Spouses

• The separated husband and wife retain most of the control over financial matters even when they can't cooperate in resolving financial difficulties. In general, each will have considerable leeway over what bills to pay with available income to the extent that they haven't contracted that decision away in a separation agreement or lost it to a court order. Basic self-interest usually leads parties to pay bills in their own name first and allocate money to joint debts second, unless the joint debt is secured by an important asset such as a house or a car.
  
  

Attorneys

• While clients retain the ultimate decision-making authority in their own cases, attorneys have considerable input on the financial decision making of the parties during a divorce case. Seasoned divorce professionals possess an understanding as to what kind of financial behavior would be looked upon favorably by a court in future litigation and can render advice as to what decisions would produce the best possible results for their clients. Clients often find themselves essentially paralyzed by the emotional turmoil of their case and many rely on their attorneys to guide them in making important decisions even if the attorneys are not ethically allowed to make those decisions themselves.
  
  

Judges

• In a minority of cases, the parties and attorneys are unable to resolve their differences in a peaceful manner and the case must proceed to court. In court, the parties lose all control over financial decision, vesting this authority in a judge who often knows little about their financial histories beyond their present condition. Courts can allocate income to debts and expenses that they deem appropriate, which may be in conflict with decisions the parties would have made themselves. Once a court has rendered an order on a particular topic, failure to abide by the judge's decision exposes a party to sanctions for contempt of court, which can include incarceration.
  
  

Creditors

• In some cases, a couple's creditors can influence the financial decision of the parties via their efforts to collect on unpaid accounts. Although one or both parties may have decided to allocate income to paying one debt over another, the creditor still has the right to sue the responsible party for the unpaid balance. The desire to avoid further damage to their credit or the loss of a secured asset can push a party to change the allocation of their income to satisfy a belligerent creditor.