Articles Posted in Celebrity Divorce

You may remember our previous blog highlighting the celebrity divorce of Bethenny Frankel, founder of SkinnyGirl Cocktails, and Jason Hoppy. Well, their bitter divorce battle continues to grab entertainment headlines, which report that the soon to be ex-couple is actually still living together in their five million dollar New York City apartment with their 3-year old daughter, Bryn. As if a divorce isn’t already stressful enough, try living in the same household as your soon- to-be-ex while going through the often long, drawn-out divorce proceedings. Frankel tells PEOPLE, “My living situation is very, very stressful…I don’t think it’s very healthy for anyone involved. It’s very upsetting. You just have to endure it.”

It may seem puzzling why Frankel would continue to endure the stress of sharing an apartment with her soon-to-be-ex when she can clearly afford to move into her own place and not have to face Hoppy on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps her reasoning is related to two main concerns related to moving out of the marital home while the parties are going through the divorce process. The first concern is whether moving out of the home will affect a party’s claim to ownership when assets are being divided down the road. The second concern is whether moving out could adversely affect a party’s standing in his or her battle for primary custody of the child or children.

The martial home is likely a significant asset, if not the most significant asset in many divorces. So it’s reasonable that divorcing spouses would worry that “abandoning” the home would make it more difficult for the one who leaves to make a claim on the property in a divorce settlement. If both claim ownership of the home then would that ownership be jeopardized if one party moves out? As California divorce attorneys know, if the home was acquired during marriage then it remains a marital asset subject to distribution regardless of who remains in the home during the divorce process.

If money is not an issue, then many divorce attorneys often advise clients to physically separate when going through a divorce, which usually means moving out of the marital home. A little distance can often times do a world of good for parties who are going through the divorce process. However, when a party does decide to move out of the marital home, there needs to be some serious discussions about the status of the marital residence. Aspects that need to be addressed include: the care, maintenance and financial obligations regarding the home in the interim, items left in the home, and whether the party left in the martial home will have exclusive use and possession of the home. The parties and their divorce attorneys need to discuss the whether the spouse who remains in the home has an expectation of privacy or if the spouse who moved out will be entitled to some use or enjoyment of the home after moving out.

Another concern regarding moving out of the marital home is with respect to child custody. Since both Frankel and Hoppy want primary custody of their daughter Bryn, they might be concerned that moving out of their NYC apartment could adversely affect their standing in their battle for primary custody. Until a parenting plan is in place, “abandoning” the marital home could indicate that parent’s lack of interest in the child’s daily life if the child remains in the marital home with the other parent. This concern can potentially be resolved by establishing an interim custody schedule which ensures that the parent leaving the marital home will have frequent and continuous access to the child. The parent who moves out could also have his or her divorce attorney argue that the purpose of moving out was to reduce ongoing marital conflict out of concern for the child’s well-being throughout the divorce proceedings.

Nonetheless, many San Diego divorce attorneys will generally advise clients with custody disputes to just stay in the marital home together if possible, like Frankel and Hoppy are doing. First, it helps to avoid creating a potential new status quo regarding the “primary residential parent” where the divorce process is taking an extended period of time. And second, when the parties continue to live together under the same roof emotions tend to get heated. As a result, there may be more incentive to conclude the divorce quicker by negotiating a divorce settlement.

Continue reading

Los Angeles Lakers star Steve Nash has allegedly been in a bitter child support battle with his ex, Alejandra Amarilla. TMZ reports that Nash allegedly doesn’t want to pay up because he is worried that Alejandra, who is an excessive spender, will waste the child support payments by spoiling the kids with expensive luxuries that they do not need. If ordered to pay child support, can Nash limit what Amarilla uses the child support payments for?

Child support payments can be used for anything that is considered “necessary” for the child’s care and well-being. This generally includes things such as the child’s food, clothing, school expenses, after-school expenses and toys. Costs for rent or mortgage, utility bills and other household items are also typically justified as going towards the basic care of the child.

However, California (like a majority of the states) does not require the parent who receives the child support payments to give an accounting to the other parent of how the child support money is spent. Only ten states allow courts to demand an accounting of expenses and spending of child support money received in ten states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington). Also in Alabama, courts are allowed to demand such accounting under certain circumstances.Here in California, it is merely presumed that the child support money is spent on the child. Thus, the parent who is making the child support payments does not have much say regarding how the money is used once it leaves their hands.

But what happens when the parent paying the child support suspects that the money is being used not only to care for their children but that it is also going towards the other parent’s personal needs? Unfortunately, not much can be done unless the child’s needs are actually being neglected or ignored. The payor parent won’t be able to seek a modification in his or her child support order from the court without significant evidence that the child’s needs are not being met by the parent who receiving the child support payment.

While the parent paying spousal support may want reassurance that their hard-earned dollars are actually going towards their children’s needs, rather than their ex’s luxuries, unfortunately the law in California is not set up to provide such reassurance. So if Nash is indeed ordered to pay child support to Amarilla, it looks like he won’t have much support from the family law court in keeping tabs on Amarilla’s spending.

Continue reading

In the summer of 2011 news broke of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s affair with his housekeeper and of the child he had with his mistress. His wife, Maria Shriver, was reportedly devastated and ashamed. As Shriver is a Kennedy and comes from a long line of women who stood by their husbands notwithstanding infidelity, the world waited to see if she would forgive Schwarzenegger. Eventually, two months after Schwarzenegger’s secret life was uncovered, Shriver instructed her attorney to file for divorce.

 

Read more about grounds for divorce in California

 

The former couple reportedly sorted out their financial and custody affairs quickly considering the size of their fortune, an estimated $400 million. Schwarzenegger and Shriver were married for twenty five years. Considering the substantial length of the marriage it is likely that the $400 million is all community property. Community property consists of all assets and earnings accumulated by the parties between the date of marriage and the date of separation. As divorce attorneys will advise their clients, unless a premarital or prenuptial agreement is in place all community property is divided equally between the parties. As the principles of community property are clearly set forth in the family code, Schwarzenegger and Shriver likely did not have much to argue about when it came to settlement.

Although all of the necessary issues have been resolved in the Schwarzenegger-Shriver divorce, the two are still married. A divorce is not final until a Judgment of Dissolution is entered by the court. A Judgment of Dissolution can be entered pursuant to a Marital Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties voluntarily or by court ordered pursuant to a trial on all disputed issues. Thus far, neither Schwarzenegger nor Shriver has instructed their divorce attorneys to take the final step to file their agreement with the court and have a Judgment entered. There are a few lines of speculation regarding why the couple has not made their divorce official.

 

Read more about finalizing a divorce in California

 

It is rumored that Shriver is struggling with her Catholic faith and its prohibition on divorce. Some guess that the parties are in no hurry to finalize their paperwork because they have enough money such that remaining legally married has little to no effect on their daily lives. However, the most popular theory is that Schwarzenegger and Shriver still love each other and are hesitating to end their marriage until they are certain they won’t reconcile. Schwarzenegger has publicly expressed his regret for how he treated his wife and children in the past and was optimistic that he and Shriver would be together again. Rumors surfaced as recently as March 2012 that the parties were attending couple’s counseling together.

Continue reading

Charlie Sheen, a regular news-maker in California family law, has four children from his two prior marriages. Two twin boys with ex-wife Brooke Mueller and two girls with ex-wife Denise Richards. After all the dust settled from his two divorces, Sheen’s twin boys ended up in the custody of Denise Richards. This unusual custody arrangement worked well for all of the parties. Richards was happy to care for Mueller and Sheen’s children because it gave her girls a chance to grow up with their half siblings. Mueller agreed to the arrangement because she has been struggling with addiction and is unable to properly care for the twins. Recently Mueller changed her mind about the current custody arrangement and her family lawyers sought a modification from the family court.

On Wednesday May 15th, Mueller, Sheen and Richards appeared before a family court judge to litigate Mueller’s request to modify custody. Mueller proposed the children be removed from Richards’s custody and placed with her brother. When Richards and her family lawyers opposed the request, Mueller accused her of caring for the children for her own financial benefit. If Mueller or her brother had custody of the twins, Mueller would be entitled to $55,000 per month in child support from Sheen. According to her declaration signed under penalty of perjury, Richards refused any money from Sheen to support the twins. She also stated that she did not want any money in the future to help her care for the boys. In light of this evidence, Mueller’s argument lost all of its bite and the judge flatly refused her request.

In any California custody case the paramount concern for the Court is the best interest of the child. As a stable lifestyle is usually in the child’s best interest, family court judges will always carefully consider any request to uproot young children. Mueller and her attorneys requested her four-year-old twins be removed from their home where they live with their siblings and be placed in the custody of a different caretaker. This traumatic change would likely take a great emotional toll on the children. Unless there is good cause to do so, judges will make an effort not to uproot children from a stable environment.

Although it is not realistic to expect all parents to come to an agreement regarding custody and visitation, it is typically in the best interest of the children if the parents can work together to come up with a mutually beneficial solution to their custody disputes. Throughout San Diego there are plenty of private and public custody mediators available to parents who need help cooperating for the benefit of their children.
Continue reading

Back in September 2012, Jason Aldean was caught kissing previous American Idol contestant, turned NBA-cheerleader, Brittany Kerr. However, this kiss turned into quite the smooching scandal considering Aldean has been married for over 11 years to teenage-sweetheart, Jessica Ussery. Not surprisingly, Aldean recently filed for divorce in Tennessee. TMZ reports that the couple cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for the split.

As San Diego attorneys know, one of the only two grounds for divorce here in California is “irreconcilable differences (see website page entitled “Grounds for Divorce or Legal Separation” for more details on both “irreconcilable differences” and “incurable insanity”). It is quite common for divorcing couples to cite “irreconcilable differences” as their reason for their divorce, but what really constitutes an “irreconcilable difference”? Is it more than just one spouse cheating on the other?

Read more about divorce and irreconcilable differences

Although infidelity alone may seem like a pretty good reason for divorce, such infidelity must lead to “irreconcilable differences” between the couple since California is a no-fault state. (See website page entitled “Grounds for Divorce or Legal Separation” for more details on “no-fault”). In general, “irreconcilable differences means that the spouses can no longer agree on basic, fundamental issues involving the marriage and that they will never agree, such that there is no chance of reconciliation. Thus, when a divorce is based on “irreconcilable differences,” any past cheating scandal by one spouse doesn’t matter, what matters is that one or both spouses agree that the marriage won’t work any longer and that it’s clear to a judge that there is no chance that the marriage can be saved.

Learn the answers to frequently asked questions about divorce in San Diego

There is no black-letter list of what constitutes “irreconcilable differences.” Rather, it is a quite vague standard and San Diego Family Courts often broadly interpret “irreconcilable differences”. Some of factors that San Diego courts may look at to determine if there has been a marriage breakdown may include: 1) difference of interests; 2) long physical separation; 3) antagonistic feelings that are irreversible; 4) resentment; 5) distrust; 6) financial difficulties affecting the marriage; 7) conflict of personality; and 8) lack of mutual concern for emotional needs of each other.Although Aldean has urged everyone not to cast judgment on his recent filing for divorce, one can only assume that Aldean’s smooching scandal with Kerr likely led to distrust, resentment and irreversible antagonistic feelings between Aldean and Ussery, thus leading to what a court will likely interpret to constitute “irreconcilable differences”.

Continue reading

On April 12, 2013, Kim Kardashian arrived at the family courthouse in Los Angeles to attend her Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). As San Diego divorce attorneys are aware, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement and must proceed to trial for court intervention on any issues, they are required to attend a MSC before the trial. An MSC is a settlement conference run by a local experienced family law attorney who attempts to help the parties reach an agreement outside of court. Unfortunately Kardashian and her attorney were the only ones to attend this conference. As it is impossible for two people to reach an agreement when one of them is not present, the MSC did not go forward.

Learn more about the San Diego divorce process

As attendance at a Mandatory Settlement Conference is not optional, MSC’s tend to foster settlement in cases in which the parties could not previously reach an agreement. By the time an MSC is set by the Court, discovery is coming to a close and both parties should have enough information to reach an agreement. MSC’s give the parties and divorce attorneys a chance to sit down in person and attempt to hash out the disputed issues. This may be the first time in the entire case that the parties and attorneys communicated together in person. With the time and expense of trial fast approaching, parties can be highly motivated to settle the case at an MSC. It is evident that Humphries was not motivated to settle his divorce case. In fact, as we have previously blogged, he had dragged out the process for over a year.

After clearing out the courtroom for the celebrity divorce hearing, the Court was not pleased when Humphries “no-showed”. As a result, the Court, on its own motion, set a hearing for sanctions to be imposed against Humphries. On April 19, 2013, the Court convened to give Humphries a chance to explain his disrespectful behavior towards the Court and the divorce process. Sanctions could have been awarded by California family courts, however in an unexpected turn of events, Judge Goldberg has granted Kim Kardashian a divorce from Kris Humphries. The judgment has yet to be fully entered, and is expected to be finalized by the court by June 16th.

Read more articles from Bickford Blado & Botros about celebrity divorce

In San Diego, family law attorneys often request the court order sanctions against the opposing party. Under Family Code §271, the Court may award monetary sanctions if it determines that one party is frustrating the public policy to promote settlement. It is clear by Humphries failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference that he was intentionally frustrating the settlement of his divorce case. Thus, at the April 19th hearing, if Ms. Kardashian had not asked the court to drop the sanctions matter (as reported by Today), the Los Angeles court could have imposed a sanction against Humphries. Had this happened, it would have likely been pursuant to Family Code §271. The amount of sanctions is usually set at an amount sufficient to deter repetition of the party’s bad behavior.

www.BickfordLaw.com


Continue reading

Funk music innovator, George Clinton, and his wife of 23 years, Stephanie Clinton, are now amidst a battle over spousal support. TMZ reports that Stephanie is now seeking Clinton pay up and is requesting the court to order both temporary and permanent spousal support. Clinton is reportedly not too pleased about this request because he had previously claimed that the couple had been separated for many years and they didn’t have any shared bank accounts or real estate. However, Stephanie is requesting that the court make Clinton disclose all of his finances, including taxes, bank accounts, etc. Stephanie wants to know exactly how much spousal support she is entitled to after their 23 years of marriage. The question remains, to what extent does Clinton really have to disclose?

As divorce attorneys know, declarations of disclosure are essentially the backbone of a divorce case. In California, Preliminary declarations of disclosure are mandatory. Final Declarations of disclosure, on the other hand, may be waived by both parties. With regards to disclosure, California Family Code Section 2100(c) requires complete disclosure of all assets and all debts that the parties may have any interest in. The disclosure must occur early in the divorce or legal separation process, and must occur together with a disclosure of all income and expenses.

Read more about fiduciary duty and divorce in California

Types of Disclosure:

Such disclosure requires preparation of the following documents by divorce attorneys:

  1. Schedule of Assets and Debts;
  2. Income and Expense Declaration;
  3. Statement of material facts regarding valuation of all community property assets;
  4. Statement of material facts regarding obligations that the community is liable for; and
  5. Disclosure of any investment opportunity, business opportunity or other income-producing opportunity.

While these forms may seem fairly simple and straightforward, it is very important that divorce attorneys advise their clients to be extremely open and comply with the full disclosure requirement. This means that that ALL liabilities and ALL assets must be accurately disclosed. This often requires the client to spend a lot of time thumbing through old files of financial statements to find the most recent balances and accurate information. It is also vital that divorce attorneys remind their clients that the disclosure requirement applies to assets and liabilities that the client may have in the future, such as potential business opportunities that the client is aware of. Even though the client may think that an asset or debt is a separate property item, it must still be disclosed in accordance with California Family Code Section 2100.

Learn more about property and divorce

Failure to Disclose = Sanctions?!

Failure to comply with disclosure requirements can result in significant sanctions, so clients should think twice about leaving out an asset or two. For instance, in In re Marriage of Feldman (2007), 153 Cal. App.4th 1470, the Husband failed to disclose numerous transactions and the formation of new companies, which were all quite significant. Wife found out about these assets by other means and filed for sanctions pursuant to California Family Code Sections 1101(g), 2107(c) and 271(a). The court held that husband could be sanctioned, and as a result Wife was granted $250,000 in sanctions! The court reasoned that Husband had an obligation to fully disclose all material facts and information regarding all assets in which the community has or may have had an interest.

So, despite his reluctance, it looks like Clinton is going to have to fork over some financial paperwork so that a fair determination can be made regarding how much spousal support Stephanie is entitled to. If he fails to do so, looks like some pretty hefty sanctions may be in his future.
Continue reading

Former MLB and NFL legend, Deion Sanders, is use to battling to the top. But this time, his three children were on the line. As we have previously blogged, Sanders filed for divorce in 2011. Luckily for Sanders, he came out on top again when a Texas judge recently awarded him full custody of his 9 year old daughter. Sanders had also previously been awarded full custody of his two sons, 11 and 13, but had only been given joint custody of his daughter with estranged wife, Pilar. This leaves us to wonder, what exactly does Sanders’ “full custody” award entail? As divorce attorneys know, in California, two types of custody exist: “legal” and “physical”. Each type of child custody may be awarded solely to one parent or shared jointly between divorcing parents.

Legal Custody:

Legal custody refers to a parent’s right to make decisions about the child’s health, welfare and education. If a parent is awarded “sole legal custody” by the court, then he/she is the only one who has the right to make such decisions and may do so without consulting with the other parent. However, when divorcing parents are awarded “joint legal custody,” they both have the right to make decisions about the child’s health, welfare, and education.

Since Sanders has been awarded sole legal custody of all three children, he now has full range to make decisions about where the kids will go to school, whether they should receive medical care and whether they will engage in religious activities, without consulting with Pilar.

Read more about the divorce process in San Diego

Physical Custody:

Physical custody, on the other hand, refers to where the child lives after divorce. The parent who has physical custody is the one who has the right to have the child physically with them and in their home. Physical custody, like legal custody, can be awarded solely to one parent or shared jointly. When a divorce lawyer makes an argument for “Sole physical custody,” this means that the child will reside with only one parent. That parent is typically referred to by attorneys and the court as the “custodial” or “residential” parent. Divorce lawyers and judges refer to the other parent as the “non-custodial” or “non-residential” parent. It is important to note that the court can still order visitation time for the non-custodial parent.


Learn more about the family law attorneys at the firm

Joint physical custody” means that a child’s time is divided equally, or close to equally, between both parents. Family lawyers in San Diego will draft such custody orders so that each parent has separate but significant periods of physical custody. Typically, parents share joint legal custody of their children. Divorce attorneys will argue for sole legal custody if one parent is deemed unfit, the parents are completely unable to make decisions together, or it would be in the child’s best interest to have sole legal custody with one parent. For Sanders, winning the child custody battle with Pilar now means that all three kids will be living with dad!
Continue reading

A premarital agreement, more commonly known as a “prenup,” is a contract entered into by soon-to-be spouses prior to marriage. Celebrities commonly enter premarital agreements in order to protect any wealth they may acquire during marriage. Where one spouse has the potential to make millions of dollars per year, as is often the case in Del Mar, he or she is incentivized to enter into a contract with his or her spouse clarifying that any money earned during marriage will remain his or her separate property upon divorce. In contrast, under California’s default community property laws, each spouse is entitled to one-half of all earnings by his or her spouse during marriage. One of the most highly debated issues in celebrity premarital agreement negotiations and litigation is an infidelity clause.

Learn more about quasi-community property

As divorce attorneys know, all premarital agreements are different, and thus all infidelity clauses are different. However, an infidelity clause generally imposes a financial penalty on one or both spouses if he or she commits emotional or sexual infidelity. Financial penalties may include mandatory cash payouts, increased spousal support, or an unequal division of the marital estate. In order to protect themselves in case of divorce, celebrities couples such as Charlie Sheen & Denise Richards, Sandra Bullock & Jesse James, and Catherine-Zeta Jones & Michael Douglas are rumored to have had infidelity clauses in their premarital agreements. Recently, Elin Nordegren was rumored to have demanded a substantial infidelity clause in a premarital agreement as a condition of reconciling with Tiger Woods.

Ironically, despite the buzz about celebrity infidelity clauses in premarital agreements, infidelity clauses are void in Del Mar and across California. In Diosdado v. Diosdado, the California divorce court found in 2002 that a penalty for infidelity is in direct violation of public policy underlying “no-fault” divorce and thus is unenforceable. Thus far, Diosdado has been continually upheld by all published cases to follow it. The policy behind California’s “no-fault” divorce is that a party should not be punished financially for any misconduct during marriage. In contrast, certain circumstances allow some states’ divorce courts to look at fault in dissolving marriage, determining support, and dividing property. It would seem to follow that these states would uphold an infidelity clause in a premarital agreement, should divorce become an issue.

Read more about jurisdiction and divorce in California

Considering that thousands of celebrities call cities in California home, it is interesting that so many celebrities are discussing unenforceable infidelity clauses. One explanation may be that only celebrities residing and divorcing outside of California are negotiating infidelity clauses. Gossip magazines also debate whether or not an expensive price tag actually deters celebrities from straying outside of their marriages.
Continue reading

Brendan Fraser and Afton Smith married in 1998 and divorced nine years later in 2007. At the time of their divorce, Fraser was ordered to pay Smith approximately $900,000 per year for spousal support and child support for their three children. Now, Fraser claims that he can no longer make the required payments, which, if made on a monthly basis, total $75,000 per month. Fraser has filed a motion in family court seeking a post-judgment modification of child and spousal support.

In San Diego, after a divorce is finalized, family courts generally have the ability to change support orders if facts and circumstances have materially changed since the first orders were made. If the moving party can prove to the court a “material change of circumstances” he or she may be granted a post-judgment modification of support. One of the most common changes of circumstance relied upon by courts is a change in income for one or both parties. If the spouse ordered to pay support has experienced a significant decrease in earnings, the court may lower his or her support obligation.

However, it is important to note that San Diego family courts only have the ability to modify the support order back to the date a motion was filed. If one spouse gets fired and does not file a motion to modify support for a few months, he or she may owe a significant amount of back child and/or spousal support. Regardless of a spouse’s current income, his or her obligation to pay support will not change until a motion is filed with the court. Even in cases where a judge determines that a material change of circumstances exists and that support should be modified going forward, he or she is not required by law to make the order retroactive to the date the motion was filed.

Contact Information