courts handle gray areas by looking at behavior rather than labels.

Does it matter that Kalshi and Polymarket call themselves "exchanges" rather than betting platforms? Would that framing actually hold up with a judge?

To financial regulators, it matters a lot. Kalshi's status as a federally regulated exchange is at the center of the litigation over whether states can treat it as gambling. To a family court judge deciding whether marital money was wasted, it will likely matter much less.

Family judges are practical. The judge will want to know what you did with the money, why and whether your spouse knew. The "regulated exchange" point may help a little at the margins, but if you were betting on whether Jay-Z will perform at the next Super Bowl halftime show, I wouldn't build my case on it.

Where do you think the law needs to catch up fastest here?

I'd point to three areas:

Any prediction (pun intended) for how courts will end up treating these losses in five years?

I'd put decent odds on the idea that prediction market losses get treated much like gambling losses when they're frequent, hidden or recreational, and like investment losses when they're occasional, disclosed and economically rational. Disclosure forms will likely ask about them by name, and we may see a growing body of case law on the issue.

Bonus Round: What’s something currently on your radar that’s shaping how you’re thinking and working right now?

My early morning workouts. I started them for my own health, but they've become the best part of my workday. An hour of training before my husband and kids are up is the only time nobody needs anything from me, and it's where I sort through my hardest cases. Training has also taught me something I tell clients all the time: it’s a marathon, not a sprint. Progress is slow and unglamorous, and it comes from showing up consistently, not from one big dramatic win. Divorce works the same way.

Thursday's newsletter: The witching hour is now billable
The most recent Q&A: What to say to the media instead of "no comment”