Just last month, on December 4, 2015, the final judgment of Antonio Banderas and Melanie Griffith’s divorce was filed. While we are always interested in the latest celebrity divorce news, this one caught our attention because of the substantial amount of money that Antonio will be paying Melanie in spousal support; $65,000 per month! And the real kicker is that after an almost-20-year marriage, and even though Antonio will be paying what us mere mortals would consider an exorbitant amount in support, their divorce seems to have been completely civil. Also interesting is that the couple executed a post-nuptial agreement in 2004, which delegated how the income from their individual entertainment projects for the next 10 years would be divided.

Continue reading

Lost jobs are an unfortunate reality of the present economy. Sadly, some of those already facing this unfortunate reality are also hit with another tragedy at the same time: divorce. This issue has hit close to home recently as technology giant Qualcomm laid-off 1,314 full-time San Diego employees in recent months due to company restructuring. Although Qualcomm has provided the laid-off employees with severance packages in order to assist with the transition to new employment, it’s never easy to lose a job and face the uncertainty that comes with unemployment. Continue reading

2015 was a big year for supporters of gay marriage and gay civil rights. The US Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, held that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Now the law throughout the United States, California has recognized gay marriage since 2008 (though only by those married during the window before Proposition 8 was passed) and then again in 2013 when the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Perry v Hollingsworth overturning the Proposition 8 prohibition.

Continue reading

There is a fascinating story about twin brothers born in 1940’s Ohio who were separately put up for adoption at birth. Unbeknownst to the other, they lived only 40 miles apart from each other for most of their lives. Even more interesting, they ended up living eerily similar lives, for example: Continue reading

Divorcing parents understandably worry how the end of their marriage will affect their children. The parents will no longer be living together, the children will have to adjust to a new visitation schedule, there is the possibility of changing schools, and all the stress of a world turned asunder. It is no surprise then that sometimes parents will try to maintain as much normalcy as possible to reduce the impact of the divorce on their children, including keeping their family residence. The family home is often one of the most permanent and stable places for a child; it is where there bedroom is, where their friends live and near the school they attend.

Continue reading

There is a saying by Benjamin Franklin that the only two things that are inevitable in this world are “death and taxes.” I don’t know if this saying is clever or morbid, but it is very true. In a family law context death does not come up often, but when it does, it is important to have a qualified family law attorney by your side to help you navigate the murky waters.

The focus of this blog is to address some of the potential consequences of an untimely death in connection with your divorce case. I will address the most common scenarios for the surviving party and how the court deals with them.

Continue reading

This past September, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (“AAML”) released a new publication addressing the division of parenting time for families going through divorce or separation. The publication, titled Child Centered Residential Guidelines (“AAML Guidelines”), is the product of an AAML committee formed to look for developmentally and psychologically appropriate parenting plans for parents not living under the same roof.

Continue reading

It happens all the time. One spouse buys a home before the date of marriage, but during the marriage, community money is used to pay down the mortgage. How does the Court typically deal with these situations?

This question was largely resolved in the Supreme Court of California case, In re Marriage of Moore, and the appellate case In re Marriage of Marsden, which to an extent clarified Moore.

These cases held that when the community pays down principal, the community is not only entitled to a dollar for dollar reimbursement, but is entitled to a pro tanto share of the appreciation in the property from the date of marriage to the time of trial. This leads us to the infamous Moore/Marsden formula.

Continue reading

Having to litigate the issue of child custody can be an emotionally exhausting process. Litigation also tends to fray the relationship between the parents and the resulting tension almost always affects the children in some form. Clients justifiably want to know: when will it end?

Under California law, the Court continues to have the power to make child custody and visitation orders until a child turns 18. The orders can be changed at any time upon the filing of a motion. However, this doesn’t mean that the Court starts from scratch each time a parent files a motion to change the parenting plan. Sometimes, the law requires that the Court apply the changed circumstances rule, which makes it significantly more difficult to change custody. In these cases, the Court must find that there are significant changed circumstances exigent to the health, safety, and welfare of the child before it changes custody.

So when does the changed circumstances rule apply? It applies when there is a “final judicial custody determination” as stated in the Montenegro v. Diaz California Supreme Court case. If the parents litigate the issue of child custody at a trial or post-judgment hearing, these custody orders would be “final” and subject to the changed circumstances rule. A stipulated custody order or judgment that contains a clear, affirmative indication that the parties intended the stipulation to be a final judicial determination of custody will also invoke the changed circumstances rule.It is important to note that there are many circumstances where the Court makes an order after a contested hearing, but the order is not considered final. Temporary child custody orders and custody orders made pursuant to a Domestic Violence Restraining Order request, for example, are not considered final judicial custody determinations. Therefore, the changed circumstances rule does not apply to these types of orders.

Even though a finding of changed circumstances may be required to change custody, the Court never has to find changed circumstances to make slight modifications to the visitation schedule, pursuant to the Enrique M. v. Angelina V. case. Adding an overnight, for example, would probably not invoke the changed circumstances rule. In these situations, the Court would apply the best interests of the child standard as set forth in Family Code section 3011.
Continue reading

County music singer Trace Adkins has just ended his divorce from his wife of 17 years, Rhonda. While the split has been in the news, the terms of the divorce have remained quiet. The reason why the parties were able to reach a resolution of their issues without a judge making a ruling and there is being a public record is because they utilized mediation.

Mediation is a process wherein the parties involved in a dissolution meet with a neutral third party mediator to work toward a settlement. The mediation process is voluntary and private to allow for flexibility in the process. In order to facilitate open communication and dialogue between the parties in mediation the State of California enacted Evidence Code §§1115-1128, which protects the confidentiality of the process. This means that disclosures made during mediation generally cannot be used if the parties decide later to litigate their matter in the Family Court.

Mediation is a valuable process to allow for parties to speak candidly and can be beneficial in complex, high asset cases. The parties can represent themselves or utilize attorneys to advocate for them during the process. Mediation can often keep legal costs down and allow for personalized settlement results in a less formal atmosphere.
Continue reading