Courtney Cox has been a beloved American icon since her role as Monica Geller on the timeless television series Friends. Cox married her husband David Arquette in 1999 while still filming Friends. By 1999 the show was a raging success and all of the Friends characters were collecting a reported $125,000 per episode. Interestingly, however, the divorce paperwork filed in the Cox-Arquette case makes no mention of a premarital agreement.

Arquette signed the dissolution paperwork on March 23, 2012. However, the couple has been separated since October 2010. In October they announced they were taking time apart in order to reevaluate themselves and the relationship. The initial paperwork indicated that Arquette was filing pro per and therefore pursuing a divorce without formal legal representation. Even more shocking, Cox filed her initial responsive documents pro per as well. Currently, Cox is worth an estimated $75 million dollars while Arquette is worth only $18 million. With such a large discrepancy between the parties’ net worth and no mention of a premarital agreement, it is surprising that so far no lawyers have been called to represent either spouse. Although neither party has formal legal representation, it is possible that both spouses have consulted attorneys prior to filing any paperwork.

Former Dallas Cowboy quarterback and NFL legend Troy Aikman paid $1.75 million dollars to his ex-wife as part of an agreed divorce settlement. Aikman was married to his wife Rhonda for eleven years until the couple split in April 2011. As we have previously blogged, ten years of marriage is a significant turning point under California family law and can greatly impact the rights of the parties to a divorce. Aikman’s estimated net worth is $25 million dollars and it is unclear whether he has or will make additional payments to Rhonda.

The San Diego family court system encourages parties to reach voluntary agreements, rather than pursuing a court-determined judgment. Before a divorce or child custody case will go to trial, the court requires the parties to participate in a mandatory settlement conference. A mandatory settlement conference is overseen by the judge on the case but is facilitated by a volunteer attorney within the community. The volunteer attorney is a recognized family law expert in the field and is called the “settlement judge.” Prior to the conference, the parties are required to submit briefs to the settlement judge so that he or she will have an opportunity to review the facts and issues in the case ahead of time. If the parties are represented, all attorneys are permitted to attend the conference and speak with the settlement judge. However, the settlement judge may ask an attorney to step out of the room so that the judge has an opportunity to hear the client’s concerns. Often, the settlement judge will propose solutions that address the needs and interests of both spouses and most importantly, any children involved in the case. The scope of the issues that the parties can agree on, and therefore exclude from any further litigation, is limitless. The parties may settle property disputes, spousal and child support, child custody and visitation, and any other issues in the particular case.

Settling a case that involves such personal and intimate issues, as in all family law cases, is advantageous for all parties. Reaching a settlement can give parties control over the outcome of the litigation. The order of a judge is not debatable and might not address the specific concerns of all parties. Trial and extended litigation can also be expensive for both parties. The earlier in the process that the parties reach an agreement, the less they will be forced to spend on costs and attorney’s fees. Settlements can also be reached much faster than a final adjudication of the case in court.

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.