Although most people can gamble on a recreational basis, millions suffer negative consequences in their lives from problem gambling. According to the National Council on Problem Gambling about two to three percent of adults experience gambling-related problems each year. These problem gamblers have an uncontrollable urge to gamble and cannot stop gambling despite the negative consequences that result from their gambling. These negative consequences are frequently financial problems that impact the gamblers personal life, family relations, educational endeavors and/or employment.

Sometimes the gambling and problems stemming from the gambling becomes so bad that the non-gambling spouse files for divorce. When this occurs, the non-gambling spouse usually reports that the gambling spouse gambled away a significant amount of community property assets and that there are outstanding gambling debts. However, the non-gambling spouse may not be liable for the outstanding gambling debts.

Generally, all assets and debts incurred during marriage are considered community property. Family Code §2625 makes an exception to the general rule stating that, “All separate debts, including those debts incurred by a spouse during marriage and before the date of separation that were not incurred for the benefit of the community, shall be confirmed without offset to the spouse who incurred the debt.”

This Family Code section provides the court with the ability to assign gambling debts to the gambling spouse. This is one of the few insteances where a court has the discretion to make an equitable division based on fault rather than an equal division of debt.

In the case In re Marriage of Cairo, Wife was able to prove that debt incurred during marriage on credit cards in Husband’s name was for Husband’s gambling. The Trial Court characterized the credit cards in Wife’s name as a community property obligation and the credit cards in Husband’s as his separate property obligation. The Court of Appeal affirmed relying on the predecessor to Family Code §2625, which also stated that debts not incurred for the benefit of the community can be assigned without offset to the spouse who incurred the debt.

On the other hand, if the gambling spouse wins big when gambling with community property assets, then those gambling proceeds could be considered community property assets and equally divided between the parties.

In the case In re Marriage of Shelton, after separation Husband gambled $10,000 of community property monies at a casino in Nevada, won $22,000 and bought Ferrari for $32,000. Husband claimed that $22,000 of the value of the car was his separate property. The Trial Court disagreed and characterized as the car as community property. The Court of Appeal affirmed holding that the character of the gambling proceeds follow the character of their source. In this case the source of the monies used to gamble were community property, therefore, the gambling winnings were also community property. The Court of Appeal rejected Husband’s argument that the winnings were his separate property post-separation earnings because gambling is primarily a game of chance where the skill component is small.

In the case In re Marriage of Wall, Wife used her post-separation earnings (or support payments) to buy an Irish Sweepstakes ticket and won $120,000. Although Husband claimed the winnings were community property, the Trial Court disagreed and awarded the winnings to Wife as her separate property. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Unlike the Shelton case, in this case the source of the monies used to buy the Sweepstakes ticket was Wife’s separate property. Therefore, the Sweepstakes winnings were also her separate property.
Continue reading

It is not surprising that many California couples decide to adopt pets. But what happens to those pets when the couple decides to seek a divorce? Across the country custody battles over family pets are increasing. Although pets are not technically the couple’s children, they can become a core part of the family that neither spouse is willing to part with. If the couple does have children, the judge is likely to order the pet to stay with the child.One reason these pet custody cases are on the rise is the dissolution of same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships. These legal unions are relatively new and the couples tend to adopt pets in lieu of or in addition to children. Unlike children, pets are a form of property in every state. In the past, pets have been divided up along with the rest of the marital property without distinction. The family courts are changing and beginning to recognize that pets are more like children than furniture. The shift may be resulting from a widespread recognition of pets as part of the family rather than mere possessions. Litigants are now passionate and unashamed to fight for custody of a pet.

When a couple divorces, the best interest of the child guides a judge’s decisions on child custody and visitation. For pets, this is not the case. Since pets are a form of property, the laws regarding pets are generally aimed at benefitting the owner. The court will consider the same factors when deciding who gets custody of the pet as they would in deciding who gets custody of a television set. The court takes into consideration factors such as: whether either spouse owned the property prior to marriage or post separation, how much the property is worth, and any agreement the couple reached about who gets the property.

As California family law stands today, there is no pet visitation provision. The courts simply have the authority to award custody of the pet to one party or the other. If splitting couples wish to split time with their pets they must work out a visitation schedule together. These schedules can be negotiated with the help of lawyers and mediators. Some can be rather elaborate and include long-distance traveling for the pet, a holiday schedule, daycare expense sharing, grooming responsibilities, training, treats, food, medical care and other related decisions. Like parents who share legal custody of a child, some couples agree to share a form of legal custody of a pet. This means that both parties will have the right to make decisions regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the pet including end of life decisions.Another area of family law that has begun to recognize pets as family members is domestic violence. In the past, domestic violence restraining orders could not be issued to protect pets. More recently, this has become a common practice. Under California Family Code section 6320(b), “on a showing of good cause, the court may include in a protective order a grant to the petitioner of the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned…the court may order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking…the animal.” Local community organizations have also reached out to victims of domestic violence and their pets. For example, Rancho Coastal Humane Society offers shelter for the pets of these victims while they escape their abusers and seek shelter themselves. Because abusers tend to threaten harm to the animal as a tool to control their victim, these programs facilitate a victim’s decision to escape and take part of the abuser’s power away.

Many San Diego residents own businesses that continue to operate and generate income throughout the owner’s divorce. It is well established in California, absent an agreement otherwise, that a spouse is entitled to an interest in community property assets. Community property generally consists of all assets acquired during the marriage. We have previously blogged about the date of separation and its importance in the division of property in a dissolution proceeding. Business owners are confronted with a unique problem – is their business community property? What about the increase in value between the date of separation and trial?As a general rule, for the purpose of division of the community estate upon dissolution of marriage, the court shall value the assets and liabilities as near as practicable to the date of trial. Any income or assets acquired by a party between separation and divorce are separate property. However, the value of a particular asset is not determined until the date of trial. For example, consider this hypothetical. Husband and Wife decide to separate with intent to end the marriage accompanied by objective acts to demonstrate that intent. At the time of separation, the couple owns a house that is worth $150,000. Husband decides to move into a nearby apartment and Wife takes over all mortgage payments. Because they have a daughter still in high school, the couple decides not to file for divorce immediately. Two years later, because of market fluctuations, the house is worth $200,000. Although Husband moved out of the house and Wife made each mortgage payment following separation, they are both entitled to share in the increase in profit. The court may make orders to account for the mortgage payments made by Wife, but Husband will generally share in the increased value. Real property values can fluctuate dramatically between the date of separation and trial because parties may separate months or years before their case is finalized. If the asset is a typical community property asset such as a family home the value is determined as close as possible to the date of trial.

There is an exception to this general rule. Under California Family Code section 2552(b), “Upon 30 days’ notice by the moving party to the other party, the court for good cause shown may value all or any portion of the assets and liabilities at a date after separation and before trial to accomplish an equal division of the community estate of the parties in an equitable manner.” Any party may petition the court to value an asset at the date of separation rather than closer to trial by showing that this alternate valuation is fair. A date of separation valuation of property is appropriate when the hard work and actions of one spouse alone and after separation, greatly increases the “community” estate, which then must be divided with the other spouse. However, if the asset increases in value from non-personal factors such as market fluctuations or inflation, it is fair that both spouses share in that increased value.

When a spouse operates a community property business after separation, there is a sense of unfairness when applying the general rule that the business must be valued as of the date of trial. The law recognizes that an increase in value of these businesses is primarily a reflection of the contribution of the owner’s services. This exception applies especially to professional businesses such as law practices, medical practices, or contracting businesses. If the skill and reputation of the owner accounts for an increase in the assets value, the court may value the asset at the time of separation and divide the property accordingly.