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.

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.

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

Few people would agree that there is a good time to get divorced. It can be a long, drawn out process and complex. Not only that, but it can lead to overwhelming stress and problems with other family relationships if not handled well.

A new article published on MSNBC.com by Investopedia looks at the best and worst times to consider a divorce in San Diego. Many people are struggling financially right now because of the effects of the Great Recession. Some people have the desire to get a divorce, but feel as if they can’t afford it and stay together in order to save money.That can lead to volatile situation that can lead to domestic violence issues as tempers flare, egos are bruised and feelings hurt. Even if you think your finances prohibit you from getting a divorce, it would be prudent to set up a consultation with an experienced San Diego Divorce Lawyer to discuss your options and talk about your situation.

Here are some events that can impact a divorce:

An up and down real estate market: At one time, a house was a major asset that couples might fight tooth-and-nail to obtain, but times have changed. According to foreclosure tracking site Realtytrac, every zip code but one in San Diego has “high” foreclosure activity level, with nearly 1 in every 147 housing units in foreclosure.

San Diego, like many parts of the country, has seen housing prices drop as foreclosures saturate the market, leaving many people upside down on their mortgages. For that reason, a house in a divorce may be less of an asset and more of a debt that must handled. While in past divorces, one spouse may be awarded the house and the other spouse would be awarded other assets in exchange, now the other spouse may have to give up assets if an ex agrees to take on an upside-down house.

A shaky economy: With the economy slowly recovering (and some would argue slowly is an exaggeration), many people are hurting financially. Going through a divorce at this time can be difficult.

A poor credit score: A bad credit history coupled with a divorce can be bad news for a person going through the process. Having to obtain a car loan or perhaps rent a house on your own can be more difficult without the added security of a second income or a house that may already be paid off in full. Again, a trusted attorney will be invaluable in assisting you in avoiding the common pitfalls of the divorce process.

If one of the two spouses has a bad credit score, negotiating to keep the car or house to avoid having to venture out for a loan may be prudent.

Minor children: Divorce is more complex and stressful when children are involved. Child custody in San Diego divorces can make a divorce more contentious and more financially difficult. With two sets of living expenses instead of pooled money, each parent will have less to give to college funds and other expenses, but financial aid may be easier to obtain.
Continue reading