Articles Posted in Divorce

By

Often, the line between being married and being separated is blurred. Couples considering divorce have the option to experiment with a trial separation in order to give the spouses time to consider if divorce is their best option. Other couples decide to file for divorce and later reconcile. Sometimes those couples continue with the marriage and other times they resume divorce proceedings. The decision to end a marriage can be difficult and messy, however the parties’ actions between the time of separation and a dissolution judgment can impact their case significantly.One reason why date of separation is so crucial is that it is used as the dividing line between the beginning and the end of the marriage. Surprisingly, for the purposes of property division, the date of divorce is not used as the date of the end of the marriage. California is a community property state. This means, for the most part, any contributions by either spouse after the date of marriage belongs jointly to both spouses. Any income of either spouse belongs jointly to both spouses. Further, any property or assets purchased with that income belongs jointly to both spouses. Few assets such as inheritances or property acquired before marriage are separate property.

To complete the divorce process, depending on the circumstances, can take anywhere between a few months to over a year. Presumably, both spouses will continue working during this time and purchasing assets. Do these assets and income belong to the respective spouses as separate property or to the spouses jointly as community property? How will these assets be divided upon divorce? Under California Family Code section 771, the earnings and accumulations of a spouse, while living separate and apart from the other spouse, are separate property of the spouse. Therefore, anything acquired by either party between the date of separation and the divorce is separate property. The next problem is – when did the couple “separate”?

Date of separation is often a hotly contested issue because it can determine how a number of significant items are distributed. For instance, it can determine whether a marriage is long-term or short-term, if one spouse is entitled to the lottery winnings of the other, and whether one spouse is entitled to any number of valuable assets acquired by the other spouse during the dissolution process. It would seem that deciding when the parties separated is an easy task that both parties could easily agree on. However, in a potential divorce situation, the behaviors of the parties can be confusing and separating spouses often send mixed signals to each other. When determining the parties’ date of separation, the court looks to their private conduct rather than how they behave publically. This comes from an understanding that many couples keep up public appearances of a marriage for many different reasons such as for the benefit of any children they have. The ultimate question to be decided in determining the date of separation is whether either or both parties has the subjective intent to end the marriage and furthers that intent through objective conduct. This is a factual question and the court looks at various steps taken by the spouses to demonstrate the final breakdown of the marriage.

Continue reading

By

A New York Court recently granted the state’s first contested no-fault divorce. While New York’s no-fault divorce law is only one year old, California enacted no-fault divorce over 40 years ago, in 1970.

Wife filed for divorce under New York’s year old no-fault divorce law on the grounds that her marriage was “irretrievably broken.” Wife testified that she has not had marital relations with her Husband for over five years, they slept in separate bedrooms and never ate meals together. Although she is in poor health, she testified that her Husband had not taken her to her doctor’s appointments in the last five years or even asked about her health for the past ten years. She further testified that she had “no hope for the marriage … and that her only wish is for a divorce so that she can have one-half of her marital assets and leave them to her four children before her demise.”
Husband contested the divorce because he wanted to remain married saying he “worked hard to acquire everything the parties had” and didn’t want to lose it in a divorce.

The Court applied the new no-fault law and granted Wife’s request for a divorce stating, “[I]t is this Court’s determination that the parties’ relationship has so deteriorated irretrievably …the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of absolute divorce,”

In California, a no-fault divorce allows for a divorce without requiring either party to present evidence of wrong doing or breach of the marital contract. The idea behind a no-fault divorce was that removing the fault requirement would also remove some of the bad blood from the divorce process, and allow couples who wanted to break up to do so without having to make false allegations to justify the divorce to the court. No longer would couples, or even just one party, who wanted a divorce have to choose between lying under oath in open court or remain married.

Prior to no-fault divorce in California, a divorce could be obtained only through a showing of fault. This requirement meant that one spouse had to plead that the other had committed adultery, abandoned them, was cruel, or some other culpable acts. To get a divorce, parties often lied, colluded and committed fraud upon the court in order to get around the statutory limitations of the fault based requirement. Prior to the enactment of no-fault divorce, many prominent attorneys and judges in California believed that the “legal fictions” used by parties to satisfy the requirements for divorce made oaths meaningless and threatened the integrity of our legal system by encouraging perjury. Without committing perjury, many couple could not obtain a divorce, even if both parties wanted a divorce.

California’s no-fault divorce law provided a straightforward ground for ending a marriage – irreconcilable differences. Not only did California’s no-fault divorce laws eliminate the fault requirements to obtain a divorce for spouses seeking a divorce by mutual consent, but also in cases where only one party to a marriage wanted a divorce.

No-fault divorce ushered in other changes to divorce laws. Under no-fault divorce, gender-based responsibilities such as the Husband always being responsible for child support while the Wife was always responsible for custody gave way to gender-neutral responsibilities such as both parties being eligible for custody and responsible for child support.

As an interesting side-note, California’s no-fault divorce policy even invalided a Marital Agreement that was intended, after Husband had an affair, to “preserve, protect and assure the longevity and integrity of an amicable and beneficial marital relationship between them.” In the Diosdado case, rather than divorcing, the parties agreed to be subjected to a legal obligation of emotional and sexual fidelity to the other. If either party volitionally engaged in certain acts with any person outside of the marital relationship, that party would be in breach of the Marital Agreement, which provided for liquidated damages should the obligation of sexual fidelity be breached. Damages included that the party in breach would be: (1) required to vacate the family residence, (2) solely responsible for all attorney fees and court costs, and (3) pay $50,000 over and above any settlement or support obligations. Of course, Husband had another affair and Wife sued for breach of contract, seeking to enforce the liquidated damages clause of Marital Agreement. However, the Trial Court granted Husband’s judgment on pleadings, because the Marital Agreement was contrary to the public policy underlying California’s no-fault divorce laws. Wife appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed stating, “Here, where the agreement attempts to impose a penalty on one of the parties as a result of that party’s ‘fault’ during the marriage, it is contrary to the public policy underlying the no-fault provisions for dissolution of marriage. [See Family Code §2310, Family Code §2335.] For that reason, the agreement is unenforceable.”
Continue reading

By

It is that time of year when you need to file your income taxes and we want you to be informed. Your filing status for taxes depends partly on your marital status on the last day of the year. If you were still legally married (meaning there is no final divorce decree) as of December 31, 2011 you are considered to have been married for the full year and must file as either married filing jointly or married filing separately. For federal tax purposes, “marriage” currently only means a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Your filing status is important and is used for many things on your tax return, such as determining your standard deduction, whether you need to file a return, the amount of tax you owe, and whether you qualify for various deductions and credits. When it comes to your filing status, you do have options.

Married Filing Jointly

If you are still legally married, you and your spouse can file a joint tax return. Married couples do not have to be living together to file jointly. If you file a joint return you both must include all your income, exemptions, deductions, and credits on that return. Even if you or your spouse had no income or deductions, you can still file a joint return. You must balance taxes due against your risk of being jointly and separately liable for taxes, interest, and penalties on a joint return. If you question whether your spouse is reporting all income, or have little or no knowledge of your spouse’s income and finances, discuss this issue with legal counsel before signing a joint return. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can hold you liable for all taxes due on a jointly filed return, as well as penalties and interest, even if your spouse alone earned the underlying income.

Married Filing Separately

Legally married couples can also file “married filing separate” whether they live together or not. If you and your spouse file separate returns, you should each report only your own income, exemptions, deductions, and credits on your individual return. You can file a separate return even if only one of you had income. However, the married filing separately status rarely works to lower the family tax bill. For example, one major disadvantage is that you can’t have one spouse itemize and claim all the deductions while the other claims the standard deduction. Both husband and wife must either itemize or use the standard deduction. You can’t mix and match. So if one spouse itemizes and the other has nothing to itemize, that spouse would not then be able to claim the standard deduction, which might have reduced the amount of taxes owed.

Another disadvantage with “married filing separate” filers is that they can no longer take any relevant exclusions, credits, or deductions for adoption or education expenses. Likewise, various exclusion and exemption amounts will be cut for child and dependent care expenses, employer dependent care assistance, and alternative minimum tax. Here are some examples if you file separate returns with your spouse:

• You cannot take the Earned Income Credit.
• You cannot take the Child and Dependent Care Credit in most cases.
• You cannot exclude any interest income from U.S. savings bonds that you used for education expenses.
• You cannot take the Credit for the Elderly or Disabled unless you lived apart from your spouse all year.
• You may owe more taxes on Social Security income or railroad retirement benefits than if you filed jointly.
• You cannot deduct interest paid on student loans.
• You cannot take any education credits.
• You cannot take an exclusion for adoption expenses or the Adoption Credit in most cases.

Benefits of filing under this status include only having liability for the tax, interest, and penalties on your own return. The IRS would not pursue you for your spouse’s tax obligation for that same year. If the return is filed electronically, any refund due can be divided up and directly deposited by the IRS in up to three different separate accounts. Note, however, that some financial institutions will not allow a refund for a joint return to be deposited into an individual account, so if this option is being considered, the taxpayer should check with his or her bank.
Continue reading

By

The most recent controversy in Hollywood is the split between multi platinum recording artist, Katy Perry, and movie actor, Russell Brand, who announced the end of their marriage on December 30, 2011 after only 14 months. Rumor has it that the couple did NOT have a prenuptial agreement. Katy Perry made a record breaking $45 Million during the marriage. Russell Brand only made about $7 Million. In California, which is a community property state, assets are split evenly among the couple if there is no pre-nup, meaning Perry stands to lose over $20 million not including the two homes the ex-couple purchased together during the marriage.

A prenuptial agreement is a contract between two people about to get married that spells out how assets will be distributed in the event of divorce or death. Premarital agreements or “pre-nups” establish the property and financial rights of each spouse.

At one time, a premarital agreement that was not made in contemplation that the parties would remain married until death was considered to be against public policy in California and other jurisdictions, but the CA Supreme Court concluded in 1976 that the validity of a premarital agreement “does not turn on whether the parties contemplated a lifelong marriage” and in 1985, the California Legislature adopted most of the provisions of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. Pursuant to Family Code section 1615, a premarital agreement will be enforced unless the party resisting enforcement of the agreement can demonstrate either (1) that he or she did not enter into the contract voluntarily, or (2) that the contract was unconscionable when entered into and that he or she did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the assets and obligations of the other party and did not voluntarily waive knowledge of such assets and obligations.

The most important factor of a solid premarital agreement is honesty. Both parties must fully and completely disclose of their assets. If it turns out either person was hiding something, a judge can throw out the entire contract. The document should be signed as early before the nuptials as possible to avoid the appearance of coercion, another key reason why some agreements are rendered null and void by the court. A valid pre-nup should also be “fair” and will not leave one of the parties destitute.

You should consider getting a pre-nup if you fall into any of the following categories:

• You have assets such as a home, timeshare, stock or retirement funds
• Own all or part of a private or family business
• You may be receiving an inheritance
• You have children and/or grandchildren from a previous marriage
• You or your spouse is much wealthier than the other
• One of you will be supporting the other through college
• You have loved ones who need to be taken care of, such as elderly parents • You have or are pursuing a degree or license in a potentially lucrative profession Continue reading

By

According to FOX news, former NFL superstar Deion Sanders has filed for divorce. His wife, Pilar Sanders, filed a response this week in which she alleges Deion was unfaithful. “She accuses him unkind, uncaring, insensitive, cruel and unusual treatment, as well as physical, mental and emotional abuse of her and their three children.” The response urges the court to punish Deion for “immoral, corrupt, lewd, perverted, unnatural, sinful conduct.” Ironically, the response is similar to that filed by Deion’s first wife Carolyn. Carolyn also accused Deion of adultery and “cruel treatment.”

Pilar is requesting that the judge throw out the couple’s prenuptial agreement and instead grant her most of the marital estate. As grounds for this request, Pilar alleges she was under duress when she signed the agreement. Prenuptial agreements, otherwise known as premarital agreements, must be carefully drafted in order to be enforceable in a California family courts.

California Family Code section 1615(a) states that a premarital agreement is unenforceable if not entered into voluntarily. A premarital agreement is presumed involuntary if the party had less than seven calendar days between the day the party was presented with the contract and advised to seek independent legal counsel and the time the party signed the contract. However, it is important to note that this rule does not apply to a party represented by legal counsel throughout the premarital agreement process. Therefore, if a judge concludes that Pilar was in fact under duress when she signed the premarital agreement, the judge is likely to find the agreement unenforceable.

A fundamental element of any contract formation is freely given consent of the parties. This consent is defeated if one of the parties enters into the contract under duress. Duress often appears in California law as a defense to any type of contract actions. It is crucial when drafting and executing premarital agreements to ensure no party signs the contract under duress.
Continue reading

By

Many couples that were married in San Diego have since moved out of state. In fact, it is not uncommon for a couple to get married in California even if they are not currently residents. California, especially San Diego, offers many beautiful destination-wedding venues. However, if a spouse wants to obtain a divorce in California, there are two residency requirements that must be met. Under California Family Code section 2320, a judgment for dissolution (divorce) will not be entered unless one of the parties has been a California resident for at least six months and a resident of the county he or she filed in for at least three months. It is important to consider that unless the issue of residency is contested within thirty days, any defect in the residency requirements is waived.

There are no residency requirements for a couple to obtain a legal separation. This law creates a small tactical opportunity for a spouse that wishes to obtain a divorce in California. If the spouse intends to satisfy the minimum six-months/three-months residency requirements, he or she can file for legal separation and later amend the petition to request a divorce. This allows the spouse to start the divorce process without delay. There is a six-month waiting period for a judgment terminating marital status. When the legal separation petition is filed, this clock will start ticking. The spouse can obtain a divorce in the same amount of time as if he or she was a California resident at the beginning of the proceedings.

The residency requirements are also inapplicable to registered domestic partnerships. This is one area of the law where the rules governing marriages differ from the domestic partnership laws. Domestic partners who register their partnership with the Secretary of State consent to California jurisdiction therefore there are no minimum residence requirements. However, to dissolve a domestic partnership established out of state, one of the partners must satisfy the residency requirements.

Prior to January 1, 2012, same-sex couples encountered a serious problem. During a few short months in 2008, California granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. From June 17, 2008 until September 17, an estimated 11,000 same-sex couples got married. Under The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states. A dilemma arose for a same-sex couple married in California and living in other states that refused to recognize their marriage. This couple could not obtain a divorce in California because they did not satisfy the residency requirements and could not obtain a divorce in their current state because it did not recognize their marriage.
Continue reading

By

There are many great companies in San Diego. A lot of these companies offer fantastic employment benefits, such as generous amounts of vacation time. Some companies even have policies allowing their employees to accrue vacation time, as opposed to a “use it or lose it” policy. As a San Diego divorce attorney, it is important to understand this employment benefit, which is often overlooked when bigger benefits are also at stake, such as stock options, 401(k)’s and pensions.“

Vested vacation time is an asset which, if earned during marriage, is considered a community property asset. However, vested vacation time is, in and of itself, not divisible in kind. If there are 30 days of vested vacation time, the judge cannot award 15 days of vested vacation time to each party because the vacation time that is vested can only be used or taken by the employee spouse. To make the issue of vested vacation time even more complicated, there is conflicting case law on how the courts handle the division of vested vacation time.

A close reading of the various cases, in my opinion, favors that if the vested vacation time is convertible (or can be converted) into cash, then it can be considered by the court as a divisible community property asset. Thus, the employee spouse who can elect to take his or her accumulated vacation time as cash may be charged with the after-tax amount he or she could realize. The court can also order a party to cash in the vested vacation time and pay one-half (or other amount) to the non-employee spouse.

On the other hand, if the employee spouse must take the time off or lose it, and there is no cashing out of the vacation time, then the court could find that the employee spouse is not receiving an economic benefit which can be fairly valued and charged to that party. In other words, if accrued or vested vacation time can be cashed in, it should be considered an asset subject to division. If it, or a portion of it, cannot be cashed in, meaning that it must be taken or lost, then the court may determine that it has no economic benefit to the employee spouse and the court will not consider it as an asset subject to division.

In one “vacation benefit” case, Husband had accumulated 120 hours of vacation time through his employment, for which he would not receive cash if he did not use. The Trial Court found that the vested vacation time was an asset not subject to division. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that the mere fact that a benefit exists for an employee, doesn’t mean that a value can be placed on it in a dissolution proceeding. These include: use of employer provided health club, purchasing meals in company cafeteria, or ability to buy at discount prices through employer subsidized retail establishment. Although these benefits may affect need or ability re support, they are not convertible to cash and therefore not divisible on dissolution.

However, another case held just the opposite. When that Court of Appeal considered that Supreme Court’s meaning of the phrase “vested vacation time” it believed that it was important to keep in mind the nature of vacation pay. The court went on to explain that vacation pay is not a gratuity or a gift, but is, in effect, additional wages for services performed and that the right to a paid vacation, when offered in an employer’s policy or contract of employment, constitutes deferred wages for services rendered. That Court of Appeal held that there was no reason deferred wages cannot be commuted to present value and divided.

Even if the vacation time cannot be valued and divided, the vacation time may still be taken into consideration by the court when determining spousal support. The fact is that the paid vacation time (and other similar employment benefits) reduces the employee’s reasonable living expenses and thus can be considered by the court in exercising its discretion as to the amount of spousal support to order.
Continue reading

By

Many of our San Diego Family Law client’s use Facebook and other social network or dating webpages. This is not surprising considering that Facebook alone has more than 800 million active users. More than 50% of those active users log on to Facebook everyday and on average more than 250 million photos are uploaded per day. Almost every social network and dating website can be accessed by a cell phone or tablet.We have previously blogged about the use of information from social network and dating websites in divorce cases. We have also previously cautioned readers of our blog (as well as our clients) regarding what not to post on Facebook and other social network and dating sites while going though a divorce. This includes NOT posting wild pictures of yourself, NOT tweeting about job woes or problems with the kids and NOT posting about drug and alcohol use. It is also important to adjust your privacy settings. In other words, do not post anything to a social network or dating website that you would want your former spouse, children or the family law judge in your case to see or read.

Recently, there have been some interesting and seemingly conflicting orders regarding requests for Facebook or other social network or dating website information.

In one case reported by the ABA Journal, a judge in a Connecticut divorce case ordered the parties’ attorneys to exchange their clients’ Facebook and dating websites passwords. Although the order stated that the parties themselves would not be given the passwords of the other, the order also stated for neither party to visit the other party’s social network website and post messages purporting to be the other. You can imagine what one party must have posted on the other party’s social network for that order to be made.

However, in another recent personal injury case involving an accident from 1993 in which the insurance companies denial of benefits did not question Plaintiff’s limitations or need for care, the insurance company still sought, through discovery, the Plaintiff’s Facebook password, a list of his Facebook friends, along with other Facebook activity and information including, all photographs, messages, status posts, wall posts, comments, groups, and group memberships. When the Plaintiff refused to provide the information, the insurance company filed a Motion to Compel to force the Plaintiff to provide the information. Fortunately for the Plaintiff, the court denied the Motion to Compel on the grounds that the Facebook information was not relevant or likely to make any disputed fact more or less likely, despite the insurance company’s argument that Plaintiff’s Facebook posts would likely contain information about the Plaintiff’s daily activities and thoughts. The court found that any possible relevant information which could be gleaned through the Plaintiff’s Facebook information would also be available to the insurance company through less intrusive, less annoying and less speculative means. The court characterized the insurance company’s request for Facebook information as a fishing expedition at best and harassment at worst.

However, unlike in most civil cases, the information contained on a social networks and dating websites is often very relevant in family law cases, particularly to the issues of custody and visitation. It may also be relevant to the issues of property division and fiduciary duties.

In the Connecticut divorce case discussed above, one party was requesting full custody of the children and argued that the Facebook and dating website information was relevant to the other party’s ability to take care of their children. Apparently, the Court was persuaded by the argument and ordered the exchange of passwords.

Another interesting argument, that has not yet been determined by the courts, is whether the type of order issued in the Connecticut divorce case is valid or enforceable in light of Facebook’s Terms of Use Provisions. Following the Connecticut order would arguably violate the these two Terms of Use Provisions:

1) You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else. and;

2) You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

As long as social networks and dating websites continue to be popular, we anticipate that requests for information and pictures from them will become more and more frequent in divorce cases.
Continue reading

By

As San Diego divorce attorneys, we know that a relationship is not over until it is over. A recent article in USA Today titled, Some Couples Pull Back From the Edge of Divorce, focused on couples who called off their divorce proceedings to get back together. One couple, just weeks away form their divorce being finalized, attended a last ditch marriage weekend seminar which they say saved their marriage. Another couple, after already spending $20,000 in attorney fees, took classes to bolster communication and conflict resolution which lead to them calling off their divorce. A third couple that worked at the same place were forced to share rides to work for a week when one of their cars broke down. They ended up having so much fun together that they called off their divorce even though both had started new relationships.

While these reconciliation stories are unusual, some couples in the middle of a divorce do want to make one final attempt to save the marriage. When this occurs, the parties usually want time away from the court proceedings to attempt their reconciliation. In San Diego County, there are two main options which allow time to attempt reconciliation.

The first and usually the best option is to file a Stipulation of Attempted Reconciliation. The San Diego County Rules of Court allow parties to file a stipulation indicating that they are attempting reconciliation. This will effectively put a hold on their case for approximately 12 months. If either a Dismissal of the Petition for Dissolution or a Judgment is not filed within 12 months of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution, then the court will set a Status Conference to find out what is going on. At that point he court can dismiss the case, continue to keep the case on hold, or encourage the parties to move the case forward. Filing a Stipulation of Attempted Reconciliation is a good option when both parties want to attempt reconciliation, but do not want to have to re-file paperwork if the reconciliation fails. If the reconciliation does not work, then the case will pick up right where it left off. Be sure to consult with your attorney regarding the benefits and risks of exercising this option.

The second is to end the divorce proceedings. This can be done by filing a Request for Dismissal, which will dismiss the case in its entirety and if anything is on calendar, it will be taken off the court’s calendar. It is often not a good idea to file a Request for Dismissal unless the parties have spent some time working on reconciliation and both parties are confident that the reconciliation will last. Otherwise, the case will need to be started all over again. One time a client called after an unexpected “romantic” weekend with the ex and asked to dismiss the case because they reconciled over the weekend. After advising the client to wait a few weeks to see if the reconciliation will work out, it took the parties about two weeks to realize that they were not going to be able to sucessfully reconcile. By not filing a Request for Dismissal right away, the client’s custody and support motion remained on calendar and proceeded a few weeks later.

Unfortunately, what often happens is that the client disappears, meaning he or she stops communicating with their attorney and/or the court, thinking if they ignore the pending divorce, nothing will happen in it. That is not thecase. Disappearing does not stop or halt the divorce proceedings. Clients who choose to disappear may lose legal rights (especially regarding time sensative discovery deadlines) or suffer other adverse consequences should the reconciliation fail.

If you are in the middle of a divorce and wish to make a final attempt at reconciliation, you need to discuss it with your San Diego Divorce Attorney, who can advise you on the best way to protect your legal interests, whether the reconciliation succeeds or not.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Del Mar Technology Center
12348 High Bluff Dr, #220
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 858-793-8884
Fax: 858-793-8874

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Bickford Blado & Botros
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design