Articles Posted in Spousal Support

By

The date of a premarital agreement (commonly referred to as a “prenup”) will determine the law applicable to its enforcement and validity. The law related to the validity and enforcement of premarital agreements has changed substantially throughout the past 30 years. Divorce attorneys are frequently asked the question:

“Is my prenup valid?”

Any premarital agreement executed after January 1, 1986 is subject to the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA). However, prior law continues to govern any pre-1986 premarital agreements. In 2002, portions of the UPAA were significantly amended. Again, those changes do not apply retroactively so the 1986 version of the UPAA applies to all premarital agreements executed between January 1, 1986 and January 1, 2002. So, considering all of these timelines, the following is a list of differences to examine:

Premarital Agreement Executed Between 1/1/1986 and 1/1/2002

  • Relaxed statutory disclosure standards – Spouses are held to a lower duty to make a fair, reasonable, and full disclosure regarding property or financial obligations
  • Burden of proof – The party claiming the premarital agreement is unenforceable bears the burden of proof on that contention.
  • Representation of counsel – No requirement that party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by an attorney at the time the premarital agreement was executed.
  • Waiting period – No mandatory waiting period between presentation of premarital agreement to a party and the date it is signed.
  • Spousal Support Waiver – Relaxed statutory requirements applied to spousal support waiver.

Premarital Agreement Executed Between 1/1/2002 and the present

  • Heightened statutory disclosure standards
  • Burden of proof – Burden shifts to party attempting to enforce the premarital agreement to prove it was executed voluntarily.
  • Representation of Counsel – Party against whom enforcement is sought must have been represented by independent counsel or signed an express waiver of representation in a separate document.
  • Waiting period – There must be at least seven days between the date a party is first presented with the premarital agreement and the date it is signed.
  • Spousal Support Waiver – A spousal support waiver in a premarital agreement must meet strict statutory standards in order to be enforceable.

Continue reading

By

One of the biggest battles in many contested divorce cases is the issue of spousal support (also commonly referred to as alimony) and analysis of California spousal support factors. The most prominent factors a court typically considers when making a spousal support award are the supported spouse’s needs and the supporting spouse’s ability to pay support. Therefore, the supported spouse wants to make sure the court considers every single source of income the supporting spouse has available for support. The supporting spouse wants to minimize his/her income as much as possible without misleading the Court or the other party. One issue that has been litigated in California courts is whether fringe benefits or “perks” received through employment are income available when calculating support.

Many companies offer alternative compensation or perks to employees such as car allowances, cell phones, business meals, and company-provided day care. Parties and attorneys often debate whether these “non-cash” perks should be considered income from which the supporting spouse can pay support. Under California law, perks can be considered as income available for support if the benefit is not being divided as an asset and it has an economic value which can be added to the spouse’s income for the purposes of support calculation.

Learn more about division of property in divorceIn cases where a benefit will directly reduce the supporting spouse’s monthly expenses, divorce attorneys will argue that it should be considered as income for support purposes. For example, if the supporting party’s employer pays for his/her cell phone every month and the cell phone is not limited to company use, the supporting party will not have to pay monthly cell phone premiums for personal use of a cell phone.

Likewise, if a company pays for the supporting party’s gas or auto insurance, the supporting party will not pay those expenses out of pocket. In these situations, the fringe benefit will likely be valued and included as income available for support.

Another major issue of contention in this area of law is whether the value the benefit assessed should be considered “taxable” or “non-taxable” income. According to the divorce attorneys at the firm, one California case holds that tangible benefits should be included as taxable income. However, until the employee actually pays taxes on such benefits it is unfair to consider them as gross deductions.In addition, some benefits such as a business meal may not reflect the cost of a normal meal. The supporting spouse may get to eat a $50.00 lunch on the company’s dime; however, if he/she had bought their own lunch, he/she would likely have spent less than $10.00. The court will use discretion in considering a request from a party or divorce attorney to categorize these types of benefits as income where the result might seem unreasonable.

Read more about the effect of divorce on taxes and finances

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a San Diego spousal support calculator, and analysis of the factors affecting spousal support in California is complicated. Often times, a person will need to rely on the advice of an experienced and knowledgeable divorce lawyer in order to understand the theories and process involved.
Continue reading

By

Spousal support is an aspect of family law that divorce attorneys frequently answer questions about. In states such as Massachusetts and Florida, second wives are lobbying for spousal support legislation reform regarding “permanent” spousal support (commonly referred to as “alimony”). To clarify, in California, “permanent” spousal support is not a guarantee of a lifetime of support. However, it is only a spousal support award made at the conclusion of a divorce case. In contrast, “temporary” (or pendente lite) support is a spousal support award made during the pendency of the proceedings.

Because of the extremely broad and generous spousal support statutes, many second wives are reaching into their own pockets to contribute to the support of their husband’s first wife. The second wives argue that they too have been sentenced to a lifetime of spousal support payments which hinder their ability to plan for retirement, prevent them from assisting their children and grandchildren financially, and generally reduce their overall standard of living.

Learn more about marital standard of living

In many states, the family code and court rulings permit the Court to consider the income or assets of a second spouse where the income of such spouse contributes to the support of the household, giving the paying spouse more of his own income with which to satisfy spousal support obligations. Under California Family Code § 4323, family courts are prohibited from considering the income of the supporting spouse’s subsequent spouse when determining or modifying spousal support. Despite this blanket prohibition, cases which held that a new spouse’s income may be considered to the extent that the income reduces the paying spouse’s living expenses (and thus increased the ability to pay) may still be viable. It seems even California has a giant loophole which grants Courts discretion to consider income of new spouses when considering a divorce attorney’s request for spousal support determinations or modifications for their client.

With second wives demanding reform, legislators are in a difficult position as they will be balancing the interest of the first wife and her right to support against public policies such as a supported spouse’s obligation to become self supporting and the supporting spouse’s right to move forward after divorce. The Second Wives Club has a few suggestions which it feels fairly addresses the rights of all parties.

Read more about divorce and alimony reform

The reformers are pushing for durational spousal support awards which are sufficient to permit the supported spouse to gain the education, training, or experience necessary to become self-supporting. The duration of the spousal support will be contingent on the length of the marriage, the age of the supported spouse and the supported spouse’s ability to become employed. Upon the date set for payments to end, the supporting spouse’s obligation to pay spousal support will end regardless of whether supported spouse has become gainfully employed. Although the Second Wives Club is lobbying strong in various states, divorce attorneys feel that California will likely not experience significant reform in this area any time soon.

www.BickfordLaw.com


Continue reading

By

Recently, the divorce attorneys at the firm have blogged about proposed changes in divorce laws sweeping the Nation. Legislators in many states throughout the U.S. seem to think that current family law statues have gone stale. Currently, a new bill is awaiting passage in New York State that, if passed, would be an overhaul of current family law legislation. The passage of the new bill is hotly debated by New York family law attorneys who are all rallying for support for their respective sides of the issue.

As New York law is presently written, licenses and professional degrees earned during marriage are community assets. Since such assets are not easily quantifiable and divisible, judges and financial experts calculate the earning potential of the spouse who acquired the degree or license and award the other spouse a percentage of those future earnings. This law is criticized as being extremely unfair because there is no provision changing the award if the spouse switches careers or suffers an injury. In California, licenses and professional degrees are not community assets which can be divided upon divorce. However, the community may have a right to reimbursement for any funds spent on tuition and other educational expenses. New York’s proposed bill would eliminate the current law on the books; however, it is unclear if anything (possibly similar to California’s law) will replace it.

Read more about reimbursements and credits in divorceNew York family codes may also be changed with regard to calculation of “permanent” spousal support (commonly referred to as alimony). The proposed legislation calculates the duration of spousal support awards based on a formula which takes into account the length of the marriage. For example, if the parties were married for 7.5 years, spousal support will be awarded for 40% of that time or 3 years. Under California “permanent” spousal support code provisions, Family Courts do not generally set a termination date for spousal support especially if the marriage is long term (over 10 years). Rather, the Court basis its award on fourteen factors including the supporting spouse’s ability to pay and the supported spouse’s need for support.

The proposed bill would also change the New York law terminating spousal support payments if the supported spouse remarries. Under the new law, spousal support would only terminate if the supported spouse’s new marriage substantially improved his/her financial situation. Currently, California and New York have the same law on this issue. However, with so much family law reform throughout the U.S., California may see some change in the near future.

www.BickfordLaw.com


Continue reading

By

Spousal support is an issue commonly litigated in a divorce in San Diego. Carol Abar filed for divorce after sixteen years of marriage, when she learned that her husband had sexually assaulted her daughter. In a hearing on spousal support (commonly referred to as alimony in San Diego), a California family court ordered Ms. Abar to pay $1,300 per month in support to her daughter’s abuser. Although Ms. Abar presented evidence to the court that her husband molested her daughter for years, the court determined that an award of spousal support was appropriate in the divorce case based on the parties’ relative income.

In 2012, Ms. Abar’s ex-husband, Ed Abar, plead guilty to the rape of her daughter and was sentenced to approximately one year in jail. At that time, Ms. Abar had paid about $22,000 in spousal support. While Mr. Abar served his sentence, the family court temporarily stopped payment of support. Recently, Mr. Abar was released and is now requesting $33,000 in arrears. Mr. Abar is also requesting the court to order Ms. Abar to resume support payments.

Learn more about divorce and family support

It is clear that such a spousal support award is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. In order to tighten the gaps in the California Family Code which may allow perpetrators of domestic violence to collect spousal support, Governor Jerry Brown signed more stringent legislation last year. As divorce attorneys in San Diego are aware, if at the end of a case either party has requested spousal support, the court will weigh 14 factors which are listed in Family Code §4320. Upon consideration of these factors, the court will determine how much spousal support to award in a divorce case, if any. Family Court judges were always required to consider documented history of domestic violence between the parties to the divorce, and were also required to consider criminal conviction of an abusive spouse in making a decision. However, the new legislation added a different twist to those old provisions.

Newly enacted Family Code §4324.5 states that “in any dissolution of marriage where there is a criminal conviction for a violent sexual felony…an award of spousal support to the convicted spouse from the injured spouse is prohibited”. This code section applies as long as the divorce is filed within 5 years of the conviction, time served, end of probation or end of parole. Now, a San Diego family court judge will have no discretion to make an award of spousal support in a divorce matter where the supporting spouse was a victim of a violent sexual felony perpetrated by his or her spouse.

Read more about spousal support from the divorce attorneys at the firm

Despite this added layer of protection for spouses, currently there is no family code provision preventing child abusers from receiving spousal support. The family code has evolved since the first support order was made in the Abar divorce case, but it seems that it will not be able to offer Ms. Abar any relief from her obligation to support her ex-husband.

www.BickfordLaw.com


Continue reading

By

Although we are located in California, and primarily represent clients in divorce in San Diego, sometimes family law decisions made in other states are noteworthy. Recently, Florida lawmakers discussed putting a stop to spousal support awards extending beyond half the length of the marriage, even for long term marriages. There was a divorce law before Governor Rick Scott which would have generally prohibited payments from lasting beyond half of the length of the marriage. The proposed bill also gave family courts power to adjust current spousal support orders or agreements extending beyond the specified limits. In addition to containing provisions regarding support, the Florida law would have also imposed different custody and visitation laws which would have required the court to award equal custody in most cases.

As San Diego divorce attorneys are aware, there are two types of spousal support: temporary and permanent. In California, spousal support is commonly referred to as alimony. Spousal support is called “temporary” if it is awarded at any time before the final resolution of a case by agreement or trial. Spousal support is called “permanent” if it is awarded at the end of the case pursuant to a judgment. The length of the paying spouse’s permanent support obligation following divorce depends on a number of factors, particularly the length of the marriage. Thus, “permanent” spousal support is a misnomer that divorce lawyers frequently are asked to clarify, because it can be set with an expiration date or be terminated.

Learn more about divorce and spousal support from the lawyers at the firm

Although San Diego family court judges are far from predictable, generally if a marriage is “short term”, the paying spouse will only be obligated to make spousal support payments for half of the length of the marriage. In divorce, usually any marriage under ten years is considered a “short term” marriage and any marriage over ten years is considered a “long term” marriage. There is no limit currently in place pursuant to California family law that limits the length of a spousal support obligation arising out of a long term marriage. In some cases, a spouse may pay spousal support for the same duration of the marriage or longer.Although Florida’s Governor vetoed the bill on May 1, it is not the only state considering eliminating any true “permanent” alimony. Currently, Massachusetts has adopted a similar bill and twenty other states are also in the process of drafting their own. If California were to pass such a law, spouses currently paying support past the “half of the length of the marriage” mark may consider consulting with a divorce attorney, and may head back to court to terminate their current obligation. Those opposed to this alimony reform argue that it flies against the best interest of children and families. Some believe that the law is “anti-woman” as men are ordered to pay spousal support more often than women under traditional stereotypes.

Continue reading

By

With Tax Day (April 15th) near approaching, both CPAs and divorce attorneys alike are likely receiving an influx phone calls from clients regarding the tax implications of spousal support, often referred to as alimony.

Generally, spousal support is considered to be tax-deductible to the spouse who is paying the support. On the other hand, spousal support must be reported as taxable income to the spouse who is receiving the support. For individuals who stay at home to care for young children and have no other source of income other than the receipt of spousal support after divorce, the tax hit due April 15th might pose quite a significant financial concern.Although not commonly known, spousal support payments can in fact be designated as non-taxable and non-deductible so long as both parties agree and such an agreement is pursuant to a divorce or separation instrument. During divorce settlement negotiations, agreeing to designate spousal support as non-deductible and non-taxable may be suggested by divorce attorneys in situations where the paying spouse does not want/need the tax deduction, and the recipient spouse does not want to report the income. For instance, as described above, the receiving spouse may not want to report the income so as to avoid the tax hit at the end of the year. Lolli-Ghetti v. Lolli-Ghetti, on the other hand, is an example of a divorce case where the payee spouse did not need the tax deduction because he was a resident of Monaco and the bulk of his income was therefore not subject to federal, state and local income taxes.

There are three types of divorce or separation agreements by which the designation of non-taxable/non-deductible spousal support can be detailed in:

  1. A decree of divorce or separate maintenance or a written instrument incident to such a decree;
  2. A written separation agreement; or
  3. A decree requiring a spouse to make payments for the support or maintenance of the other spouse (as defined in 26 U.S.C. §71 (b)(2)).

The instrument must contain a clear and explicit designation that the parties have elected for the spousal support to be non-taxable to the payee and thus excluded from payee’s gross income and non-deductible to the payor. It is also important to note that a copy of the instrument, which contains the above designation of spousal support payments as non-taxable/non-deductible, must be attached to the payee’s tax return (Form 1040) for each year that the designation applies to.

Continue reading

By

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

By

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.

Continue reading

By

The divorce proceedings between reality star Kim Kardashian and athlete Kris Humphries have by far exceed the length of the couple’s 72-day marriage. Recently, Kardashian’s new boyfriend, rapper Kanye West, was deposed by Kris Humphries’ lawyers. During a deposition, the deponent must answer a series of questions while under oath. This means that any lie told during a deposition may constitute perjury. Humphries’ deposition of West may have been an attempt to invalidate his premarital agreement. Many speculate that the premarital agreement contained an infidelity clause and that Humphries is attempting to show Kardashian violated it by starting a relationship with West before the date of separation.

In response, Kardashian’s lawyers argue that Humphries’ postponed arguments to invalidate the straightforward premarital agreement is simply a delay tactic to draw out the divorce proceeding. Despite Humphries’ alleged attempts to extend his litigation with Kardashian, the judge assigned to the case has set a trial date. The former couple will appear on February 15, 2013 and argue their case before the court. As long as the trial date is not pushed further back by Humphries’ legal team, Kim Kardashian should finally get a resolution to her second marriage.Common Family Law Terms Learn more about family law

Depositions are a common form of discovery in family law proceedings. Discovery is the process in which the parties can formally ask each other for documents and information in order to gather all relevant facts in the case. Although expensive, depositions can provide attorneys an opportunity to ask the parties and/or other witnesses for the information needed to proceed to trial or to negotiate settlement. Other forms of discovery such as special interrogatories are available to ask parties questions under oath. However, special interrogatories can be less effective than deposing a party because the lawyer is only permitted to ask follow-up questions after receiving a response. This question and answer process can continue for months because each party is entitled to 30 days to respond to interrogatories.

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