Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
Contact NetDivorce on 1-888-NETDIVORCE or at [email protected]

Tiffany Grace Devereaux


Tiffany Grace Devereaux has filed a false and misleading complaint against NetDivorce at Yelp and other online locations.  Please read the details below. Everyone is entitled to state her opinion, no matter how wrong.  When a complainer makes up her own facts, NetDivorce takes action.

Tiffany Grace Devereaux

Tiffany Grace Devereaux

NetDivorce CEO and Founder

Peter J. O'Hanlon, NetDivorce CEO and Founder

Statement of Facts

NetDivorce has not failed in any way to discharge its contractual duty to Tiffany Devereaux.  She has received the entire service for which she paid. Her divorce case has no problems, and she has not stated that it does.

September 11 2017 914 AM – Tiffany Devereaux hired NetDivorce to handle her uncontested divorce in Ventura County for a flat fee of $129.

September 11 2017 916 AM – Tiffany Devereaux logged into her NetDivorce account and completed the online client interview.

September 11 2017 1001 AM – Tiffany Devereaux downloaded her ready-to-file 62-page case from her NetDivorce account. Included in the download was a comprehensive set of written instructions customized to the facts of her case plus all legal documents required to complete her case.

September 11 2017 1246 PM – NetDivorce proofread Tiffany Devereaux’s case and sent her an email advising that her case was ready to be filed at the Superior Court in Ventura.

September 12 2017  930 AM – Tiffany Devereaux logged into her NetDivorce account and re-downloaded her case without making any changes to it.

September 12 2017  249 PM – NetDivorce proofread Tiffany Devereaux’s re-downloaded case and sent her an email advising that her case was still ready to be filed at the Superior Court in Ventura.

September 21 2017 – Having obtained her spouse’s necessary signatures on all legal documents and followed NetDivorce’s comprehensive written instructions, Tiffany Devereaux filed her case at the Ventura County Superior Court successfully and was assigned case number D384068.

March 22 2018 – Tiffany Devereaux will be divorced. The Ventura Superior Court will process and mail the Final Judgment to her.





UPDATE: I am STILL getting harassing E-mails from “Ed West” in customer service with threats of legal action and accosting statements because I wanted to write a review to expose the interactions between us. (photos attached)

No Harassment by NetDivorce:  Devereaux received 5 emails from NetDivorce on September 11-12.  Each one was in direct and justified response to actions taken by her or threats or demands for refunds received from her.  See the FULL sequential email traffic below, NOT her misleading edited versions. 

2 of those 5 emails were proofreading emails, which are part of our service, consequent upon her having downloaded her case from our site twice. NetDivorce provides unlimited immediate downloads.  If we had not sent those, we actually would have failed in the discharge of our contractual duties to Devereaux and she would have had something to complain about.

1 email responded directly to her incorrect email statement that we had failed to categorize her case as a Summary Dissolution. We had in fact correctly categorized her case as a Summary Dissolution and no one actually looking at the batch of legal docs she downloaded from our site twice could reasonably have failed to notice that the batch of docs she had received was in fact for Summary Dissolution. There were 136 mentions of the words, “Summary Dissolution” in the 62-page download.

1 email responded to her email indicating that once she had actually read what she had downloaded from our website, she discovered that we were right and she was wrong but that she didn’t like the way we told her she was wrong.  She also stated that even though she had been incorrect in her prior statement, it was still our fault anyway for failing to provide her with the information necessary to enable her to  understand correctly. Our email provided her with a legal warning that she would be sued if she defamed NetDivorce. It also reminded her that by her own admission, we had provided her with the information necessary to understand her case correctly, but that she had to actually look at what we had provided.

1 email responded to her demand for a refund because our documents were incorrect. Our email pointed out once again that we had provided her with all of the correct docs, that she had already admitted this and that a refund would not be appropriate.

Every single email sent by NetDivorce to Devereaux was proper, justified and professional.  There was no harassment of her in any regard.


Ed West is mentioned as abusive and berating in several reviews. Obviously, he is the only customer service option at this company.

A Complete Lie by Devereaux:  We have 3 negative reviews on Yelp across 18 months.  Yelp withholds and refuses to publish  2 positive reviews that we are aware of and publishes only one positive review.  Yelp cannot monetize positive reviews!

Only one other review mentions my colleague Ed West. That is the review by the guy who claims that our written instructions cannot be understood even though we have demonstrated in our response to his complaint that our written instructions are written at a grade level of 5.8 (not even a 6th grade reading level) on the Flesch-Kincaid readability tool.  

Did Devereaux even see the other mention of Ed. She doesn’t mention it because it doesn’t suit her hysterical narrative. Here it is: “I did quite a bit of research looking for an online service. I settled on NetDivorce for the price, and the excellent features. I can’t tell you how happy I am with the service so far. It is very straightforward, and they have people available to help you along the way. I made a mistake on my form, and needed support. I emailed customer support and got a response back in less than 5 hours, on a Saturday no less!! I communicated with Ed who was incredibly helpful and responsive. “

It just won’t end!  It’s very concerning that a company who is intended to assist with legal matters is threatening their customers with legal action against them. These companies should not be allowed to bully their customers into keeping quiet about their terrible experiences.

Any client who makes unjustified threats against NetDivorce, like Devereaux did, receives a warning about defamation. After 36+ years specializing in only California divorce, we don’t make mistakes. That means that any “complaint” against NetDivorce is likely to include malicious false and misleading statements of fact. That is defamation.  We have sued 2 clients for defamation in 36 years and won on both occasions.

We are unaware of any business ethic that requires us to remain silent and to fail to defend our reputation through legal methods when falsely accused of wrongdoing.  Try to accuse your doctor, dentist, lawyer, accountant, mechanic, plumber, etc. of  doing something they did not do and see if any of them remains silent.

I have filed with the BBB and I hope NO ONE ever has to have this experience again.

At this point, I cannot even continue my service with the company because Ed West feels so completely aggressive and harassing that I’m no longer comfortable doing business with them. I asked to be assigned another rep and was ignored. (I think he’s the only rep)

As is REAL clear from any reading of the top page of our website, NetDivorce is a small company.  We have an IT guy and 2 caseworkers (Ed and Peter).  In any event, by the time Devereaux made her demand for another rep, we had already completed all of our work for her, and we had told her so. No one ignored her. Her request could not have been accommodated.  You’ll notice that NetDivorce is harassing and accosting her when we respond and ignoring her when we don’t.  Are you beginning to get the idea of how balanced Devereaux is?

PLEASE DO NOT USE! I have never in my life been treated so poorly by any company. I’ve attached our ACTUAL E-mail exchange so that you can see why I truly felt insulted and berated by this company.

Devereaux had been advised by NetDivorce that if she did not include in her complaint her original rude, aggressive and completely false statement that we had sent her all of the wrong legal docs, she would be sued. Leaving out her original inappropriate false accusations would be a false and misleading statement itself and  clearly designed to harm NetDivorce. That would have been defamation and we would certainly have sued her for it. So she included her original email in her complaint, though she placed it into an image format that will be difficult for anyone on a smart phone to see. We’ve remedied that below.

This is meant to help people navigate the legal system in a very vulnerable time in their lives, instead they are rude, unhelpful and even threatening.

Not only is it a vulnerable time for most people going through divorce, but the vast majority of people realize that.  California divorce is complex. The amounts of data, paperwork and procedure are huge.  Most people are surprised by the amount of work involved in a California divorce. That’s why most are happy to have found a company that has specialized in California divorce for 36+ years and charges a flat fee of $129 with no ups or extras ever.  That’s also why about 98% of our clients treat us reasonably and are then swamped by our high quality service and the depth of our client support.

There are plenty of other compassionate and helpful services, go elsewhere.

How does Devereaux know that there are plenty of compassionate and helpful services?  If she does know that, why did she hire NetDivorce? She must have thought that we are compassionate and helpful.  In fact, we are compassionate and helpful to the vast majority of our clients who are reasonable people and don’t accuse us falsely of having screwed up their entire cases. 

I’d have paid three times as much to work with a company who actually cares how they treat people.

Complete nonsense.  Any intelligent person looking for an online divorce provider is looking for someone cheap and expert, and that’s what she found in NetDivorce.  The $300 online divorce providers are big companies with completely uncaring, untrained, unqualified high-turnover staff.  At the most prominent of those companies, you will never hear from your “caseworker.”  You can leave messages all you want, and you’ll be told that your caseworker will call you back in 2 or 3 days. They don’t. At another $300 outfit, your legal docs are delivered in 7-10 days unless you pay the $115 “expedite fee.” NetDivorce docs are downloadable immediately.  Once again, Devereaux is absolutely clueless about what she is saying.

Devereaux also highlights some of Ed’s email statements, but takes them out of context in order to mislead you:

“You basically do not know what you are talking”  The actual quote is, “You basically do not know what you are taking about when you say that there was not an option to fill out re Summary Dissolution. There were dozens of such options scattered throughout the interview.”

BTW, there is an actual page in the NetDivorce online interview called, “Summary Dissolution Data.” It contains 8 questions, all of which Devereaux had to answer in order to complete the interview.

“My explanation to you of your lack of knowledge is not rudeness, particularly when you had demonstrated your inability to understand…”  The actual quote is, “My explanation to you of your lack of knowledge is not rudeness, particularly when you had demonstrated your inability to understand that you did not know what you were talking about and to ask polite questions.” Interesting again how our explanation of her obvious ignorance is rude, but her false accusations are not.


September 11 1249 PM

Hello Tiffany,

I have proofread your batch of docs which you downloaded in pdf format.  Once you complete the instructions that will print out up front in that batch, they will be ready to be filed at the family law filing window at the Superior Court in Ventura.

Do read and follow the written instructions.  They are good and detailed and consequently they are a little long, but they definitely keep you away from all of the common pitfalls.

Most of the batch is a booklet that each of you has to state s/he has read and understood.  Relatively few of these documents actually get filed at court.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should there be any question or issues.


Ed West

NetDivorce, LLC


September 11 2017 302 PM

Hi – 

My situation qualifies for the summary dissolution process. The booklet says these forms are not even included in your packet? Does this mean all the forms I just filled out on your website will not even work for my situation? There was not an option to fill out forms or the summary dissolution and the packet only refers me to the courthouse website. If this is not something I can do on your website, I would like to request a refund as the packet is not applicable for me and defeats the purpose of my using your site. 

 Thank you,

Tiffany Devereaux  

September 12 2017 757 AM


Yes, your case is a Summary Dissolution. That is why our system recognized it as such and that is why the words, “Summary Dissolution” appear on the batch of docs you downloaded in possibly 100+ locations.

Precisely what forms does the Summary Dissolution booklet (I’m assuming that’s what you are speaking of, but you do not say) say are not included in your batch.  As you are aware, I proofread your batch of docs, and providing you completed your interview accurately, you have all forms necessary to file your case.

You basically do not know what you are taking about when you say that there was not an option to fill out re Summary Dissolution. There were dozens of such options scattered throughout the interview.  Does it have to have big letters stating, “SUMMARY DISSOLUTION OPTION” to make it that.

The batch you downloaded does NOT only refer you to the courthouse website.  It’s difficult even to understand your meaning on this.

As I indicated below, your case is ready to be filed at the court after you have followed our written instructions.  If you have any specific questions regarding our instructions, please ask them


Ed West

September 12 2017 1111 AM

Ed – 

I really don’t appreciate being spoken to in  this manner. Your service is designed to help people navigate the legal process, not insist they “don’t know what they are talking about”.  If this is the case, one may conclude that given the nature of your business, you would help to ensure I DO know what I am talking about as that is the entire point of this service. Instead, you proceeded to write an atrociously insulting and rude E-mail, which I will be more than happy to share within my public reviews. Because, even if I am not correct in this, there are better more respectful ways to handle your customer service when you are dealing with a general public, who is not used to navigating the legal process and who for such reasons, seeks your companies assistance.  

This highlighted forms below are those that were in question, upon reading the packet further, I see that these are only required if  7,8,9,11 have not been completed. 

This really could have been a much more pleasant exchange and questions cleared up had you taken the time to actually investigate what the issue may be. 

I insist on being assigned to someone else for the remainder of any interactions that I am forced to have moving forward with this company.  






 Tiffany Devereaux

September 12 2017 226 PM

You are correct that you could have handled the situation much better than you did.  Based upon what you have said accurately about our position in helping people, which is what I do all day,  why did you also assume that we got it wrong? Why did you then attack us as being wrong instead of just asking reasonable questions like all reasonable clients do?  Only you can answer those questions.

I’m glad to see that you have now read our instructions and have a grasp of what is going on. If you have any further questions or issues, do not hesitate and they will be answered in the manner in which they are asked.  Your choice.

You absolutely did not know what you were talking about when you stated that there was no “summary Dissolution option.” And I explained to you how and why.  My explanation to you of your lack of knowledge is not rudeness, particularly when you had demonstrated your inability to understand that you did not know what you were talking about and to ask polite questions.

BTW, we did ensure as far as we could that you knew what you were talking about.  We sent you our excellent written instructions and we stood ready to answer any reasonable question asked of us in a polite and reasonable manner.

We note your threats against the well-being and income of this company, which has not harmed you in any way and has not failed you in any way. You should be aware that we defend our excellent reputation in the most aggressive legal manner available to us.

Ed West

September 12 2017

Hi –

My case qualified for a summary dissolution and the paperwork that was provided to me was not correct for this. So, I ended up having to download all the paperwork from the court website directly. I would like to request a refund as I was unable to use your services.


Note that this was not an email message. It came in as a support ticket on our live chat system, and there is no time stamp. As we answer all messages in the sequence in which they arrive, this ticket came in between 1111 AM and 237 PM on September 12.

September 12 2017 237 PM

As I trust you are now aware, the Summary Dissolution batch of docs you downloaded and I proofread were ENTIRELEY correct for you to file as a Summary Dissolution. There was no need for you to download anything from any other location. You are entirely able to use our services.

FYI, our refund policy, which is clearly displayed in our Terms, requires a failure on our part.  Clearly, we have not failed you in any way.


Ed West

September 12 2017 249 PM

Hello  Tiffany,

It looks like you have downloaded a duplicate Summary Dissolution batch of docs without making any changes. If that is so, you are still good to file your case after you follow the instructions that will print out up front in that batch.

I refer you back to those instructions and to my prior emails.

If any questions or issues rise, please do not hesitate.


Ed West



We think that what happened here is quite simple.  California divorce is very complex.  In a recent study, Insider Monkey rated California divorce as the second most difficult in the country. There is a huge amount of data and paperwork.  It is NOT an intuitive process.  Most people are surprised by its complexity and most are quite naturally confused by the process.  That’s why it is important to have a California divorce expert like NetDivorce on your side.

Every single NetDivorce client has questions about his or her case and the divorce process. What NetDivorce does Monday-Friday 7 AM to 7 PM is to answer clients’ questions and proofread clients’ cases. That’s all we do all day. Our proprietary software crunches the huge data and paperwork loads. Our software is perfect.  It never makes mistakes. Our divorce paperwork is always perfect. All we have to do is to analyze clients’ cases for problems and issues and answer clients’ questions.  We’re extremely good at both.

For Tiffany Devereaux to suggest that we are not helpful or compassionate or understanding of the clients we have looked after 60 hours a week for the last 36+ years is not only false, but cannot be substantiated.  She is entitled to state her opinion, but that is all it is.  Read our client testimonials on the top page of our site to get an idea of our level of compassion. Once again, Tiffany Devereaux, as when she falsely accused us of sending her the wrong legal docs, has absolutely no idea of what she is talking about. We suspect that this is a common occurrence in her life.

When Tiffany Devereaux downloaded her case, she began to read our instructions and the legal docs and she experienced system overload. That is common, and it is what we deal with constantly.  Fortunately for us, 98% of our clients simply pick up the phone, write an email or initiate live chat and tell us that they are confused or begin to ask questions. We are skilled in determining what is the primary source of the client’s confusion and in resolving that confusion in a way that the client will understand. We are huge believers in going step by step and breaking down the process into manageable blocks.

But Tiffany’s personality did not permit that to happen in her case. Even if she was confused, she could not ask a polite question in a reasonable manner like normal people.  Instead, she had to attack us and falsely accuse us of all kinds of wrongdoing.  We also suspect that this is a common occurrence in her life.  We tailored our emailed response to the nature of her attack on us.  Our response was, of course, sharper than the other 98% of our clients ever experience. We believe that the client should determine the tone and nature of the communications.

We also believe that our clients don’t want wimps handling their cases. We often have to deal with spouses or courts on behalf of our clients. Spouses and court clerks are generally not polite or friendly. Just as we will not take snot from someone like Devereaux, we will not let spouses or court clerks push you around either.

When her accusations were exposed as being obviously false, Tiffany was understandably embarrassed. She became indignant, angry and irrational.  She admitted she had been wrong but then claimed that it had been our fault that she had been wrong (notice how everything is our fault – Tiffany takes no responsibility for anything) because we had not provided her with enough material for her to be able to know that she was wrong.  However, in the very same email (see the email traffic below) she admits that it was only by reading our material that she had discovered she was wrong. So she contradicts herself in the same email.  She admits that we had not failed to provide her with the appropriate instructions. Tiffany is wrong yet again.

When we pointed that out again, Tiffany issued the predictable claim that our email response to her false accusations had been, “atrociously insulting and rude.” Of course, she  makes no mention of her own vicious attack on us and her false accusations of incompetence against us. That would require responsibility.

Then her anger kicked in and the threats began.  Ironically, the ultimate threat by those without any substance to complain about is always the threat of a public complaint. Remember here that NetDivorce has not failed in any way to discharge its contractual duty to Devereaux.  She has received all of the value for which she paid.  That doesn’t matter to Tiffany. Tiffany threatens to harm NetDivorce by disclosing our communications (“… which I will be more than happy to share within my public reviews”).

Tiffany was wrong about her legal docs being wrong. Tiffany was wrong about there not being any indication of Summary Dissolution in our interview. Tiffany was wrong about our not having provided her with adequate instructions. Tiffany was wrong in hoping that we’d be intimidated by her “public reviews.”  Tiffany was wrong about Ed West being mentioned in several complaints. We suspect that being wrong is a major part of Tiffany’s life.  Heck, the only thing she’s done right was to hire NetDivorce so that she got her divorce prepared correctly for $129!


NetDivorce receives 3 or 4 alleged “complaints” from people like Tiffany Devereaux every year. Those complaints have nothing to do with our performance, which remains of the highest quality.  They are whining complaints from people who got their feelings hurt as a result of their own personalities. Those complaints define the complainer, not NetDivorce.

The vast majority of our clients are extremely happy with our client support (again, read our third party certified client reviews and testimonials) and cannot understand how we can possibly be as good as we are at our $129 flat fee – with no ups or extras ever.

We try to use these alleged “complaints” to improve our performance by improving the overall quality of our cases. As you might guess, with 36+ years of experience in California divorce (Ed and I between us have 67 years of experience) and with an industry-beating price of $129, we are not short of cases.  On Monday morning, October 30 2017, I had an active caseload of 391. (None of those are cases in the time period between entry of judgment and termination of marital status – those are all legitimate active cases between the dates of hiring and entry of judgment.) My colleague Ed has a slightly larger caseload.

If you are a California divorce consumer interested in hiring an online divorce provider, you should use this page to make your decision about NetDivorce. If you are like Tiffany Devereaux to the extent that you shoot from the hip, make wild accusations when you don’t know what you’re talking about, if you always assume that everyone else is at fault, if you are not polite and reasonable, like 98% of our clients, and ultimately you do not treat others politely and reasonably, then please, please, please do NOT hire NetDivorce. We would much prefer if you would take your custom to one of our competitors. And we wish you luck in your case.

More to the point , our 800+ active case clients would prefer that you took your business elsewhere so that they can continue to receive the quality client care Devereaux prevented.

If on the other hand, you are not like Tiffany and you want the person who wrote this response to Devereaux’s complaint to be on your team during your divorce, we would welcome your business and we will look after you and your case well beyond your expectations.


Yelp: As an aside, our request of Devereaux to include her original email in her complaint was a ploy (any tactician would recognize) to get her to make Yelp the publisher of a false and misleading statement designed to harm NetDivorce.  We’re not suing Devereaux. She has nothing. But Yelp is big and dumb, and we know a lawyer who does nothing but sue Yelp, and they settle.

Yelp’s problem is the following 2 statements it has become the legal publisher of:

  1. The booklet says these forms are not even included in your packet?
  2. There was not an option to fill out forms for the summary dissolution.

Devereaux is entitled to her dumb opinions and to state them, but these are both false and misleading statements of fact, and that is a problem for the complaint-vulture company, Yelp.  Thanks, Tiffany.

Tiffany Grace Devereaux: Finally, we find it to be fair and proper that any background investigation of Tiffany Grace Devereaux conducted in the future by anyone, including a prospective employer or business associate, will likely turn up this page.  A reading of this page will provide an indication of her levels of personal integrity, honesty, dignity, mental balance and character.  Please form your own opinions based on what you have found here and act accordingly in relation to Tiffany Grace Devereaux.  As that is exactly what Tiffany intended to happen to NetDivorce as a result of her alleged “complaint,” it is only fair and proper that the same consequence applies to her. Tiffany is her own worst enemy.

Click to Call